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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 regarding claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the following reasons:
Re: Claim 1, applicant argues,
(i) Dai does not disclose graphite particles in the nano-sheets/ does not disclose flake-like, ellipsoidal or cylindrical particles.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Dai expressly teaches, in ¶ [0035], that its laminated structure (thermal conductive “paper”) may be selected from natural graphite paper/artificial graphite paper (i.e., graphite based-paper), and further describes, in ¶ [0136], that natural graphite paper is made of expanded graphite sheet. Additionally, in ¶ [0007], Dai’s thermal interface material is formed from two-dimensional high-thermal-conductivity nano-sheets (or nano-plates) arranged in stacked structures. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, two-dimensional nano-sheet/nano-plates read on flake-like particles (the claim requires “at least one” of the recited shapes, so teaching flake-like is sufficient).
(ii) Dai does not disclose graphite particle in a thickness direction.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Dai defines, in ¶ [0020], its “vertical stack structure” as nano-sheets in the intermediate portion being “stacked sustainably perpendicular to horizontal plane”. Stacking the (graphite-based) sheets substantially perpendicular to the sheet plane corresponds to orientation in the thickness (through-plane) direction, as already relied upon the non-final rejection.
(iii) Example 3 is graphene and has 23% compression (not 24% or more).
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because even if Example 3 reports 23% compression, Dai separately teaches, in ¶ [0043], compression ratio ranges including “most preferably 20-30% (and also “most preferably 21-26%” in another disclosed range), which encompass values >=24%. Thus, the rejection is not limited to Example 3’s single reported value.
(iv) Regarding the test condition limitation (150C and 0.14 MPa), Chung does not remedy the deficiency of Dai.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. As maintained in the non-final, Dai does not need to explicitly recite the exact test condition because Chung teaches applying the material at 110-150C and discloses about 30% compression under 20psi (about 0.14 MPa). The rationale in the non-final remains applicable: it would have been obvious to verify/tune Dai’s compressibility at the conventional camping pressure/temperature conditions taught by Chung as a matter of optimizing result-effective variables for thermal interface performance (void reduction/contact improvement).
(v) Regarding newly added limitation: “the graphite particles oriented in a thickness direction are present on a surface of the thermally conductive sheet” applicant argues that Dai’s embodiments include horizontally stacked surface layers, so the vertical portion is not at the surface. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Dai, in ¶ [0039], also expressly teaches an embodiment/material “which only comprises the intermediate part” of the thermal interface material. Because Dai’s intermediate part is the portion having the vertical stack structure, a Dai thermal interface material that “only comprises the intermediate part” necessarily has the vertical-stack (thickness-oriented) nano-sheets present at the material’s surfaces (its outermost boundaries are the intermediate part itself).
Hence, applicant’s remarks do not overcome the Dai and Chung combination.
Re: Claim 3, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 3 that (i) Dai fails to teach graphite particles in the nano-sheets/ does not disclose flake-like, ellipsoidal or cylindrical particles, (ii) Dai does not disclose graphite particle in a thickness direction are the same as those presented for claim 1 and are addressed in the response to argument for claim 1 above.
Applicant further argues Boday discloses particle size and the TIM thickness as unrelated ranges and provides no guidance to arrive at 50-75% relationship. This argument is not persuasive. Boday expressly discloses both: Graphite particle average partical size (preferably 40-400um), and graphite TIM layer thickeness (typically 100-300um). Applicant’s “13.3% to 400%” figure is derived by combining extreme endpoints from independent ranges. The fact that the full envelope of possible ratios is board does not show that a person skilled in the art would be unable (or not motivated) to select a workable subset – particularly where the claimed subset sits squarely inside the expressly disclosed design space. Boday’s disclosed ranges include many straightforward combinations that yield 50-75%, e.g., selecting 100um particles with 200um thickness results 50% or 150umparticles with 200um thickness results 75%, all within Boday’s disclosed size and thickness ranges. Thus, the claimed relationship is not outside Boday; it is a routine selection of compatible dimensions from Boday’s disclosed ranges.
