DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 15-30 in the reply filed on July 9, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-14 are cancelled due to Applicant’s amendments.
Claims 15-32 are pending.
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 20 and 21 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.
Claims 20 and 21 recite “0-10 wt% fumed silica” in line 3 of each claim, which creates confusion. If there is 0 wt% fumed silica, fumed silica is considered optional. However, claim 15 recites fumed silica as a required component. Is fumed silica a required component? The examiner invites the applicant to clarify.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A self-sintering thermal interface material comprising a polymer matrix and a filler;
Wherein the polymer matrix comprises an alcohol solution comprising at least one water insoluble resin and fumed silica;
Wherein the filler comprises
i) gallium metal alloy or gallium metal and
ii) one or more micro/nano-sized metallic fillers.
Claim Interpretation
Micro/nanosized filler is interpreted as a filler having a particle size of 2000 µm or less.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 15-16, 18-19, 22-27 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (CN 110240830 from the IDS dated December 21, 2022) and in view of Lewis et al. (“Thermal Interface materials with graphene fillers: review of the state of the art and outlook for future applications as listed from IDS dated December 21, 2022), in view of Tanopi et al. (US 20050049350) and in view of Naoi et al. (WO 2012023553).
The examiner will refer to the English translation of Tang et al. and Naoi et al. provided in this Office Action.
Regarding claim 15, Tang et al. disclose a self-sintering conductive ink comprising liquid metal, such as gallium indium alloy (claim 1 and 2), thereby reading on the filler.
Tang et al. do not teach a polymeric matrix as recited in the instant claim.
Lewis et al. teach a polymeric thermal interface material comprising a polymer and a filler (page 3). Lewis et al. teach polymers such as mineral oil, polyethylene and cellulose can be used (page 3, see also Table 1), thereby reading on water in-soluble resin. Lewis et al. also teaches the filler includes silver, zinc oxide and AlN, thereby reading on the metallic fillers. Lewis et al. offer the motivation that the material has higher thermal conductivity (abstract). Tang et al. is also concerned with thermal conductivity [0004]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the polymeric matrix of Lewis et al. with the self-sintering thermal interface material of Tang et al. with reasonable expectation the conductivity would improve.
Lewis et al. do not teach the polymer matrix comprises fumed silica or the particle size of the fillers
Tonapi et al. teach a thermal interface composition wherein the filler is less than about 25 microns and is fumed silica (claim 1 and 5) thereby overlapping the range of 2000 microns or lower. Tonapi et al. offer the motivation that the particle size is to achieve a thinner bond line [0039]. Lewis et al. is also concerned with bondline thickness (page 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the particle size and fumed silica as taught by Tonapi et al. with the combination of Tang et al. and Lewis et al. with reasonable expectation that the bondline thickness will improve and since it is well known in the art to use fumed silica.
Lewis et al. is also silent on the polymer matrix comprises an alcohol solution.
Naoi et al. teach an electrically conductive material comprising a water in-soluble binder [0050-0059] and an alcohol solvent [0029], thereby reading on the alcohol solution. Naoi et al. offer the motivation that the material results in an electrically conductive material [0005]. Tang et al. is also concerned about electronic devices [0002]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it to be obvious to add the alcohol solution of Naoi et al. with the combination of Tang et al. and Lewis et al. since they are both used in the electronic industry.
Regarding claim 16, Tang et al. is silent on the self-sintering ink melting at the eutectic point as recited in the instant claim.
However, the properties of a composition are dependent on the components present. Tang et al. in combination with Lewis et al., Naoi et al. and Tanopi et al. teach a substantially identical composition. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the self-sintering ink to melt at the eutectic point to be expected.
Regarding claim 18, Tang et al. do not teach an alcohol solution.
Naoi et al. teach the alcohol solution is isopropanol and water mixture among other solvents [0016]. Naoi et al. teach a ratio between normal propanol and water is preferably 3:7 to 7:3 [0016], thereby reading on the 70% isopropyl alcohol water solution. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the normal propanol of Naoi et al. with isopropyl alcohol since Naoi et al. teach both are suitable as a solvent.
Regarding claim 19, Tang et al. disclose the self-sintering ink comprises a water-soluble resin (claim 1), thereby rendering the instant claim obvious.
Regarding claim 22, 23, 26, and 27, Tang et al. disclose the liquid metal is a gallium-indium-tin alloy or gallium [0010], thereby reading on the instant claims.
Regarding claim 24 and 25, Lewis et al. teach the micro/nanosized metallic fillers are AlN and silver as recited in the rejection for claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 31, Tang et al. disclose a self-sintering conductive ink comprising liquid metal, such as gallium indium alloy (claim 1 and 2), thereby reading on the filler.
The recitation of “optionally only further comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of Sn, Ti, B, C, Ag,Cu, Fe, Si, Pb, Zn, Ni, Cr, Bi, and rare earth elements; and micro- and/or nano-sized conductive silver fillers; wherein the self-sintering thermal interface material self-sinters when a temperature is raised above the eutectic melting point of the Ga-Al alloy” Is considered to be optional and therefore obvious.
