DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 25, 2026 has been entered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1 through 10 continue to stand as being withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 25, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) in the previous office action1 have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 11, 13, 15 through 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication 2018/0027691 to Czaplewski et al (hereinafter “Czaplewski”).
Claim 11: Czaplewski discloses a system for attaching a thermal interface material (TIM)(e.g. 302, Fig. 3) to a heat sink (e.g. 314) positioned on a base layer (e.g. 312), the heat sink having a heat sink length and a heat sink width, the system comprising:
a plurality of treated sections (e.g. dark layer with surface 344, cross-hatched layer with surface 346, Fig. 3) of the base layer around a portion of a perimeter of the heat sink, wherein each treated section of the plurality of treated sections comprises a width, and wherein one or more of the width and a surface roughness (e.g. created by 318, 316, 342, Fig. 3) of each treated section of the plurality of treated sections is based on the TIM, and wherein the plurality of treated sections form a continuous roughness edge (e.g. at 344 or at 346 of Fig. 1, ¶ [0015]), wherein a portion of the TIM extends onto the roughness edge around the heat sink (e.g. at 318, ¶¶ [0018], [0019], [0056]),
wherein the heat sink extends along a first [horizontal] direction (in Fig. 3) defining a width of the heat sink and a second [vertical] direction (in Fig. 1) defining a height of the heat sink, the first direction transverse to the second direction along the perimeter,
wherein an entirety each section (e.g. 344, 346) of the plurality of treated sections extends at a non-perpendicular angle (e.g. curved/hour glass shaped surface) with respect to the first direction and the second direction along the perimeter (e.g. ¶ [0057]).
Claim 13: Czaplewski discloses the system of claim 11, wherein one or more of the width and the surface roughness of each treated section of the plurality of treated sections is based on a structural property of the TIM (e.g. Fig. 3, diagram 356, ¶ [0015]).
Claim 15: Czaplewski discloses that system of claim 11, wherein one or more of the width and the surface roughness of each treated section of the plurality of treated sections is based on an adhesive layer of the TIM (e.g. ¶¶ [0017], [0018]).
Claim 16: Czaplewski discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the TIM comprises a pad (e.g. 342, Fig. 3, to support 314, diagram structure of 356).
Claim 17: Czaplewski discloses the system of claim 11, further comprising a film (e.g. additional TIMs, or additional layers of a TIM) of a second material adjacent to a portion of a treated section of the plurality of treated sections, wherein the second material has a low adhesion property (e.g. ¶ [0027]).
Claim 20: Czaplewski discloses the system of claim 11, wherein at least one treated section of the plurality of treated sections of the base layer around the perimeter of the heat sink comprises a plurality of strips (e.g. fibers ¶ [0048]), wherein a surface roughness of each treated strip is different from a surface roughness of an adjacent treated strip (e.g. ¶ [0005]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czaplewski in view of U.S. Publication 2015/0200148 to Pon et al (hereinafter “Pon”).
Czaplewski discloses the claimed manufacturing process as relied upon above in Claim 11, further including that the base layer is proximate at least one treated section of the plurality of treated sections, and the width of the treated sections is the same width of the heat sink in Figure 3.
Czaplewski does not teach any dimensions of the width of the treated sections (as required in Claim 12), or that a hole is formed through the base layer (as required in Claim 19).
Pon teaches that a component (e.g. 311, Fig. 3B), that includes a heat sink (e.g. 312), can be electrically connected to a base layer (e.g. 315) with a hole formed through the base layer using conductors (e.g. 316, ¶[0049]). Moreover, that sizes of heat sinks can typically include dimensions of a 2 mm width (e.g. ¶ [0050]). Both Pon and Czaplewski are analogous in that each utilize a heat sink to cool a base layer (e.g. component or circuit board).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Czaplewski by forming a hole in the base layer and utilizing a width dimension of 2 mm for the heat sink, as taught by Pon, to provide an electrical connection to the base layer with the same purpose of cooling the base layer. Moreover, in keeping the width of the heat sink to be the same as the width of the treated sections, it would have been obvious that the width of the treated sections would the same as the width of the heat sink.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czaplewski in view of U.S. Publication 2003/0152773 to Chrysler et al (hereinafter “Chrysler”).
Czaplewski discloses the claimed manufacturing process as relied upon above in Claim 11, further including the surface roughness of the treated section.
Czaplewski does not mention any dimensions of the surface roughness.
Chrysler teaches that a surface roughness (e.g. 3, Fig. 1, or 11 in Fig. 2) that interfaces with TIM (e.g. 6, Fig. 2) can be 0.01 mm (10 microns, e.g. ¶ [0027]) to enhance the thermal performance of the heat sink (e.g. 1, Fig. 2, ¶ [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surface roughness of Czaplewski by utilizing the dimensions (e.g. 10 microns) taught by Chrysler, to positively enhance the thermal performance of the heat sink.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czaplewski in view of U.S. Patent 9,873,774 to Kuczynski et al (hereinafter "Kuczynski").
Czaplewski discloses the claimed manufacturing process as relied upon above in Claim 11.
Czaplewski does not teach of the second material of the film is biaxially-oriented polyethylene terephthalate.
Kuczynski discloses that biaxially-oriented polyethylene terephthalate is a known material for a TIM (e.g. Claim 9, or col. 21, lines 10-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second material of Czaplewski by utilizing biaxially-oriented polyethylene terephthalate, as taught by Kuczynski, to provide an art-recognized equivalent TIM having the same purpose.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments filed as part of their submission on February 18, 2026 with respect to Claim 11 have been fully considered, but are now moot as a different embodiment in Czaplewski has been applied to the claims. In this case, Figure 3 shows “an entirety of each section of the plurality of treated sections” to be the entire surface 344 and the entire surface 346 of the treated sections (two layers of 342).
It is noted that if Claim 11 were amended to remove the limitations of “at least a portion of” (line 4), this would appear to overcome the rejections of Czaplewski. Czaplewski does not appear to teach that the plurality of treated sections of the base layer are around a perimeter of the heat sink. The treated sections are around only a portion of the perimeter of the heat sink in Figure 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to A. DEXTER TUGBANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4570. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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 HAN can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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.
/A. DEXTER TUGBANG/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
1 Final action, mailed on January 21, 2026.