Applicant further argues that “mean particle diameter” is defined in Applicant’s specification by a particular measurement protocol (major diameter/major axis and averaging 200 items), and that Boday does not use the same method. This argument is not persuasive because amended claim 3 does not recite Applicant’s specific measurement procedure. Thus, Boday’s “average particle size” is reasonably read as the claimed “mean particle diameter” as both are average particle size-metrics.
Applicant's arguments with respect to newly added limitation “a six- membered ring within the crystal of the graphite particles (A) is oriented such that the plane direction of the six-membered ring is the same as the plane direction in the case where the graphite particles (A) are flake-like particles, the major axis direction in the case of ellipsoidal particles, or the major axis direction in the case of cylindrical particles” 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. Accordingly, a new ground of rejection is necessitated by the amendment to address this added feature.
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.
Claims 1 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (US 20210054253 A1) in view of Chung (US 6496373 B1).
Re: Independent Claim 1 (Currently Amended), Dai discloses a thermally conductive sheet comprising graphite particles (A) including at least one selected from the group consisting of flake-like particles, ellipsoidal particles, and cylindrical particles (Dai, ¶¶ [0034] - [0035] and ¶ [0008], thermal interface material i.e., thermally conductive graphite sheet, where the conductive sheet is paper-like two dimensional nanosheets, i.e., flake-like particles),
wherein the graphite particles (A) are oriented in a thickness direction (Dai, ¶¶ [0007] and [0020], the nano-sheets are stacked substantially perpendicular to horizontal plane, i.e., through-thickness orientation) and the graphite particles oriented in a thickness direction are present on a surface of the thermally conductive sheet (Dai, in ¶ [0039], expressly teaches an embodiment/material “which only comprises the intermediate part” of the thermal interface material. Because Dai’s intermediate part is the portion having the vertical stack structure, a Dai thermal interface material that “only comprises the intermediate part” necessarily has the vertical-stack (thickness-oriented) nano-sheets present at the material’s surfaces (its outermost boundaries are the intermediate part itself), and
a thickness compression ratio is 24% or more (Dai, ¶ [0022], compression ratio of the thermal interface material is most preferably 20-30%)
Dai is silent regarding the test condition:
at a temperature of 150°C and a compressive stress of 0.14 MPa.
However, Chung teaches (Chung, Column 8, lines 15-28) standard clamping pressure of 5-20 psi (0.034-0.138 MPa) and reports about 30% compression ratio (i.e. compression ration >24%) at 20 psi (0.14 Mpa) at operating temperature of 150°C.
Dai and Chung teach thermally conductive material for modern electronic devices, hence analogous art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to verify/tune the compression ratio of Dai’s sheet at the convention clamp (0.14 MPa) at an elevated temperature (e.g., 150°C) as taught by Chung in order to optimize the result-effective variables with predicable results and to induce melt flow so as to reduce and eliminate voids and trapped gas (Chung, column 8, lines 15-28).
Re: Claim 9 (Previously Presented), Dai and Chung disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Dai further discloses,
wherein the graphite particles (A) include flake-like particles (Dai, ¶¶ [0034] - [0035] and ¶ [0008, graphite particles include two-dimensional nano-sheets/nanoplates i.e., flake-like).
Re: Claim 10 (Previously Presented), Dai and Chung disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Chung further discloses,
a device comprising a heat generating body, a heat dissipating body, and the thermally conductive sheet according to claim 1 in contact with the heat generating body and the heat dissipating body (Chung, Column 7, lines 25-27, device with thermally-conductive interface may be assembled between a heat-generating element and a heat-dissipating element).
Re: Claim 11 (Original), Dai and Chung disclose all the limitations of claim 10 on which this claim depends. Chung further discloses,
wherein the heat generating body includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a semiconductor chip and a semiconductor device (Chang, Abstract, heat generating component such as an integrated circuit, power transistor, i.e., semiconductor device).
Re: Claim 12 (Previously Presented), Dai and Chung disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Dai and Chung further disclose,
a method of manufacturing a device, comprising:
arranging the thermally conductive sheet according to claim 1 (Dai teaches thermally conductive sheet as explained in claim 1 above) to be between a heat generating body and a heat dissipating body, and obtaining a composite body including the heat generating body, the heat dissipating body, and the thermally conductive sheet in contact with the heat generating body and the heat dissipating body (Chung, Column 8, lines 29-55, teaches the conventional thermal interface material assembly in which a compressible thermal interface pad is arranged between a heat generating body e.g., semiconductor device and a heat dissipating body e.g., heat sink); and
applying pressure in a thickness direction of the thermally conductive sheet to the composite body (Chung, Column 8, lines 29-55, teaches applying pressure to the stack with compressibility of 5-20 psi), and adhering the heat generating body and the heat dissipating body via the thermally conductive sheet (Chung, Column 4, lines 20-46, the thermal interface pad is pressure-sensitive tacky and in-situ curable to provide bonding strength, i.e., the pad itself adheres the parts together under clamp/heat).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Dai’s sheet (a thermal interface material with through-thickness oriented graphite) in the standard Chung’s assembly i.e., place it between the heat source and heat sink, clamp in the thickness direction, an rely on the sheet’s adhesive/tacky or curable behavior to adhere the parts in order to achieve the heat dissipating device attached to the electronic device solely by the in situ curable thermally conductive interface pad, without a mechanical fastener (Chung, Column 8, lines 50-54).
Re: Claim 13 (Original), Dai and Chung disclose all the limitations of claim 12 on which this claim depends. Chung further discloses,
wherein the heat generating body includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a semiconductor chip and a semiconductor device (Chung, Abstract, teaches thermal interface material assembly/method in which a heat source is an integrated circuit or power transistor i.e., semiconductor device).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (US 20210054253 A1) in view of Chung (US 6496373 B1) and further in view of Murakami (US 20200024144 A1).
Re: Claim 2 (Original), Dai and Chung disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Both Dai and Chung are silent regarding:
wherein an arithmetic mean roughness of a surface is 8.0 m or less.
However, Murakami discloses wherein an arithmetic mean roughness of a surface is 8.0 μm or less (Murakami, Abstract, teaches thermal interface material comprising a graphite film having arithmetic average roughness of 0.1 μm to 10 μm on a surface i.e., 8 μm or less).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dai’s thermally conductive sheet with the teaching of Murakami in order to reduce interfacial thermal resistance of the sheet of Dai in view of Chung by finishing the sheet’s surface to a known arithmetic mean roughness as a routine choice to achieve a predictable improvement (Murakami, ¶ [0011]).
Claim(s) 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (US 20210054253 A1) in view of Kofune (JP 2018098349 A) further in view of Boday (US 20170221791 A1).
Re: Independent Claim 3 (Currently Amended), Dai discloses a thermally conductive sheet comprising graphite particles (A) including at least one selected from the group consisting of flake-like particles, ellipsoidal particles, and cylindrical particles (Dai, ¶¶ [0034] - [0035] and ¶ [0008], thermal interface material i.e., thermally conductive graphite sheet, where the conductive sheet is paper-like two dimensional nanosheets, i.e., flake-like particles), wherein
the graphite particles (A) are oriented in a thickness direction (Dai, ¶¶ [0007] and [0020], the nano-sheets are stacked substantially perpendicular to horizontal plane, i.e., through-thickness orientation).
Dai is silent regarding a six- membered ring within the crystal of the graphite particles (A) is oriented such that the plane direction of the six-membered ring is the same as the plane direction in the case where the graphite particles (A) are flake-like particles, the major axis direction in the case of ellipsoidal particles, or the major axis direction in the case of cylindrical particles.