Tang et al. do not teach a polymeric matrix as recited in the instant claim.
Lewis et al. teach a polymeric thermal interface material comprising a polymer and a filler (page 3). Lewis et al. teach polymers such as mineral oil, polyethylene and cellulose can be used (page 3, see also Table 1), thereby reading on water in-soluble resin. Lewis et al. also teaches the filler includes silver, zinc oxide and AlN, thereby reading on the metallic fillers.
Lewis et al. do not teach the polymer matrix comprises fumed silica or the particle size of the fillers
Tonapi et al. teach a thermal interface composition wherein the filler is less than about 25 microns and is fumed silica (claim 1 and 5) thereby overlapping the range of 2000 microns or lower. Tonapi et al. offer the motivation that the particle size is to achieve a thinner bond line [0039]. Lewis et al. is also concerned with bondline thickness (page 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the particle size and fumed silica as taught by Tonapi et al. with the combination of Tang et al. and Lewis et al. with reasonable expectation that the bondline thickness will improve and since it is well known in the art to use fumed silica.
Lewis et al. is also silent on the polymer matrix comprises an alcohol solution.
Naoi et al. teach an electrically conductive material comprising a water in-soluble binder [0050-0059] and an alcohol solvent [0029]. Naoi et al. teach a ratio between normal propanol and water is preferably 3:7 to 7:3 [0016], thereby reading on the 70% isopropyl alcohol water solution. Propanol and isopropanol are isomers and therefore structurally similar. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the normal propanol of Naoi et al. with isopropyl alcohol. Naoi et al. offer the motivation that the material results in an electrically conductive material [00005]. Lewis et al. is also concerned about electronic devices. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it to be obvious to add the alcohol solution of Naoi et al. with the combination of Tang et al. and Lewis et al. since they are both used in the electronic industry.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (CN 110240830 from the IDS dated December 21, 2022) and in view of Lewis et al. (“Thermal Interface materials with graphene fillers: review of the state of the art and outlook for future applications as listed from IDS dated December 21, 2022), in view of Tanopi et al. (US 20050049350) and in view of Naoi et al. (WO 2012023553) in further view of Lockett et al. (US 20140048749).
The self-sintering thermal interface material of claim 15 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 17, Tang et al. is silent on the self-sintering thermal interface material on the water insoluble resin comprises ethyl cellulose.
Lockett et al. teach a conductive ink composition. Lockett et al. teach resins include polyethylene glycol and ethyl cellulose [0284]. Tang et al. also teach polyethylene glycol is a polymer in the conductive ink [0009]. Therefore, polyethylene glycol and ethyl cellulose are recognized equivalents and equivalents and the examiner notes that the substitution of equivalents (i.e., polyethylene glycol) requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the equivalency. In re Fount USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v Linde Air Products Co., 85 USPQ 328 (USSC). Therefore it is prima facie obvious that polyethylene glycol and ethyl cellulose are considered to be equivalent (exchangeable), it is held that substitution of art recognized equivalents is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. (MPEP § 2144.06).
Claim 20, 21, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (CN 110240830 from the IDS dated December 21, 2022) and in view of Lewis et al. (“Thermal Interface materials with graphene fillers: review of the state of the art and outlook for future applications as listed from IDS dated December 21, 2022), in view of Tanopi et al. (US 20050049350) and in view of Naoi et al. (WO 2012023553) in further view of Lockett et al. (US 20140048749) and in further view of Roberts et al. (US 20160380090).
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Tang et al. disclose the self-sintering conductive ink comprise 1-50 wt% of a water soluble polymer (claim 1), thereby overlapping the claimed amount.
Tang et al. is silent on the water insoluble resin and fumed silica.
Lewis et al. teach an example of a thermal interface composition comprises silicone oil and 14 wt% graphite nanoplatelets (the remaining 86 wt% is silicone oil), thereby lying within the claimed range of the water insoluble resin and fumed silica.
Lewis et al. do not teach the polymer matrix comprises fumed silica.
Tonapi et al. teach a thermal interface composition wherein the filler is fumed silica or graphite (claim 1 and 5) and are therefore considered to be equivalents. The examiner notes that the substitution of equivalents (i.e., polyethylene glycol) requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the equivalency. In re Fount USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v Linde Air Products Co., 85 USPQ 328 (USSC). Therefore it is prima facie obvious that graphite and fumed silica cellulose are considered to be equivalent (exchangeable), it is held that substitution of art recognized equivalents is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. (MPEP § 2144.06).
Tang et al. is silent on the amount of gallium metal alloy as recited in the instant claim.
Lockett et al. teach the amount of metallic nanoparticles present is about 3% to 20% by weight [0020], thereby overlapping the claimed amount [0020]. Lockett et al. teach a conductive ink composition (claim 1). Tang et al. is also concerned with a conductive ink composition (claim 1). Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have considered it to be obvious to use the amount taught by Lockett et al. with Tang et al. since both are related to conductive ink compositions.
Tang et al. is also silent on the amount of micro/nanosized metallic fillers and the dielectric fillers.
Roberts et al. teach a dielectric thermal material comprising a dielectric filler such as aluminum nitride and boron nitride [0089], thereby reading on the dielectric filler and micro/nanosized metallic fillers. Robert et al. is also silent on the amount of dielectric filler.
However, Robert et al. teach the amount of filler is sufficient to impart good thermal conductivity while maintaining a high dielectric strength [0097]. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art must balance the benefits of a good thermal conductivity with the disadvantages (dielectric strength). The amount of dielectric filler is therefore considered a result effective variable by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of filler to reach the desired thermal conductivity and dielectric strength since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP 2144.05(b).)
Regarding claim 28, Tang et al. is silent on the self sintering thermal interface material further comprises one selected from the group as recited in the instant claim.
Lockett et al. teach potassium hydroxide may be added to the solvent [0014]. Lockett et al. teach a conductive ink composition (claim 1). Tang et al. is also concerned with a conductive ink composition (claim 1). Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have considered it to be obvious to add the potassium hydroxide taught by Lockett et al. with Tang et al. since both are related to conductive ink compositions.
Claims 29, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (CN 110240830 from the IDS dated December 21, 2022) and in view of Lewis et al. (“Thermal Interface materials with graphene fillers: review of the state of the art and outlook for future applications as listed from IDS dated December 21, 2022), in view of Tanopi et al. (US 20050049350) and in view of Naoi et al. (WO 2012023553) in further view of Roberts et al. (US 20160380090).
The self-sintering thermal interface material of claim 31 are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 29 and 30, Tang et al. disclose a method of forming a self-sintering thermal interface material comprising mixing a water-soluble resin in water, then adding a gallium indium alloy [0081]. The material was then heated above the melting point of the gallium indium alloy [0087], thereby reading on the mixing the alcohol solution… at a temperature below the melting point of the gallium metal and claim 30.
Tang et al. is silent on mixing in a water-insoluble resin, and micro/nanosized metallic fillers with an alcohol solution.
Lewis et al. teach a polymeric thermal interface material comprising a polymer and a filler (page 3). Lewis et al. teach polymers such as mineral oil, polyethylene and cellulose can be used (page 3, see also Table 1), thereby reading on water in-soluble resin. Lewis et al. also teaches the filler includes silver, zinc oxide and AlN, thereby reading on the metallic fillers. Tang et al. is also concerned with thermal conductivity [0004]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the polymeric matrix of Lewis et al. with the self-sintering thermal interface material of Tang et al. with reasonable expectation the conductivity would improve.
Lewis et al. do not teach the polymer matrix comprises fumed silica or the particle size of the fillers
Tonapi et al. teach a thermal interface composition wherein the filler is less than about 25 microns and is fumed silica (claim 1 and 5) thereby overlapping the range of 2000 microns or lower. Tonapi et al. offer the motivation that the particle size is to achieve a thinner bond line [0039]. Lewis et al. is also concerned with bondline thickness (page 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the particle size and fumed silica as taught by Tonapi et al. with the combination of Tang et al. and Lewis et al. with reasonable expectation that the bondline thickness will improve and since it is well known in the art to use fumed silica.
Lewis et al. is also silent on the polymer matrix comprises an alcohol solution.
Naoi et al. teach an electrically conductive material comprising a water in-soluble binder [0050-0059] and an alcohol solvent [0029], thereby reading on the alcohol solution. Naoi et al. offer the motivation that the material results in an electrically conductive material [0005]. Tang et al. is also concerned about electronic devices [0002]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it to be obvious to add the alcohol solution of Naoi et al. with the combination of Tang et al. and Lewis et al. since they are both used in the electronic industry.
Tang et al. is silent on the dielectric filler is mixed in the material.
Roberts et al. teach a dielectric thermal material comprising a dielectric filler such as silicon nitride [0089]. Roberts et al. offer the motivation that dielectric fillers impart good thermal conductivity [0097]. Tang et al. is also concerned with thermal conductivity [0004]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add dielectric fillers as taught by Roberts et al. with the combination of Tang et al., Lewis et al., and Tanopi et al. with reasonable expectation the conductivity would improve.
Regarding claim 32, Tang et al. is silent on the self-sintering thermal interface material comprises dielectric fillers.
Roberts et al. teach a dielectric thermal material comprising a dielectric filler such as silicon nitride [0089]. Roberts et al. offer the motivation that dielectric fillers impart good thermal conductivity [0097]. Tang et al. is also concerned with thermal conductivity [0004]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add dielectric fillers as taught by Roberts et al. with the combination of Tang et al., Lewis et al., and Tanopi et al. with reasonable expectation the conductivity would improve.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA WU whose telephone number is (571)272-0342. The examiner can normally be reached M F 8 - 5.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571) 272-1130. 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.
/ANDREA WU/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/CATHERINE S BRANCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763