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 .
Summary
This office action for application 17/787,954 filed on 06/22/2022. Claims 1-18 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN201911397763.3 and PCT/CN2020/107304, filed on 30 December 2019 and 06 August 2020, respectively.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS)s submitted on 22 June 2022 and 14 July 2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Claims 8 and 17 reference a “large upper part and a small lower part” of the “trapezoidal structure” which is not shown in the drawings nor described in the specification. Therefore, the "large upper part and a small lower part" of the "trapezoidal structure" must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The substitute specification filed on 06/22/2022 is acknowledged and has been entered.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because a minor informality:
“Disclosed are an integrated” should read as “Disclosed is an integrated” within line 1 of the Abstract. Correction required for clarity.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 13 recites that the polycarbonate compound is “a polymethyl carbonate modified with a functional group” while the specification does make mention that the polycarbonate compound can be polymethyl carbonate it does not make mention that the polymethyl carbonate can be modified with a functional group nor does it describe it as so in any of the examples.
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.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
In line 4, "the top ends", there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It can be corrected by inserting in line 2 “and supporting columns having top ends”.
In lines 5-6, “the top end surface of the clamping column”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It can be corrected by inserting in line 4 “the top ends of the supporting columns having top end surfaces”.
In line 6, “the inner sidewall of the insertion recess”, It can be corrected by inserting in line 4 “an insertion recess having an inner side wall”.
Claim 8 recites the following limitation:
In line 2, "the cross section", there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It can be corrected by inserting “wherein the clamping column has a cross section; the cross section having a trapezoidal”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7-10, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ono et al. (US-20130202941-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ono discloses an integrated high-temperature decomposable connector (see e.g. "A fuse board" in Abstract of Ono), comprising a connecting plate (see e.g. part number 20 in FIG. 2B of Ono and annotated illustration below) and supporting columns fixedly arranged on one side of the connecting plate at intervals (see e.g. part number 30 in FIG. 2B of Ono and annotated illustration below), clamping columns are fixedly connected to the top ends of the supporting columns (see e.g. annotated illustration below), and an insertion recess is formed between adjacent clamping columns (see e.g. part number 11 in FIG. 2B of Ono and annotated illustration below); the top end surface of the clamping column and the inner sidewall of the insertion recess are each provided with a conductive layer (see e.g. part number 40 in FIG. 2B of Ono and annotated illustration below), materials of the clamping columns comprise a high-temperature decomposable material (see e.g. part number 50 in FIG. 2B of Ono and annotated illustration below), and the high-temperature decomposable material is formed by mixing a thermosensitive resin and a functional additive (see e.g. "the insulating resin film includes a resin component...and an insulating inorganic filler" in paragraph [0063] of Ono).
PNG
media_image1.png
293
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Ono, FIG. 2B, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 7, Ono discloses the integrated high-temperature decomposable connector of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above). Ono further discloses that the thickness of the conductive layer is less than the thickness of the metal plate (see e.g. "suspension portion is smaller than the thickness of the metal plate" in paragraph [0075] of Ono) which is in the range of 0.15 mm to 3 mm (see e.g. "0.15 to 3 mm" in paragraph [0056] of Ono) and its material is the same as the metal plate (see e.g. the suspension portions is the same metal as the metal plate" in paragraph [0067] of Ono) and that the metal plate can be copper or aluminum (see e.g. "Examples of the metal include aluminum...copper" in paragraph [0056] of Ono).
Ono discloses a range for the thickness of the conductive layer that overlaps with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Ono teaches a conductive layer that is structurally and functional indistinguishable from the one claimed in the instant application. Ono does not teach that the conductive layer is formed by chemical plating, evaporating, magnetron sputtering or screen printing methods. However, Ono discloses that it can be formed by punching and bending a base metal plate (see e.g., “manufactured by punching and bending a base metal plate” in paragraph [0067] of Ono). Furthermore, the claimed product is defined by the process used to produce it; however, under the principles of product-by-process claims, patentability is determined based on the product itself, not the method of production. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the final product, a conductive layer is structurally and functionally the same, regardless of whether the conductive layer is made through punching and bending, chemical plating, evaporating, magnetron sputtering, screen printing or formed by another method. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 8, Ono discloses the integrated high-temperature decomposable connector of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Ono further discloses that the cross section of the clamping column is a trapezoidal structure with a large upper part and a small lower part, an accommodating groove is formed between the adjacent supporting columns (see annotated illustration below).