However, Kofune teaches a six- membered ring within the crystal of the graphite particles (A) is oriented such that the plane direction of the six-membered ring is the same as the plane direction in the case where the graphite particles (A) are flake-like particles, the major axis direction in the case of ellipsoidal particles, or the major axis direction in the case of cylindrical particles (Kofune teaches, in Heat conduction filler (A) description, that it can be confirmed by X-ray diffraction whether “ the six-membered ring plane in the crystal of the graphite particles is oriented in the plane direction of the scaly particles, the major axis direction of the elliptical particles, or the major axis direction of the rod-like particles”, and further defines the six-membered ring plane as a (0001) crystal plane, with evaluation).
Dai and Kofune teach conductive sheets, hence analogous art. It would have been obvious to incorporate Kofune’s crystal orientation teaching into Dai’s thermally conductive sheet structures to control/ensure the intended orientation state for predictable improvements in through-thickness heat conduction (Kofune, Heat conduction filler (A) description).
Dai is further silent regarding a mean particle diameter of the graphite particles (A) is 50 to 75% of a thickness.
However, Boday discloses a mean particle diameter of the graphite particles (A) is 50 to 75% of a thickness (the graphite particles have an average particle size of preferably approximately 40-400 μm and the graphite TIM layer has a thickness of approximately 100-300 μm. It would be obvious to choose a mean particle diameter within a practical fraction of the layer thickness, e.g. choosing a mean particle diameter to be 100 μm and the graphite TIM layer thickness to be 200 μm would result 50% of a thickness).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dai’s thermally conductive sheet with the teaching of Boday to select an appropriate graphite particle size relative to the sheet thickness in order to improve thermal conductivity and reduced weight (Boday, ¶ [0018]).
Re: Claim 14 (Previously Presented), Dai, Kofune and Boday disclose all the limitations of claim 3 on which this claim depends.
Boday further discloses,
wherein a thickness is 320 μm or less (Boday, ¶ [0036], the graphite TIM layer has a thickness of approximately 100-300 μm).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (US 20210054253 A1) in view of Chung (US 6496373 B1) and further in view of Boday (US 20170221791 A1).
Re: Claim 4 (Previously Presented), Dai and Chung disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Both Dai and Chung are silent regarding:
wherein a thickness is 320 μm or less.
However, Boday discloses,
wherein a thickness is 320 μm or less (Boday, ¶ [0036], the graphite TIM layer has a thickness of approximately 100-300 μm). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dai’s thermally conductive sheet in view of Chung with the teaching of Boday to select an appropriate graphite particle size relative to the sheet thickness in order to improve thermal conductivity and reduced weight (Boday, ¶ [0018]).
Claim 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (US 20210054253 A1) in view of Chung (US 6496373 B1) and further in view of Butterbach (US 20170362473 A1).
Re: Claim 5 (Previously Presented), Dai and Chung disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Both Dai and Chung are silent regarding:
further comprising a polymer (B) that is liquid at 25°C.
However, Butterbach teaches, in ¶ [0054], poly-alpha-olefins which are liquid at 25° C (i.e., polymer that is liquid at 25°C). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dai’s thermally conductive sheet in view of Chung with the teaching of Butterbach in order to improve wetting properties of the sheet on the substrates which is important for fast initial adhesion, and good cohesive strength (Butterbach, ¶ [0035]).
Re: Claim 6 (Original), Dai, Chung and Butterbach disclose all the limitations of claim 5 on which this claim depends.
Butterbach further discloses,
wherein the polymer (B) contains polybutene (Butterbach, ¶ [0050], poylmers as binding agent that contains polybutene).
Claims 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (US 20210054253 A1) in view of Chung (US 6496373 B1) and further in view of Eichler (US 20180362822 A1).
Re: Claim 7 (Previously Presented), Dai and Chung disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Both Dai and Chung are silent regarding:
further comprising a polymer (C) that has a glass transition temperature of 20°C or lower.
However, Eichler teaches (Eichler, ¶ [0011]) thermally conductive compositions whose resin system includes a block polymer that has a glass transition temperature of 20°C or lower It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dai’s thermally conductive sheet in view of Chung, a low Tg (<=20°C) polymer as taught by Eichler in order to conform to uneven surfaces, enhancing wet-out and the removal of air gaps that inhibit effective thermal conduction (Eichler, ¶ [0022]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (US 20210054253 A1) in view of Chung (US 6496373 B1) further in view of Eichler (US 20180362822 A1) and further in view of Butterbach (US 20170362473 A1).
Re: Claim 8 (Original), Dai, Chung and Eichler disclose all the limitations of claim 7 on which this claim depends. Dai, Chung and Eichler are silent regarding:
wherein the polymer (C) includes a (meth)acrylic polymer.
However, Eichler teaches a polymer phase with Tg <= 20°C for TIMs. Butterbach further teaches (Butterbach, ¶ [0050] and ¶ [0053]) that TIM polymers may be poly(meth)acrylates, thus it would be obvious to select a (meth)acrylic polymer for the low Tg phase of Eichler. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dai’s thermally conductive sheet in view of Chung, further in view of Eichler with the (meth)acrylic polymer teaching of Butterbach in order to achieve expected wetting/compliance benefits.
Claim(s) 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (US 20210054253 A1) in view of Kofune (JP 2018098349 A) further in view of Boday (US 20170221791 A1) and further in view of Butterbach (US 20170362473 A1).
Re: Claim 15 (Previously Presented), Dai, Kofune and Boday disclose all the limitations of claim 3 on which this claim depends.
Dai, Kofune and Boday are silent regarding
further comprising a polymer (B) that is liquid at 25°C.
However, Butterbach teaches, in ¶ [0054], poly-alpha-olefins which are liquid at 25° C (i.e., polymer that is liquid at 25°C). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dai’s thermally conductive sheet in view of Boday with the teaching of Butterbach in order to improve wetting properties of the sheet on the substrates which is important for fast initial adhesion, and good cohesive strength (Butterbach, ¶ [0035]).
Re: Claim 16 (Previously Presented), Dai, Kofune, Boday and Butterbach disclose all the limitations of claim 15 on which this claim depends.
Butterbach further discloses,
wherein the polymer (B) contains polybutene (Butterbach, ¶ [0050], poylmers as binding agent that contains polybutene).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (US 20210054253 A1) in view of Kofune (JP 2018098349 A) further in view of Boday (US 20170221791 A1) and further in view of Eichler (US 20180362822 A1).
Re: Claim 17 (Previously Presented), Dai, Kofune and Boday disclose all the limitations of claim 3 on which this claim depends.
Dai, Kofune and Boday are silent regarding
further comprising a polymer (C) that has a glass transition temperature of 20°C or lower.
However, Eichler teaches (Eichler, ¶ [0011]) thermally conductive compositions whose resin system includes a block polymer that has a glass transition temperature of 20°C or lower. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dai’s thermally conductive sheet in view of Boday, a low Tg (<=20°C) polymer as taught by Eichler in order to conform to uneven surfaces, enhancing wet-out and the removal of air gaps that inhibit effective thermal conduction (Eichler, ¶ [0022]).
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (US 20210054253 A1) in view of Kofune (JP 2018098349 A) further in view of Boday (US 20170221791 A1) and further in view of Eichler (US 20180362822 A1) and further in view of Butterbach (US 20170362473 A1).
Re: Claim 18 (Previously Presented), Dai, Kofune, Boday and Eichler disclose all the limitations of claim 17 on which this claim depends.
Dai, Kofune, Boday and Eichler are silent regarding wherein the polymer (C) includes a (meth)acrylic polymer.
However, Eichler teaches a polymer phase with Tg <= 20°C for TIMs. Butterbach further teaches (Butterbach, ¶ [0050] and ¶ [0053]) that TIM polymers may be poly(meth)acrylates, thus it would be obvious to select a (meth)acrylic polymer for the low Tg phase of Eichler. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dai’s thermally conductive sheet in view of Boday, further in view of Eichler with the (meth)acrylic polymer teaching of Butterbach in order to achieve expected wetting/compliance benefits.
Claim(s) 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (US 20210054253 A1) in view of Kofune (JP 2018098349 A) further in view of Boday (US 20170221791 A1) further in view of Chung (US 6496373 B1).
Re: Claim 19 (Previously Presented), Dai, Kofune and Boday disclose all the limitations of claim 3 on which this claim depends.
Dai, Kofune and Boday is silent regarding A device comprising a heat generating body, a heat dissipating body, and the thermally conductive sheet in contact with the heat generating body and the heat dissipating body.
However, Chung teaches a device comprising a heat generating body, a heat dissipating body, and the thermally conductive sheet according to claim1 in contact with the heat generating body and the heat dissipating body (Chung, Column 7, lines 25-27, device with thermally-conductive interface may be assembled between a heat-generating element and a heat-dissipating element). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dai’s known thickness-oriented graphite sheet in view of Boday in the device of Chung i.e., placing thermally conductive sheet between and in contact with the heat generating body and the heat dissipating body in order to reduce and/or eliminate voids and/or trapped gas and, to be utilized without mechanical fasteners (Chung, Column 8, lines 17-19).
Re: Claim 20 (Previously Presented), Dai, Kofune and Boday disclose all the limitations of claim 3 on which this claim depends.
Dai, Kofune and Boday is silent regarding a method of manufacturing a device, comprising: arranging the thermally conductive sheet according to claim 3 to be between a heat generating body and a heat dissipating body, and obtaining a composite body including the heat generating body, the heat dissipating body, and the thermally conductive sheet in contact with the heat generating body and the heat dissipating body; and applying pressure in a thickness direction of the thermally conductive sheet to the composite body, and adhering the heat generating body and the heat dissipating body via the thermally conductive sheet.
However, Chung teaches a method of manufacturing a device, comprising:
arranging the thermally conductive sheet according to claim 1 (Dai teaches thermally conductive sheet as explained in claim 3 above) to be between a heat generating body and a heat dissipating body, and obtaining a composite body including the heat generating body, the heat dissipating body, and the thermally conductive sheet in contact with the heat generating body and the heat dissipating body (Chung, Column 8, lines 29-55, teaches the conventional thermal interface material assembly in which a compressible thermal interface pad is arranged between a heat generating body e.g., semiconductor device and a heat dissipating body e.g., heat sink); and
applying pressure in a thickness direction of the thermally conductive sheet to the composite body (Chung, Column 8, lines 29-55, teaches applying pressure to the stack with compressibility of 5-20 psi), and adhering the heat generating body and the heat dissipating body via the thermally conductive sheet (Chung, Column 4, lines 20-46, the thermal interface pad is pressure-sensitive tacky and in-situ curable to provide bonding strength, i.e., the pad itself adheres the parts together under clamp/heat).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Dai’s sheet in view of Kofune and Boday (a thermal interface material with through-thickness oriented graphite) in the standard Chung’s assembly i.e., place it between the heat source and heat sink, clamp in the thickness direction, an rely on the sheet’s adhesive/tacky or curable behavior to adhere the parts in order to achieve the heat dissipating device attached to the electronic device solely by the in situ curable thermally conductive interface pad, without a mechanical fastener (Chung, Column 8, lines 50-54).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIPANA ADHIKARI DAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-4149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:30am-7:30pm.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at (571) 272-2339. 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.
/BIPANA ADHIKARI DAWADI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JESSICA S MANNO/SPE, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights