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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 19 November 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 19 November 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 – 24 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 6 – 9, and 17 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (WO 2019/076081 A1, referencing US 2020/0245501 A1 as an English-language equivalent thereof).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a flexible graphite structure (“film-like heat dissipation member”, e.g. “film-like heat dissipation member” 3, 800, 1500, 1700: e.g. Fig. 1 – 20; ¶¶ [0004] – [0089]) comprising:
a graphite sheet unit comprising a single graphite sheet layer or multiple graphite sheet layers having at least one stretchable area (“heat dissipation layer” comprising a “heat-conducting material”, which can be graphite, e.g. “heat dissipation layer” 1, 801, 1501, 1701: e.g. Fig. 2 – 17; ¶¶ [0005], [0008], [0010] – [0012], [0014], [0019] – [0021], [0023] – [0028], [0034], [0039], [0044] – [0046], [0050], [0054], [0061], [0064] – [0067], [0070], [0072] – [0087], [0089]); and
a stretchable sheet layer configured to be attached to at least one of both outermost sides of the graphite sheet unit and to cover the at least one stretchable area (“protective layer” made of “elastic material”, e.g. “protective layer” 2, 804, 805, 1502, 1702, 301: e.g. Fig. 2 – 4, 8, 11, 12, 15 – 17, 20; ¶¶ [0055], [0061], [0067], [0072], [0073], [0080] – [0082], [0084], [0087], [0088]),
wherein the at least one stretchable area is formed by providing an overlapping area where the single graphite sheet layer or the multiple graphite sheet layers overlap in a depth direction of the flexible graphite structure (“corrugation”, e.g. with an “arc” shape: e.g. Fig. 6, 7B, 8, 9, 11, 12; ¶¶ [0005], [0006], [0008], [0014], [0015], [0018], [0035], [0036], [0038], [0065] – [0070], [0075]).
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Wu discloses the overlapping area is formed by providing at least two foldable portions in the single graphite sheet layer such that the overlapping area is provided between the foldable portions (“corrugation”, e.g. with an “arc” shape: e.g. Fig. 6, 7B, 8, 9, 11, 12; ¶¶ [0005], [0006], [0008], [0014], [0015], [0018], [0035], [0036], [0038], [0065] – [0070], [0075]).
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Wu discloses the at least one stretchable area comprises a void space extending in the direction perpendicular to the stretchable direction of the flexible graphite structure (as would result from expansion of the “corrugation”: e.g. Fig. 6, 7B, 8, 9, 11, 12; ¶¶ [0005], [0006], [0008], [0014], [0015], [0018], [0035], [0036], [0038], [0065] – [0070], [0075]).
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 6, Wu discloses the void space is defined between a graphite sheet layer provided in another area than the overlapping area and a graphite sheet layer provided in the overlapping area (because the “heat dissipation layer” is formed by splicing: e.g. ¶¶ [0010] – [0012], [0019] – [0021], [0045], [0046], [0050], [0077] – [0079], [0081], [0085] – [0087]).
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the limitations of claim 2, Wu discloses that, if a force is applied to the flexible graphite structure, the graphite sheet unit is extended, the stretchable sheet layer is elongated in a direction where the graphite sheet unit is extended, and the width of the overlapping area is reduced (e.g. Fig. 8, 11, 12 demonstrate the “corrugation” expanding between an unfolded and folded states).
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations of claim 8, Wu discloses that, if the force is released, the stretchable sheet layer is contracted and the width of the overlapping area is increased (e.g. Fig. 8, 11, 12 demonstrate the “corrugation” contracting between folded and unfolded states).
Regarding claim 17, in addition to the limitations of claim 2, Wu discloses the graphite sheet unit comprises an adhesive layer provided in the graphite sheet layer (“adhesive layer”, e.g. “adhesive layer” 1503, 1703, 302: e.g. Fig. 11, 12, 15 – 17, 20; ¶¶ [0056], [0061], [0067], [0072], [0080], [0081], [0084], [0087]), the graphite sheet unit having a uniform thickness (e.g. Fig. 2 – 9; 11, 12).
Regarding claim 18, in addition to the limitations of claim 17, Wu discloses the adhesive layer comprises, e.g., a double-sided adhesive film or and a single-sided adhesive film (“one or more adhesive layers” “between the protective layer and the heat dissipation layer”: e.g. ¶ [0061]).
Regarding claim 19, in addition to the limitations of claim 18, Wu discloses that, when the adhesive layer is formed between the multiple graphite sheet layers spaced from each other, the adhesive layer is a double-sided adhesive film (“splicing” of the “heat dissipation layer” and the use of more than one “adhesive layer” “between the protective layer and the “heat dissipation layer”: e.g. ¶¶ [0010] – [0012], [0019] – [0021], [0045], [0046], [0050], [0061], [0077] – [0079], [0081], [0085] – [0087]).
Regarding claim 20, in addition to the limitations of claim 18, Wu discloses, when the adhesive layer is formed between the graphite sheet layer and the stretchable sheet layer, the adhesive layer is a single-sided adhesive film (one “adhesive layer” “between the protective layer and the heat dissipation layer”: e.g. ¶ [0061]).
