Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/275,450

THERMALLY CONDUCTIVE SHEET, THERMALLY CONDUCTIVE SHEET SUPPLY FORM, THERMALLY CONDUCTIVE SHEET PRECURSOR, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THERMALLY CONDUCTIVE SHEET

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 02, 2023
Examiner
TOOMER, CEPHIA D
Art Unit
1771
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Sekisui Chemical Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
999 granted / 1348 resolved
+9.1% vs TC avg
Minimal +2% lift
Without
With
+2.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
1391
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
46.3%
+6.3% vs TC avg
§102
8.0%
-32.0% vs TC avg
§112
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1348 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Specification The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. 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 1-11 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP201316647 in view of JP2002069392. JP teaches a thermally conductive sheet including a styrene-isobutene copolymer and a scaly hexagonal boron nitride and discloses that the plane directions of the scales of the hexagonal boron nitride particles are oriented in the thickness direction of the thermally conductive sheet (see abstract). A heat radiating device is constructed by layering a heating element and the heat conduction sheet (see abstract). Such devices include a semiconductor package, a display, a LED, or an electric lamp (see page 10, paragraph 11). The initial tack force of the thermally conductive sheet was 1.8 kPA (example 4). Furthermore, with regard to the tack force, the thermally conductive sheet is understood to be a uniform article, and thus it is considered that both sides have the same degree of tack force. The method by which the tack force is measured would be known to one skilled in the art and no unobviousness is seen in the method of measurement set forth in the claims. The shape of the inorganic particles is not particularly limited, and may be any of a spherical shape, a scale shape, an elliptical shape, and a rod shape. In the said heat conductive sheet, it is preferable to select the shape of the said inorganic particle according to the manufacturing method of a heat conductive sheet from a heat conductive viewpoint (see page 4, paragraphs 4 and 6). The particles are oriented in the thickness direction (see paragraph 6). The heat conductive sheet may have a protective film on at least one of its surfaces, and preferably has a protective film on both surfaces. Thereby, the adhesive surface of a heat conductive sheet can be protected. Examples of the material for the protective film include resins such as polyethylene, polyester, polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate, polyimide, polyetherimide, polyether naphthalate, and methylpentene film, and metals such as coated paper, coated cloth, and aluminum. Two or more kinds of these protective films may be combined to form a multilayer film, and the protective film surface may be treated with a release agent such as silicone or silica (page 10, paragraphs 1 and 2). The method for molding the resin composition into a sheet is not particularly limited, and can be appropriately selected from commonly used methods. Among them, it is preferable that primary sheet is press-punched using a mold blade. Sheets of the punched sheets were stacked, and a temperature of 120 ° C. was sandwiched with a spacer of 80 mm in height so that the height would be 80 mm. A pressure was applied for 2 minutes to obtain a molded body. Next, an 80 mm × 150 mm laminated section of this molded body was sliced to obtain a heat conductive sheet (see page 10, paragraphs 3-8). With respect to a regular pattern, this limitation is merely a design choice. JP meets the limitations of the claims other than the differences that are set forth below. JP does not specifically teach that the boron nitride are flakes. However, JP ‘392 teaches that it is well known that hexagonal boron nitride scales are in the form of flakes (see paragraph 0003). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEPHIA D TOOMER whose telephone number is (571)272-1126. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday. 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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6368. 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. /CEPHIA D TOOMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771 18275450/20260211
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 02, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600915
HIGH-QUALITY COKE PRODUCTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600914
METHOD OF TREATING WASTE PLASTIC
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595324
ETHYLENE COPOLYMERS AND USE AS VISCOSITY MODIFIERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577487
HIGH-CARBON BIOGENIC REAGENTS AND USES THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577498
FABRIC CARE FORMULATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+2.3%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1348 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month