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 .
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 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.
Application Status
This is a first action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings received on 30 November 2022 are acceptable.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 14, the reference to “the thermally conductive, flexible adhesive” lacks sufficient antecedent basis as no such adhesive is referred to in claims 8 or 9, upon which this claim depends. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to depend on claim 10 which provides proper antecedent basis for this term. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) Reference in Dependent Forms. — Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim. Applicant is required to cancel the claim, or amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, or rewrite the claim in independent form.
Claims 3 and 9 each recite that the substrate is at least one of planar, non-planar, rigid, or flexible. All possible substrates are either planar or non-planar, and all possible substrates are either flexible or rigid. Thus, any possible substrate will meet this limitation. Any art which reads on claims 2 and 8 necessarily also reads on claims 3 and 9, respectively. Claims 3 and 9 thus fail to further limit claims 2 and 8, respectively.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Levinson (U.S. Pub. 2020/0214883).
Regarding claim 1, Levinson discloses a cooling device with flexible sensors, see title and abstract. Figure 2 depicts a partially exploded isometric view of the cooling device which includes a flexible substrate 144 which conforms to interface member 138 and has sufficient heat conductivity, see p. 3, [0029]. The interface member also has sufficient thermal conductivity, see p. 3, [0027]. The substrate can be attached to an interface member with an adhesive as described at p. 3, [0029]. As both the flexible substrate and interface member are taught to have good thermal conductivity, it is clear that the adhesive also provides thermal conductivity. The outer surface of flexible substrate 144 is non-adhesive and exposed to the atmosphere as shown in FIG. 2, reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
794
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Alternately, the interface member 138 is also described to be a flexible material, see p. 2-3, [0028] describing metals such as aluminum and copper as well as fluids contained in a flexible membrane. This also reads on the claimed flexible thermally conductive material having an adhesive surface (that is, the surface attached to flexible substrate 144 via the adhesive layer as described at p. 3, [0029]) and a non-adhesive outer surface (see FIG. 2) as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Levinson teaches that the interface member 138 is adhered to a flexible substrate 144, see p. 3, [0029]. The substrate 144 includes metal traces 180 and 182 as shown in FIG. 4 which form conductive paths, see p. 4-5, [0041-0042]. See reproduced FIG. 4 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
782
616
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Levinson teaches that the flexible substrate 144 may be generally flat and rectangular, or may be curved, faceted, or have other desired profiles. See p. 3, [0028].
Additionally, the interface member 138 has heat exchanging surface 140 which can be planar or non-planar, see p. 2-3, [0027].
Regarding claim 4, the terminal portions of metal traces 180 and 182 are shown as 186a and 186b in FIG. 4. See description at p. 4-5, [0041-0042]. These read on probe tips as claimed. As they reach the edge of flexible substrate 144, they are capable of being electrically connected to a device under test.
Regarding claim 5, the metal traces 180 and 182 form thermocouples of the type J, K, T, E, N, R, S, U, B, or others, see p. 5, [0042]. The Examiner has considered a thermocouple to read on an application specific integrated circuit as claimed.
Regarding claim 8, Looking again at FIG. 2, heat exchanging member 130 reads on the claimed substrate which has fluid lines 108a and 108b attached. See p. 2, [0026]. These read on conductive paths. Flexible substrate 144 is adhered to the interface member 138 of the heat exchanging member. See p. 2, [0027] and p. 3, [0029].
Alternately, flexible substrate 144 having metal traces 180 and 182 reads on the claimed substrate having conductive paths, see FIGS. 2 and 4. This substrate is attached to the thermally conductive member 138 as shown in FIG. 2 and described at p. 3, [0029]. The interface member 138 is also described to be a flexible material, see p. 2-3, [0028] describing metals such as aluminum and copper as well as fluids contained in a flexible membrane.
Regarding claim 9, Levinson teaches that the flexible substrate 144 may be generally flat and rectangular, or may be curved, faceted, or have other desired profiles. See p. 3, [0028].
Additionally, the interface member 138 has heat exchanging surface 140 which can be planar or non-planar, see p. 2-3, [0027].
Regarding claim 10, The substrate can be attached to an interface member with an adhesive as described at p. 3, [0029]. As both the flexible substrate and interface member are each taught to be flexible and have good thermal conductivity, it is clear that the adhesive also is flexible and provides thermal conductivity.
Regarding claim 11, the terminal portions of metal traces 180 and 182 are shown as 186a and 186b in FIG. 4. See description at p. 4-5, [0041-0042]. These read on probe tips as claimed. As they reach the edge of flexible substrate 144, they are capable of being electrically connected to a device under test.
Regarding claim 12, the metal traces 180 and 182 form thermocouples of the type J, K, T, E, N, R, S, U, B, or others, see p. 5, [0042]. The Examiner has considered a thermocouple to read on an application specific integrated circuit as claimed.