Regarding claim 21, in addition to the limitations of claim 20, Wu discloses the single-sided adhesive film is bonded to a surface facing the graphite sheet layer (e.g. Fig. 11, 12, 15 – 17, 20; ¶¶ [0056], [0061], [0067], [0072], [0080], [0081], [0084], [0087]).
Regarding claim 22, in addition to the limitations of claim 20, Wu discloses the adhesive layer formed between the graphite sheet layer and the stretchable sheet layer is segmented along the foldable portions of the graphite sheet layer (due to non-continuity in the graphite sheet layer: e.g. Fig. 10b, 10c; ¶ [0070]).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 12, 13, 15, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ohta (US 2010/0196716 A1).
Regarding claim 12, although Wu is not explicit as to the graphite sheet layer comprising a graphitized polymer or compressed particles of exfoliated graphite, or a combination thereof, this feature would have been obvious in view of Ohta.
Ohta discloses graphite sheet layers comprising a graphitized polymer are advantageous for the flex resistance and thermal diffusivity useful for repeated bending and unbending in electronic applications (e.g. ¶¶ [0001], [0023], [0100], [0103], [0104]).
Given Wu’s flexible graphite structure is used in bendable electronics (e.g. ¶ [0002]), it would have been obvious to employ a graphitized polymer as Ohta disclose for the graphite sheet layer Wu discloses, the motivation being to provide flex resistance and thermal diffusivity.
Regarding claim 13, although Wu is not explicit as to the stretchable sheet layer comprising at least one selected among the group consisting of PDMS (polydimethylsiloxane), an epoxy resin, a styrene-based material, an olefin-based material, polyolefin, polyurethane, thermoplastic polyurethane, a thermoplastic elastomer, polyamides, synthetic rubbers, polybutadiene, polyisobutylene, polychloroprene, and silicones, this feature would have been obvious in view of Ohta.
MPEP § 2143, I, B, states the following regarding simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results:
To reject a claim based on this rationale, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components;
(2) a finding that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to (1), as noted before, Wu is not explicit as to the stretchable sheet layer comprising at least one selected among the group consisting of PDMS (polydimethylsiloxane), an epoxy resin, a styrene-based material, an olefin-based material, polyolefin, polyurethane, thermoplastic polyurethane, a thermoplastic elastomer, polyamides, synthetic rubbers, polybutadiene, polyisobutylene, polychloroprene, and silicones.
With respect to (2) and (3), Wu discloses polyimide may be used for the stretchable sheet layer (e.g. ¶ [0055]). Ohta discloses epoxy resin serves the same purpose as polyimide because of their heat resistance and long-term reliability when used with heat-generating or heat-dissipating components (e.g. ¶ [0239]). Accordingly, substitution of one for the other would have resulted in a predictable expectation of these properties.
With respect to (4), Ohta (e.g. ¶¶ [0001], [0023], [0100], [0103], [0104]) and Wu (e.g. ¶ [0002]) relate to bendable electronics using a graphite sheet layer for the heat dissipation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for the stretchable sheet layer Wu discloses to comprise, e.g., an epoxy resin as Ohta suggests, the rationale being that substitution of polyimide for epoxy resin yields a predictable heat resistance and long-term reliability.
Regarding claim 15, although Wu is not explicit as to the stretchable sheet layer comprising a thermally conductive material, this feature would have been obvious in view of Ohta.
Ohta discloses protective layers for a graphite sheet layer which do not impair the thermal diffusivity of the graphite sheet layer (e.g. ¶ [0240]) which are useful for repeated bending and unbending in electronic applications (e.g. ¶¶ [0001], [0023], [0100], [0103], [0104]).
Given Wu’s flexible graphite structure is used in bendable electronics (e.g. ¶ [0002]) and Wu’s stretchable sheet layer is a protective layer (“protective layer” made of “elastic material”, e.g. “protective layer” 2, 804, 805, 1502, 1702, 301: e.g. Fig. 2 – 4, 8, 11, 12, 15 – 17, 20; ¶¶ [0055], [0061], [0067], [0072], [0073], [0080] – [0082], [0084], [0087], [0088]), it would have been obvious for Wu’s stretchable sheet layer to comprise a thermally conductive material in order to not impair the thermal diffusivity of the graphite sheet layer.
Regarding claim 23, in addition to the limitations of claim 12, Wu discloses the graphite sheet layer has an in-plane thermal conductivity of greater than 10 W/mK (e.g. ¶ [0054]).
The in-plane thermal conductivity Wu discloses encompasses the claimed range. “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Claims 14 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu as applied to claim 22 above.
Regarding claim 14, although Wu is not explicit as to the stretchable sheet layer having an elongation of 175% or greater, or 200% or greater, or 250% or greater, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the stretchable sheet layer needs to stretch at least to some extent in order to achieve the configuration shown in Fig. 11 when bending (e.g. ¶¶ [0071], [0072]). Wu also notes the amount the length changes depends on the properties of the graphite sheet layer as it changes (e.g. ¶ [0072]). From this, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the elongation of the stretchable sheet layer should exceed that of the graphite sheet layer in order to not break when folding and unfolding to and from the configuration of Wu’s Fig. 11.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the stretchable sheet layer to have an elongation of 175% or greater, or 200% or greater, or 250% or greater, in order to properly accommodate the length changing of the graphite sheet layer.
Regarding claim 24, although Wu is not explicit as to when the stretchable sheet layer is stretched, the length of the stretchable sheet layer corresponding to the segmented portion of the adhesive layer is elongated from greater than 0 to 50% or less, or from greater than 0 to 30% or less, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the stretchable sheet layer needs to stretch at least to some extent in order to achieve the configuration shown in Fig. 11 when bending (e.g. ¶¶ [0071], [0072]), meaning the length is elongated greater than 0%. Wu also notes the amount the length changes depends on the properties of the graphite sheet layer as it changes (e.g. ¶ [0072]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the stretchable sheet layer corresponding to the segmented portion of the adhesive layer is elongated from greater than 0 to 50% or less, or from greater than 0 to 30% or less, in order to properly accommodate the length changing of the graphite sheet layer.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murakami (US 2020/0024144 A1).
Regarding claim 16, although Wu is not explicit as to the graphite sheet layer having a thickness of 15 µm – 19 µm or 16 µm – 18 µm, this feature would have been obvious in view of Murakami.
Murakami discloses graphite sheet layers having a thickness of 1 µm to 50 µm are useful for minimizing thermal resistance (e.g. ¶¶ [0014], [0025], [0053], [0063]).
Given Wu’s graphite sheet layer is used for heat dissipation (“heat dissipation layer” comprising a “heat-conducting material”, which can be graphite, e.g. “heat dissipation layer” 1, 801, 1501, 1701: e.g. Fig. 2 – 17; ¶¶ [0005], [0008], [0010] – [0012], [0014], [0019] – [0021], [0023] – [0028], [0034], [0039], [0044] – [0046], [0050], [0054], [0061], [0064] – [0067], [0070], [0072] – [0087], [0089]), it would have been obvious to provide the graphite sheet layers thereof with a thickness of 1 µm to 50 µm in order to minimize thermal resistance, thereby minimizing the negative impact on heat dissipation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 – 5, 10, and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The following reasons were presented in the Office Action mailed 11 April 2025 and are maintained herein:
The examiner observes claims 3 – 5, 10, and 11 define further features of the species of claim 1 wherein the at least one stretchable area is formed by providing at least one pair of cutout areas in the single graphite sheet layer.
With respect to this species, the examiner finds Yoshida (US 2019/0063854 A1) to be the closest prior art.
Yoshida provides a flexible graphite structure similar to that Wu discloses as outlined above. However, Yoshida provides a graphite sheet layer with at least one pair of cutout areas (“slits” 51, 52: e.g. Fig. 1 – 12; ¶¶ [0010] – [0034], [0041] – [0078]) but does not disclose the cutout areas as providing at least one stretchable area. The examiner observes Yoshida does not expand the cutout areas in making a flexible graphite structure, e.g. as by contrast Yoshida’s Fig. 1 – 12 with the related art of Yoshida’s Fig. 13 and 14. Moreover, while Yoshida mentions flexibility in an X-axis direction parallel to the slits and/or a Y-axis direction perpendicular to the “slits” (e.g. ¶¶ [0047], [0049], [0057], [0061], [0068]), the examiner finds this insufficient to describe stretchability. Moreover, Yoshida buries their graphite layer in a resin material (e.g. ¶¶ [0012], [0017], [0063], [0065], [0067], [0069]) such that it would have been understood the flexible graphite structure is one integrated mass where the resin material fills the graphite sheet layer through the cutout areas (e.g. Fig. 7 – 9). Yoshida does not comment on the stretchability of this structure, and thus it cannot be said that a stretchable area forms.
Therefore, while a symmetry can be seen of the cutout areas in Yoshida’s Fig. 2 and 6, it cannot be said to provide the aforementioned stretchable area.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 6 – 8, filed 3 July 2025, with respect to the rejections of claim) 1, 2, 6 – 9, and 12 – 24 under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103, as appropriate, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts Wu fails to teach an overlapping area in a depth direction and instead teaches overlapping in a horizontal direction.
Upon further consideration, the examiner finds Wu’s Fig. 7b depicts an embodiment where an “arc” shape where the shape of Wu’s “corrugation” approximates an “Ω” and therefore creates overlaps in the depth direction, as can be seen from the annotation of Wu’s Fig. 7b below:
PNG
media_image1.png
290
408
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox ( overlap overlap)]
Namely, between each of the pairs of dashed lines as annotated, an overlap of the graphite sheet layer exists in the depth direction as the graphite sheet layer goes back on itself, creating an “S” shape that forms one side of the “Ω” defining the arc shape.
Accordingly, the examiner maintains the rejections based on Wu as the sole or primary reference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN A UTT whose telephone number is (571)270-0356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Central.
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.
/ETHAN A. UTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783