Email Communication
Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502.02, 502.03.
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The Applicant originally submitted Claims 1-42 in the application, with Claims 3, 5-8, 14, 16-20, 23, 25-28, 34 and 36-40 canceled. In the previous response, the Applicant amended Claims 1, 9, 15 and 41 and cancelled Claims 4, 21-22, 24, 29-33 and 35. In the present response, the Applicant amended Claims 1 and 41. Accordingly, Claims 1-2, 9-13, 15 and 41-42 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filled 02/10/2026, with respect rejection of Claims 1 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive, therefore the rejection has been withdrawn, however upon further search and consideration new grounds of rejection has been set forth below necessitated by Applicant’s amendment to Claims 1 and 41.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 03/18/2026 has been fully considered and is attached hereto.
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 of this title, 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, 9, 11-13, 15 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Aapro et al (US 2008/0151503) in view of de la Fuente (US 10,551,886) and further in view of Wayne et al (US 2013/0216887).
Regarding Claim 1, Aapro (In Figs 1-9) discloses an electronic device (10) comprising a thermal management system (66) including a graphite element (66), (¶ 31, II. 1-2), the thermal management system (66) in operative contact with a heat source (86), however Aapro does not disclose wherein the heat source comprises more than one electronic component, the more than one electronic component disposed on a stacked motherboard.
Instead de la Fuente (In Fig 2) teaches wherein the heat source (CPU/Battery), (Col 8, II. 64-67) comprises more than one electronic component (CPU/Battery), the more than one electronic component (CPU/Battery) disposed on a stacked motherboard (218), (Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Aapro with de la Fuente with the heat source comprising more than one electronic component disposed on a stacked motherboard to benefit from providing a functional portable computing device that integrates one or more heat spreaders into a device housing of the portable computing device of enclosure (Fuente Col 6, II. 37-42), however Aapro as modified does not disclose wherein graphite element having a thickness of at least 150 microns and devoid of an internal adhesive, wherein the graphite element is a flexible graphite having an in-plane thermal conductivity of at least 700 W/mK and a thru-plane thermal conductivity of less than 6 W/mK.
Instead, Wayne (In Fig 2-3) teaches wherein graphite element (14, 16) having a thickness of at least 150 microns (¶ 15, II. 10-14) and devoid of an internal adhesive, wherein the graphite element (14, 16) is a flexible graphite having an in-plane thermal conductivity of at least 700 W/mK and a thru-plane thermal conductivity of less than 6 W/mK (¶ 22, II. 10-15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to modify Aapro with Fuente and further with Wayne with the graphite element is a flexible graphite having an in-plane thermal conductivity of at least 700 W/mK and a thru-plane thermal conductivity of less than 6 W/mK to benefit from improving mechanism to minimize the effect of thermal runaway in a form factor that is compatible to high energy density modules (Wayne ¶ 3, II. 1-4).
Examiner Note; US 2019/0352185 to Zhamu et al in Figs 3(c)-5(c) establishes that thickness and thermal conductivity of a graphite sheet is a result oriented variable. Zhamu discloses a desired thickness and thermal conductivity of a graphite sheet could be tailored by chemically bonding graphene sheets. However, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
See MPEP 2144.05, II. B, in In re Antoine, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Optimizing thermal conductivity and thickness of a graphite film for a given application does not carry patentable weigh unless it could be shown to be critical to application, produced unexpected result, resulted in a commercial success or it was a long felt need, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 9, Aapro in view of de la Fuente and further in view of Wayne discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Aapro (In Figs 1-9) further discloses wherein the thermal management system (66) having a planar main body and devoid of a portion of the thermal management system extending away from the planar main body (body of 66) in a direction outside a plane of the main body (Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 11, Aapro in view of de la Fuente and further in view of Wayne discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Aapro (In Figs 1-9) further discloses wherein the thermal management system (66) is adhered to at least one of the electronic components (86), (Fig 9).
Regarding Claim 12, Aapro in view of de la Fuente and further in view of Wayne discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Aapro (In Figs 1-9) further discloses wherein a surface area of a portion of the thermal management system (66) adjacent the heat source (86) is larger than a surface area of the heat source (86), (Fig 9).
Regarding Claim 13, Aapro in view of de la Fuente and further in view of Wayne discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Aapro (In Figs 1-9) further discloses wherein the thermal management system (66) is devoid of a fan, heat pipe, a vapor chamber, and an active cooling medium (Fig 9).