PNG
media_image2.png
638
1152
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Ono, FIG. 2B, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 9, Ono discloses the integrated high-temperature decomposable connector of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Ono does not disclose that the high-temperature decomposable material is formed according to the following preparation method: the thermosensitive resin with a mass percentage of 70%-95% is heated to a molten state, and the rest of the functional additive is added to stir fully. Ono does disclose a high-temperature decomposable material that is structurally and functionally indistinguishable from the material claimed in the instant application.
The claimed product is defined by the process used to produce it, however, under the principles of product-by-process claims, patentability is determined based on the product itself, not the method of production. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the final product, a high-temperature decomposable material, is structurally and functionally the same regardless of whether or not this material is produced by the method described within the instant application. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 10, Ono discloses a battery block having a plurality of cells (see e.g. "A battery block…by combining plural cells" in paragraph [0002] of Ono) comprising the integrated high-temperature decomposable connector, wherein the insertion recess is in interference fit with a cell tab (see part number 150 in FIG. 4B of Ono and annotated illustration below).
PNG
media_image3.png
701
1179
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Ono, FIG. 4B, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 16, Ono discloses the lithium ion battery of claim 10 (see claim 10 rejection above) Ono further discloses that the thickness of the conductive layer is less than the thickness of the metal plate (see e.g. "suspension portion is smaller than the thickness of the metal plate" in paragraph [0075] of Ono) which is in the range of 0.15 mm to 3 mm (see e.g. "0.15 to 3 mm" in paragraph [0056] of Ono) and its material is the same as the metal plate (see e.g. the suspension portions is the same metal as the metal plate" in paragraph [0067] of Ono) and that the metal plate can be copper or aluminum (see e.g. "Examples of the metal include aluminum...copper" in paragraph [0056] of Ono).
Ono discloses a range for the thickness of the conductive layer that overlaps with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Ono teaches a conductive layer that is structurally and functional indistinguishable from the one claimed in the instant application. Ono does not teach that the conductive layer is formed by chemical plating, evaporating, magnetron sputtering or screen printing methods. However, Ono discloses that it can be formed by punching and bending a base metal plate (see e.g., “manufactured by punching and bending a base metal plate” in paragraph [0067] of Ono). Furthermore, the claimed product is defined by the process used to produce it; however, under the principles of product-by-process claims, patentability is determined based on the product itself, not the method of production. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the final product, a conductive layer is structurally and functionally the same, regardless of whether the conductive layer is made through punching and bending, chemical plating, evaporating, magnetron sputtering, screen printing or formed by another method. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 17, Ono discloses the lithium ion battery of claim 10 (see claim 10 rejection above).
Ono further discloses that the cross section of the clamping column is a trapezoidal structure with a large upper part and a small lower part, an accommodating groove is formed between the adjacent supporting columns (see annotated illustration below).
PNG
media_image2.png
638
1152
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Ono, FIG. 2B, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim18, Ono discloses the lithium ion battery of claim 10 (see claim 10 rejection above).
Ono does not disclose that the high-temperature decomposable material is formed according to the following preparation method: the thermosensitive resin with a mass percentage of 70% - 95% is heated to a molten state, and the rest of the functional additive is added to stir fully. Ono, however, does disclose a high-temperature decomposable material that is structurally and functionally indistinguishable from the material claimed in the instant application.
The claimed product is defined by the process used to produce it, however, under the principles of product-by-process claims, patentability is determined based on the product itself, not the method of production. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the final product, a high-temperature decomposable material, is structurally and functionally the same regardless of whether or not this material is produced by the method described within the instant application. See MPEP 2113.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-6 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al. (US-20130202941-A1) and further in view of Miura et al. (US-20180030175-A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Ono discloses the integrated high-temperature decomposable connector of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Ono does not disclose that the decomposition temperature of the high-temperature decomposable material is 150 °C - 250 °C, the mass percentage of the thermosensitive resin in the high-temperature decomposable material is 70% - 95%, and the functional additive is the rest.
Miura, however, in the same field of endeavor, materials for electronic device protection, discloses a high-temperature decomposable material (see e.g., “resin composition (B)” in paragraph [0212] of Miura). Miura also discloses that the decomposition temperature of this high-temperature decomposable material is 120 °C – 240 °C (see e.g. "decomposition temperature is 120 to 240°C" in paragraph [0215] of Miura), the mass percentage of the thermosensitive resin in the high-temperature decomposable material is 30% - 99%, and the functional additive is the rest (see e.g. "the content of the polymer (1) is preferably 30% by weight to 99% by weight and the content of polymer (2) is preferably 1% by weight to 70% by weight" in paragraph [0212] and "the resin composition may...contain known additives" in paragraph [0220] of Miura).
Miura discloses ranges that overlap with the ranges claimed by the instant application. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Furthermore, Miura teaches that when using the high-temperature decomposable material as a component of an electronic device, the heat storage material in a plate shape or a sheet shape can suitably be used in order to protect an electronic component from the heat generated from the electronic device. Especially when a large amount of heat is locally generated such as in a highly integrated electronic component. In this case a laminate comprising the heat storage material in a plate shape or a sheet shape and a highly conductive material made of a material different from the polymer in the high-temperature decomposable material can suitably be used to make the heat generated from a heating body be absorbed efficiently by the heat storage material in a plate shape or a sheet shape (see paragraph [0267] of Miura). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ono to incorporate the teachings of Miura and utilize the high-temperature material taught by Miura with the integrated high-temperature decomposable connector disclosed by Ono.
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Ono discloses the integrated high-temperature decomposable connector of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Ono does not disclose that the thermosensitive resin is a polycarbonate compound; and the functional additive is a mixture of at least one of a carbon material and a glass fiber and a catalyst or that that the polycarbonate compound is one or more of a polycarbonate, a polyethylene carbonate, a polypropylene carbonate, a polymethyl carbonate modified with a functional group, a polyethyl carbonate modified with a functional group or PPC modified with a functional group, wherein the functional group comprises one or a combination of two or more of a hydroxyl, a carboxyl, a formyl, an amino group, and a sulfonic acid group; the catalyst is at least one of an inorganic compound or a polycarbonate modified with a functional group; and the carbon material is selected from one or a combination of two or more of a carbon black, a Ketjen black, a carbon nanotube, a graphene, a carbon fiber, and VGCF.
Miura, however, discloses that the thermosensitive resin is a polycarbonate compound (see e.g. "examples of polymer (2)…include…polycarbonate" in paragraph [0179] of Miura); and the functional additive is a mixture of at least one of a carbon material and a glass fiber and a catalyst (see e.g. "a highly heat conductive material made of a material different from the polymer...can be suitably be used" in paragraph [0267] and "Examples of highly heat conductive material include carbon nanotube" in paragraph [0268] of Miura).
Miura also discloses that the polycarbonate compound is a polycarbonate (see e.g. "examples of polymer (2)…include…polycarbonate" in paragraph [0179] of Miura); the catalyst is at least one of an inorganic compound (see e.g. "Examples of the catalyst include alkali metal salts and Group 4 metal complexes" in paragraph [0109] of Miura); and the carbon material is selected from one or a combination of two or more of a carbon black, a carbon nanotube, and graphite (see e.g. "carbon black" in paragraph [0200], "carbon nanotube...graphite" in paragraph [0268] of Miura).
Furthermore, Miura teaches that when using the high-temperature decomposable material as a component of an electronic device, the heat storage material in a plate shape or a sheet shape can suitably be used in order to protect an electronic component from the heat generated from the electronic device. Especially when a large amount of heat is locally generated such as in a highly integrated electronic component. In this case a laminate comprising the heat storage material in a plate shape or a sheet shape and a highly conductive material made of a material different from the polymer in the high-temperature decomposable material can suitably be used to make the heat generated from a heating body be absorbed efficiently by the heat storage material in a plate shape or a sheet shape (see paragraph [0267] of Miura). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ono to incorporate the teachings of Miura and utilize one of the polycarbonate compounds with carbon nanotubes as taught by Miura within the integrated high-temperature decomposable connector disclosed by Ono.
Regarding Claim 5, Ono in view of Miura discloses the high-temperature decomposable connector of claim 4 (see claim 4 rejection above).
Ono does not disclose that the inorganic compound is a hydrochloride, a sulfate, a potassium hydroxide, a sodium carbonate, a potassium carbonate, a calcium carbonate, a lithium carbonate, an ammonium carbonate or a sodium bicarbonate; and the polycarbonate modified with the functional group is a polycarbonate modified by a hydroxyl, a carboxyl, a formyl, an amino group, a sulfonic acid group, a glycidyl or a combination thereof.
Miura, however, discloses that the inorganic compound is a sulfate, a potassium hydroxide, a sodium carbonate, or a calcium carbonate (see e.g. "calcium carbonate...barium sulfate" in paragraph [0218], "potassium hydroxide" in paragraph [0109], "sodium carbonate" in paragraph [0214] of Miura).
Miura also teaches that when using the high-temperature decomposable material as a component of an electronic device, the heat storage material in a plate shape or a sheet shape can suitably be used in order to protect an electronic component from the heat generated from the electronic device. Especially when a large amount of heat is locally generated such as in a highly integrated electronic component. In this case a laminate comprising the heat storage material in a plate shape or a sheet shape and a highly conductive material made of a material different from the polymer in the high-temperature decomposable material can suitably be used to make the heat generated from a heating body be absorbed efficiently by the heat storage material in a plate shape or a sheet shape (see paragraph [0267] of Miura). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ono to incorporate the teachings of Miura and incorporate one of the inorganic compounds as taught by Miura within the integrated high-temperature decomposable connector disclosed by Ono.
Regarding Claim 6, Ono in view of Miura discloses the high-temperature decomposable connector of claim 4 (see claim 4 rejection above).
Neither Ono nor Miura disclose that the size of the graphene is 5 nm - 200 µm; the size of the carbon black and the Ketjen black is 1 nm - 100 nm; the carbon nanotube is a single-wall carbon nanotube or a multi-wall carbon nanotube, and its diameter is 1 nm - 50 nm, the length is 10 nm - 1 mm; the diameter of the carbon fiber and VGCF is 80 nm-8 µm, BET is 5 m2/g - 1000 m2/g, the length is 200 nm - 1 mm; and the diameter of the glass fiber is 500 nm - 50 µm.
However, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the carbon materials taught by the prior art (i.e. carbon black, carbon nanotubes, and graphite) include all the structure and composition of the carbon martials claimed in the instant application it would be expected by a person of ordinary skill in the art that the properties of these carbon materials would be inherent and thus taught by the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (III) and MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding Claim 11, Ono discloses the lithium ion battery of claim 10 (see claim 10 rejection above).
Ono does not disclose that the decomposition temperature of the high-temperature decomposable material is 150 °C - 250 °C, the mass percentage of the thermosensitive resin in the high-temperature decomposable material is 70% - 95%, and the functional additive is the rest.
Miura, however, discloses a high-temperature decomposable material (see e.g. “resin composition (B)” in paragraph [0212] of Miura). Miura also discloses that the decomposition temperature of this high-temperature decomposable material is 120 °C – 240 °C (see e.g. "decomposition temperature is 120 to 240°C" in paragraph [0215] of Miura), the mass percentage of the thermosensitive resin in the high-temperature decomposable material is 30% - 99%, and the functional additive is the rest (see e.g. "the content of the polymer (1) is preferably 30% by weight to 99% by weight and the content of polymer (2) is preferably 1% by weight to 70% by weight" in paragraph [0212] and "the resin composition may...contain known additives" in paragraph [0220] of Miura).
Miura discloses ranges that overlap with the ranges claimed by the instant application. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 12, Ono discloses the lithium ion battery of claim 10 (see claim 10 rejection above).
Ono does not disclose that the thermosensitive resin is a polycarbonate compound; and the functional additive is a mixture of at least one of a carbon material and a glass fiber and a catalyst. Miura, however, discloses that the thermosensitive resin is a polycarbonate compound (see e.g. "examples of polymer (2)…include…polycarbonate" in paragraph [0179] of Miura); and the functional additive is a mixture of at least one of a carbon material and a glass fiber and a catalyst (see e.g. "a highly heat conductive material made of a material different from the polymer...can be suitably be used" in paragraph [0267] and "Examples of highly heat conductive material include carbon nanotube" in paragraph [0268] of Miura).
Furthermore, Miura teaches that when using the high-temperature decomposable material as a component of an electronic device, the heat storage material in a plate shape or a sheet shape can suitably be used in order to protect an electronic component from the heat generated from the electronic device. Especially when a large amount of heat is locally generated such as in a highly integrated electronic component. In this case a laminate comprising the heat storage material in a plate shape or a sheet shape and a highly conductive material made of a material different from the polymer in the high-temperature decomposable material can suitably be used to make the heat generated from a heating body be absorbed efficiently by the heat storage material in a plate shape or a sheet shape (see paragraph [0267] of Miura). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ono to incorporate the teachings of Miura and utilize the high-temperature material taught by Miura with the integrated high-temperature decomposable connector disclosed by Ono.
Regarding Claim 13, Ono in view of Miura discloses the lithium ion battery of claim 12 (see claim 12 rejection above).
Ono does not discloses that the polycarbonate compound is one or more of a polycarbonate, a polyethylene carbonate, a polypropylene carbonate, a polymethyl carbonate modified with a functional group, a polyethyl carbonate modified with a functional group or PPC modified with a functional group, wherein the functional group comprises one or a combination of two or more of a hydroxyl, a carboxyl, a formyl, an amino group, and a sulfonic acid group; the catalyst is at least one of an inorganic compound or a polycarbonate modified with a functional group; and the carbon material is selected from one or a combination of two or more of a carbon black, a Ketjen black, a carbon nanotube, a graphene, a carbon fiber, and VGCF.
Miura, however, discloses that the polycarbonate compound is a polycarbonate (see e.g. "examples of polymer (2)…include…polycarbonate" in paragraph [0179] of Miura); the catalyst is at least one of an inorganic compound (see e.g. "Examples of the catalyst include alkali metal salts and Group 4 metal complexes" in paragraph [0109] of Miura); and the carbon material is selected from one or a combination of two or more of a carbon black, a carbon nanotube, and graphite (see e.g. "carbon black" in paragraph [0200], "carbon nanotube...graphite" in paragraph [0268] of Miura).
Furthermore, Miura teaches that when using the high-temperature decomposable material as a component of an electronic device, the heat storage material in a plate shape or a sheet shape can suitably be used in order to protect an electronic component from the heat generated from the electronic device. Especially when a large amount of heat is locally generated such as in a highly integrated electronic component. In this case a laminate comprising the heat storage material in a plate shape or a sheet shape and a highly conductive material made of a material different from the polymer in the high-temperature decomposable material can suitably be used to make the heat generated from a heating body be absorbed efficiently by the heat storage material in a plate shape or a sheet shape (see paragraph [0267] of Miura). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ono to incorporate the teachings of Miura and utilize one of the polycarbonate compounds with carbon nanotubes as taught by Miura within the integrated high-temperature decomposable connector disclosed by Ono.
Regarding Claim 14, Ono in view of Miura discloses the lithium ion battery of claim 13 (see claim 13 rejection above).
Ono does not disclose that the inorganic compound is a hydrochloride, a sulfate, a potassium hydroxide, a sodium carbonate, a potassium carbonate, a calcium carbonate, a lithium carbonate, an ammonium carbonate or a sodium bicarbonate; and the polycarbonate modified with the functional group is a polycarbonate modified by a hydroxyl, a carboxyl, a formyl, an amino group, a sulfonic acid group, a glycidyl or a combination thereof.
Miura, however, discloses that the inorganic compound is a sulfate, a potassium hydroxide, a sodium carbonate, or a calcium carbonate (see e.g. "calcium carbonate...barium sulfate" in paragraph [0218], "potassium hydroxide" in paragraph [0109], "sodium carbonate" in paragraph [0214] of Miura).
Miura also teaches that when using the high-temperature decomposable material as a component of an electronic device, the heat storage material in a plate shape or a sheet shape can suitably be used in order to protect an electronic component from the heat generated from the electronic device. Especially when a large amount of heat is locally generated such as in a highly integrated electronic component. In this case a laminate comprising the heat storage material in a plate shape or a sheet shape and a highly conductive material made of a material different from the polymer in the high-temperature decomposable material can suitably be used to make the heat generated from a heating body be absorbed efficiently by the heat storage material in a plate shape or a sheet shape (see paragraph [0267] of Miura). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ono to incorporate the teachings of Miura and incorporate one of the inorganic compounds as taught by Miura within the integrated high-temperature decomposable connector disclosed by Ono.
Regarding Claim 15, Ono in view of Miura discloses the lithium ion battery of claim 13 (see claim 13 rejection above).
Neither Ono nor Miura disclose that the size of the graphene is 5 nm - 200 µm; the size of the carbon black and the Ketjen black is 1 nm - 100 nm; the carbon nanotube is a single-wall carbon nanotube or a multi-wall carbon nanotube, and its diameter is 1 nm - 50 nm, the length is 10 nm - 1 mm; the diameter of the carbon fiber and VGCF is 80 nm-8 µm, BET is 5 m2/g - 1000 m2/g, the length is 200 nm - 1 mm; and the diameter of the glass fiber is 500 nm - 50 µm.
However, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the carbon materials taught by the prior art (i.e. carbon black, carbon nanotubes, and graphite) include all the structure and composition of the carbon martials claimed in the instant application it would be expected by a person of ordinary skill in the art that the properties of these carbon materials would be inherent and thus taught by the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (III) and MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US-4973532-A (Taskier et al.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 pm EST.
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, Milton Cano can be reached on (313) 446-4937. 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.
/J.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/MILTON I CANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1723