Regarding claim 16, Flexible substrate 144 includes metal traces 180 and 182 which read on conductive paths as claimed.
The terminal portions of metal traces 180 and 182 are shown as 186a and 186b in FIG. 4. See description at p. 4-5, [0041-0042]. These read on probe tips as claimed. As they reach the edge of flexible substrate 144, they are capable of being electrically connected to a device under test.
The substrate 144 is attached to the thermally conductive member 138 as shown in FIG. 2 and described at p. 3, [0029]. The interface member 138 is also described to be a flexible material, see p. 2-3, [0028] describing metals such as aluminum and copper as well as fluids contained in a flexible membrane. As the substrate and interface member are each described to be thermally conductive, they are capable of drawing heat away from the probe tip and conductive paths as claimed.
Regarding claim 17, the metal traces 180 and 182 form thermocouples of the type J, K, T, E, N, R, S, U, B, or others, see p. 5, [0042]. The Examiner has considered a thermocouple to read on an application specific integrated circuit as claimed.
Regarding claim 19, The substrate can be attached to an interface member with an adhesive as described at p. 3, [0029]. As both the flexible substrate and interface member are each taught to be flexible and have good thermal conductivity, it is clear that the adhesive also is flexible and provides thermal conductivity.
Claims 1-5, 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020/046713 A1.
Regarding claim 1, WO ‘713 describes a temperature-sensing RFID tag which includes the layers shown in FIG. 2b, reproduced below. WO ‘713 notes that top layer 140, bottom layer 144, and thermally-conductive material 130 are each made from a flexible material, see p. 7, [0036]. These are connected by adhesive layers 148 and 150 which are shown to be flexible as they are shown to flex without breaking in FIG. 2b and described as such at p. 7, [0036]. These adhesive layers are also thermally conductive as described at p. 9-10, [0042].
PNG
media_image3.png
412
682
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The top surface 142 of flexible layer 140 is a printable surface, see p. 7, [0034] and is not described to be adhesive. Thus layer 140 reads on the claimed flexible thermally conductive material with a non-adhesive exposed surface, and layer 148 reads on the claimed thermally conductive adhesive.
Regarding claim 2, the thermally conductive adhesive 148 is connected to an integrated circuit 116, see FIG. 2b and p. 6, [0032]. This reads on a substrate having conductive paths.
Regarding claim 3, the integrated circuit 116 is planar as shown in FIG. 2b.
Regarding claim 4, the integrated circuit 116 can be directly coupled to an RFID transponder within the flag or tail section of the structure, see p. 8, [0038]. The couplings read on probe tips that electrically connect to a device under test as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, the integrated circuit 116 reads on the claimed application-specific integrated circuit connected to the probe tip as claimed.
Regarding claim 8, as shown in FIG. 2b above, the structure can be considered to include an integrated circuit substrate 116 having conductive paths to an RFID transponder within the structure, see p. 8, [0038]. A flexible and thermally conductive material 130 is attached to the substrate as shown in FIG 2b and described at p. 7, [0036].
Regarding claim 9, the integrated circuit 116 is planar as shown in FIG. 2b.
Regarding claim 10, the structure may include an additional layer of adhesive between the integrated circuit 116 and the thermally-conductive material 130 as described at p. 7, [0033] (not shown in FIG. 2b).
Regarding claim 11, the integrated circuit 116 can be directly coupled to an RFID transponder within the flag or tail section of the structure, see p. 8, [0038]. The couplings read on probe tips that electrically connect to a device under test as claimed.
Regarding claim 12, the integrated circuit 116 reads on the claimed application-specific integrated circuit connected to the probe tip as claimed.
Claims 8-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dalal (U.S. Pat. 9,899,330).
Regarding claim 8, Dalal discloses flexible integrated circuit modules, see abstract. As shown in FIG. 2, reproduced below, the module includes a semiconductor die 104 which includes a wafer of electronic-grade silicon 103 with an integrated circuit 105 formed thereon encapsulated within a polyimide adhesive layer 108, see col. 7, lines 1-10 and col. 8, lines 13-19. Flexible thermoset polyimide polymer layers 112A and 112B are each covered on both sides with layers of conductive material 110A and 110B, see col. 7, lines 35-61. The 110A and 110B layers may be metallic sheets or coatings, see id. In an example, these layers are copper cladding, see col. 7, lines 62-67. Vias 116 are formed as shown through the upper portion of the sheet through layers 110A and 112A to expose circuit 105.
PNG
media_image4.png
374
914
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In this arrangement, layer 110A reads on the claimed substrate with two conductive paths (the vias 116) while the polyimide layer 112A reads on the claimed flexible thermally conductive material attached to at least a portion of the substrate. This arrangement anticipates the claimed structure.
Regarding claim 9, The copper cladding layer 110A is shown to be planar in FIG. 2.