Regarding Claim 15, Aapro in view of de la Fuente and further in view of Wayne discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Aapro (In Figs 1-9) further discloses wherein the thermal management system (66) having a first major surface adjacent to the heat source (86) and in operative contact with the heat source (86), (Fig 9), the first major surface having a first portion (portion of 66 touching 88) in direct operative contact with the heat source (86) and a second portion (portion of 66 not touching 88) not in direct operative contact with the heat source (86), (Fig 9), wherein a surface area of the second portion (portion of 66 not touching 88) comprises at least 10 percent of a surface area of the heat source (86), (Fig 9).
Regarding Claim 41, Aapro (In Figs 1-9) discloses an electronic device (10) comprising a thermal management system (66) including a graphite element (66), (¶ 31, II. 1-2), the thermal management system (66) devoid of an additional heat dissipation element (Fig 9), the thermal management system (66) in operative contact with a heat source (86), however Aapro does not disclose wherein the heat source comprises more than one electronic component, the more than one electronic component disposed on a stacked motherboard.
Instead de la Fuente (In Fig 2) teaches wherein the heat source (CPU/Battery), (Col 8, II. 64-67) comprises more than one electronic component (CPU/Battery), the more than one electronic component (CPU/Battery) disposed on a stacked motherboard (218), (Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Aapro with de la Fuente with the heat source comprising more than one electronic component disposed on a stacked motherboard to benefit from providing a functional portable computing device that integrates one or more heat spreaders into a device housing of the portable computing device of enclosure (Fuente Col 6, II. 37-42), however Aapro as modified does not disclose wherein graphite element having a thickness of at least 150 microns and devoid of an internal adhesive, wherein the graphite element is a flexible graphite having an in-plane thermal conductivity of at least 700 W/mK and a thru-plane thermal conductivity of less than 6 W/mK.
Instead, Wayne (In Fig 2-3) teaches wherein graphite element (14, 16) having a thickness of at least 150 microns (¶ 15, II. 10-14) and devoid of an internal adhesive, wherein the graphite element (14, 16) is a flexible graphite having an in-plane thermal conductivity of at least 700 W/mK and a thru-plane thermal conductivity of less than 6 W/mK (¶ 22, II. 10-15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to modify Aapro with Fuente and further with Wayne with the graphite element is a flexible graphite having an in-plane thermal conductivity of at least 700 W/mK and a thru-plane thermal conductivity of less than 6 W/mK to benefit from improving mechanism to minimize the effect of thermal runaway in a form factor that is compatible to high energy density modules (Wayne ¶ 3, II. 1-4).
Claims 2 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Aapro in view of de la Fuente further in view of Wayne and further in view of Wong et al (US 2017/0177027).
Regarding Claim 2, Aapro in view of de la Fuente and further in view of Wayne discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Aapro as modified does not disclose wherein the device having a thickness of no more than 15 mm.
Instead, Wong (In Fig 2) teaches that wherein the device (100) having a thickness of no more than 15 mm (¶ 46, II. 1-8).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Aapro with de la Fuente further with Wayne and further with Wong with the device having a thickness of no more than 15 mm to ensure proper physical appearance while with still proper performance (Wong ¶ 4, II. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 42, Aapro in view of de la Fuente and further in view of Wayne discloses the limitations of Claim 41, however Aapro as modified does not disclose wherein a thickness of the device comprises less than 15 mm.
Instead, Wong (In Fig 2) teaches wherein a thickness of the device (100) comprises less than 15 mm (¶ 46, II. 1-8).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Aapro with de la Fuente and further with Wayne and further with Wong with the device having a thickness of no more than 15 mm to ensure proper physical appearance while with still proper performance (Wong ¶ 4, II. 1-3).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Aapro in view of de la Fuente further in view of Wayne and further in view of Ohta et al (US 2014/0308484).
Regarding Claim 10, Aapro in view of de la Fuente and further in view of Wayne discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Aapro as modified does not disclose wherein the graphite element having a diffusivity of more than 3.8 cm2/ s.
Instead, Ohta (In Fig 2) teaches wherein the graphite element having a diffusivity of more than 3.8 cm2/ s (¶ 108, II. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Aapro with de la Fuente further with Wayne and further with Ohta with the graphite element having a diffusivity of more than 3.8 cm2/ s to benefit from excellent crystallinity and thermal diffusivity providing higher thermal conductivity and efficient heat transfer (Ohta ¶ 157, II. 8-13).
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 AMIR JALALI whose telephone number is (303)297-4308. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm, Mountain Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached on 571-272-3740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMIR A JALALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835
Prosecution Insights