Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/11/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The newly added claim language as to sides are not clear. Specifically, it is not clear how the first second, third and fourth sided are related to the sixth, seventh, or eight sides and how the geometry is meeting the claims or relate to the figures provided as part of the disclosure. It is also not clear how they relate to the voids or filled voids in dependent claims. The Examiner notes this language is not found in the specification. Correction required.
For purposes of examination the art below is considered to render the claims obvious to the extent interpretable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without graphite flakes, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
Applicant’s only Examples of the invention are graphite flakes and aramid fibers especially having the claimed thermal conductivity of claims 7, and 21.\
The specification is not enabled for any conductive material forming the conductive regions as claimed and as is the scope of the current claims.
For instance, the specification notes that diamond grease is not an appropriate material (see applicant’s specification [0005, 0006, 0235]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Getz (US 2004/0001317) in view of JP 2009055021A (cited by applicant).
Getz (US 2004/0001317) teaches a heat dissipation device formed from laminating surfaces of resin material together. the longer and shorter sheets all have base ends aligned together to define a general planar base surface for engaging an electronic device to be cooled by the heat sink apparatus (see claims and figures), the alternating longer and shorter sheets are each constructed of laminated resin-impregnated graphite sheet material (see claims).
Getz teaches the resin impregnation bonds the two sheets together (See claims and Examples).
Getz may not teach all the limitations of the claims
JP 2009055021A teaches a heat conductive sheet having graphite sheets formed form anisotropic expanded graphite [meeting claim 6; 0042] flakes aligned in the sheet plane thickness direction, comprised of two or more layers laminated together by a resin layer with 30% or less voids (meeting claims 1 and 3, see claims).
Regarding claims (21) and conductivity W/mk under specific conditions, the structure, composition, process, thicknesses and alignment of the expanded graphite particles are considered the same and therefore it would be expected to have the same physical properties including thermal conductance, surface roughness, as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, an overlapping conductivity is taught (see [0067]).
Regarding claims 8-10, the sheets can have exemplary thicknesses that are 1.0mm or less or 0.5 mm or less, with a lower limit of 0.05mm, which an overlapping range that is obvious to provide (see [0047, 0071]) or can be cut to size as desired. The laminating can be by roll or pressure molding [0060-0071]. It would have been obvious to apply the claimed pressure to laminate the article and create the desired voids through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 13, the angle of the expanded graphite particles can be within the claimed range (See[0044-0065]particularly [0054, 0063]).
Regarding claims 4-6, and 11, JP 2009055021A teaches graphite as caliemd[0042-0044].
Regarding claims 12, [0049-0050], the polymer can be a ring linking molecule (polymer) as claimed (See[0071]), therefore it would have been obvious to provide polymers capable of providing said linkage as claimed.
Claim 13 is addressed above.
Regarding claim 14, JP ‘021 teaches a curved or spiral surface (See figures and above cited sections).
Regarding claim 15, the sixing can have variations in size or shape as claimed.
Regarding claims 16-17, JP ‘021 teaches multiple stacked layers of graphite sheets with primary surfaces as claimed, impregnating graphite with polymer and thermally curing as claimed, rolling the sheets in a roll (see figures), cutting the roll (See above sections).
Regarding at least claim 16, the sheets and resin can be cut to size [0042-0071],
Regarding claim 18, the art teaches thermosetting resin [0023-0027], [0042-0071], [0090].
Claim(s) 1, 3-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Getz in view of JP 2009055021A (cited by applicant)in view of JP 3826572 (2006).
The primary reference cited above may not teach aramid fibers per claims 4-5.
JP 3826572 (2006) teaches a thermally conductive sheet for heat dissipation [0001-0002] formed from graphite and aramid fibers and impregnated with a resin (see [0020], and Examples).
The design including fibers allows for increased thermal conductivity and decreased thickness for lighter electrical systems (See [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a composite multilayer sheet of aramid fibers and graphite to reduce thickness and increase thermal conductivity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL H MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1534. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL H MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783