Regarding claim 10, The structure of FIG. 2 can be also considered to depict substrate 110A having conductive vias 116, adjacent to a flexible, thermally conductive polyimide adhesive layer 108 which is adjacent to flexible, thermally conductive copper cladding layer 110B. This anticipates the claimed structure.
Regarding claims 11-13, Dalal shows in FIG. 1 that a plurality of modules or “islands” are connected to one or more adjacent modules with flexible wirebonded interconnects 26 which read on cables electrically connected to one or more conductive paths at one end of the flexible substrate as in claim 13. See description at col. 6, lines 21-48. The wires also read on probe tips configured to electronically connect to another module which reads on a device under test as in claim 11. The wires connect to other modules which include integrated circuit chips which reads on application-specific integrated circuits electrically connected to the probe tip as in claim 12.
Regarding claims 16-18, As shown in FIGS. 1 and 2 of Dalal and described above, layer 110A reads on the claimed substrate and flexible polyimide layer 112A reads on the flexible thermally conductive material. Vias 116 are formed as shown through the upper portion of the laminate, and flexible wirebonded interconnects 26 connect multiple modules of “islands” together. The wirebonded interconnects that attach to other modules read on probe tips configured to electronically connect with a device under test.
Regarding claim 19, The structure of FIG. 2 can be also considered to depict substrate 110A having conductive vias 116, adjacent to a flexible, thermally conductive polyimide adhesive layer 108 which is adjacent to flexible, thermally conductive copper cladding layer 110B. The vias 116 include flexible wirebonded interconnects 26 as described above. This anticipates the claimed structure.
Regarding claim 20, Dalal notes that polyimide has a high service temperature of 575°F, see col. 8, lines 36-41. Thus it is expected that the apparatus can operate at elevated temperatures up to and above 150°C (approx. 302 °F).
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.
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 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/046713 A1 in view of Forster (U.S. Pub. 2020/0184300).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, WO ‘713 is relied upon as described above and includes thermally conductive adhesive layers. However, WO ‘713 does not specify that the thermally conductive adhesive layers include thermally conductive ceramic beads.
However, Forster describes shielding of temperature-sensing RFID devices, see abstract. A thermally conductive structure is positioned below or inwardly of the RFID chip as described at p. 3, [0027]. This thermally conductive structure may be an adhesive comprising particles having greater thermal conductivity than the remainder of the adhesive, such as ceramic particles which increase the thermal coupling between the RFID chip and the article to which the RFID device is secured, see p. 3, [0028].
WO ‘713 and Forster are analogous because they are similar in structure and function, as each describes protective structures for temperature-sensing RFID devices which include thermally conductive adhesives.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used a thermally conductive adhesive with ceramic particles as taught in Forster as the thermally conductive adhesive of WO ‘713 to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such particles as this increases the thermal coupling between the RFID chip and the article to which the device is secured, see Forster at p. 3, [0028]. That is, the ceramic particles improve the thermal conductivity of the adhesive layer because they have greater thermal conductivity than the matrix of the adhesive layer.
Claims 7, 13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levinson (U.S. Pub. 2020/0214883) as applied above, and further in view of Nikkhoo (U.S. Pub. 2016/0212886).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Levinson is relied upon as described above to teach a cooling device with sensors intended for application to a human body. Levinson does not specify the use of a pyrolytic graphite layer within the flexible thermally conductive adhesive or flexible thermally conductive layer.
However, Nikkhoo describes a wearable device with electronic components thermally coupled using a bonded graphite layer, see abstract and p. 1, [0001]. The graphite layer contacts at least a portion of the active circuitry and is routed to an exterior portion of the frame as described at p. 5, [0059]. The graphite can comprise pyrolytic graphite, see p. 5, [0059] and [0062]. The graphite layers are secured using any suitable form of adhesive having thermal conductivity properties, see p. 5, [0066].
Levinson and Nikkhoo are analogous because they are similar in structure or function, or there is a similar problem encountered in the two references. In each case, a device with thermal conductivity and temperature sensors is connected to a user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include pyrolytic graphite in the structure of Levinson to arrive at the claimed invention, as this material is commercially available, has high thermal conductivity, and may be shaped into a desirable form, see Nikkhoo at p. 5, [0062] and [0067-0068]. There is a reasonable expectation of success in the combination as Nikkhoo teaches that the graphite layers may be bonded with any suitable adhesive, see p. 5, [0066] and thus are not expected to adversely affect performance of the device.
Regarding claims 13 and 18, Nikkhoo teaches that wires may be used to connect a processing module with the device, see p. 2, [0030] and [0034]
Prior Art of Record
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S Pub. 2021/0319276 is the U.S. application publication in the same family as WO 2020/046713 A1
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott R. Walshon whose telephone number is (571)270-5592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 9am - 6pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on (571) 272-1234. 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.
/Scott R. Walshon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights