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 .
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 1-3 and 6-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Pub. No. 2007/0284366 to Ohta in view of US Pub. No. 2018/0292148 to Watanabe and CN 105086464 to Ding.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 6-17, Ohta teaches a thermally conductive body for use by being placed between a heat generating body and a heat radiating body, in which the body is molded from a thermally conductive composition containing a polymer matrix and a thermally conductive filler in the shape of fibers and oriented in a certain direction (Ohta, Abstract). Ohta teaches that the polymer matrix maintains the thermally conductive filler in the body, wherein silicone polymer materials are preferable since they provide high thermal resistance for the body, adhesion to the heat generating body and the heat radiating body, properties for following the surface shape of the heat generating body and the heat radiating body, and durability against changes in temperature (Id., paragraphs 0026-0030). Ohta teaches that the thermally conductive filler may comprise a fibrous filler and a particulate filler (Id., paragraph 0037, Fig. 1A and 1B). Ohta teaches that the thermally conductive filler may preferably comprise carbon fibers formed from melt spun fibrous pitch (Id., paragraphs 0031-0032). Ohta teaches that a non-fibrous filler includes aluminum oxide (Id., paragraph 0034). Ohta teaches that the fibrous filler is oriented in the body in a certain direction, such as in the direction of the thickness of the body, wherein the value of the thermal conductivity in the thickness direction in the body is equal to the value obtained by multiplying the value of the thermal conductivity in the width direction by two to several hundred (Id., paragraphs 0037-0042).
Ohta does not appear to teach the claimed content of the binder resin and the claimed hardness.
Regarding the claimed content of the binder resin, Watanabe teaches a similar thermally conductive sheet comprising carbon fibers having a fiber axis oriented in a sheet thickness direction and contained in a polymer matrix, having a high heat conducting property (Watanabe, Abstract). Watanabe teaches that the percentage of the number of carbon fibers having an angle smaller than 30º between the fiber axis and the sheet thickness direction exceeds 50% (Id., paragraph 0037). Watanabe teaches that the thickness of the carbon fiber oriented thermally conductive layer is preferably 0.25 to 10 mm (Id., paragraph 0042), wherein the diameter of the carbon fiber is preferably 5 to 20 µm and the average fiber length is more preferably 15 to 200 µm (Id., paragraphs 0052-0053). Watanabe teaches that the polymer matrix a polymer composition comprising silicone (Id., paragraph 0047). Watanabe teaches that a thermally conductive filler is preferably contained in the conductive layer, wherein the filler includes metal oxides and hydroxides such as aluminum oxide and aluminum hydroxide (Id., paragraphs 0059-0061). Watanabe teaches that the thermally conductive sheet comprises 10% to 25% by volume of the carbon fiber, and 25% to 60% by volume of the thermally conductive filler, relative to about 30% to 50% by volume of the polymer composition (Id., paragraph 0095). Watanabe teaches that the carbon fiber oriented thermally conductive layer has excellent softness and excellent tacking property (Id., paragraph 0067).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the composition of Ohta, wherein the thermally conductive composition comprises volume contents of carbon fiber, binder resin, and non-fibrous fillers, and total content of the carbon fiber and filler, such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by Watanabe, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional thermally conductive composition having suitable volume content amounts known in the art as being predictably suitable for similar thermally conductive compositions having similar components, resulting in compositions having excellent softness and excellent tacking property.
Regarding the claimed angle set forth in claims 1 and 14, Ohta teaches that the fibrous filler is oriented in the body in a certain direction, such as in the direction of the thickness of the body. Additionally, Watanabe teaches that the carbon fiber axis is oriented in a sheet thickness direction, and that the percentage of the number of carbon fibers having an angle smaller than 30º between the fiber axis and the sheet thickness direction exceeds 50%. Watanabe teaches that orienting the fiber axis in a sheet thickness direction results in excellent heat conducting property in the thickness direction, and excellent anisotropy of the heat conducting property is exhibited (Watanabe, paragraph 0010). Watanabe teaches that the thermally conductive sheet may be configured so that the thermal conductivity in the sheet thickness direction is 7 W/m·K or more and 30 W/m·K or less (Id., paragraphs 0020-0021). Since Watanabe associates fiber axis orientation and heat conducting property, wherein the fiber axis is at an angle smaller than 30º between the fiber axis and the sheet thickness direction, and since Watanabe teaches that the thermal conductivity may vary, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that varying the angle as desired would predictably result in the desired thermal conductivity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the composition of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the angle of the major axis of the carbon fibers, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Watanabe, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional thermally conductive composition having the fiber axis orientation and thermal conductivity predictably suitable for similar heat conductive applications.
Regarding the claimed hardness, the prior art combination teaches that the polymer matrix is selected in accordance with the properties required for the body, for example mechanical strength such as hardness (Ohta, paragraph 0026), wherein the polymer matrix is preferably silicone (Id., paragraph 0030). Additionally, the prior art combination teaches the inclusion of a plasticizer to adjust the hardness of the body (Id., paragraph 0036).
Ding teaches a similar silicone heat conductive composite sheet obtained by curing a base material substrate layer with a silicon rubber composition (Ding, Abstract), wherein the composition includes a thermally conductive filler (Id., claim 1). Ding teaches that the substrate layer is a carbon fiber cloth (Id., paragraphs 0008-0009). Ding teaches that the shore OO hardness of the silicone rubber composite layer is 25-90 (Id., paragraph 0022). Ding teaches that the composite is calendared through methods such as molding (Id., paragraph 0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the composition of the prior art combination, wherein the thermally conductive composition comprises a shore OO hardness, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Ding, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional thermally conductive composition having hardness properties known in the art as being predictably suitable for heat conductive molded applications.
The prior art combination does not appear to teach that if the sheet is processed and subjected to a compression, that a difference of an angle of the major axis of the fibrous filler after release and before the compression is as claimed and that the sheet would have the claimed diameter after release of the compression. However, since the prior art combination teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed, for a substantially similar use, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that if the claimed conditions were applied to the invention of the prior art combination, that the invention of the prior art combination would behave similarly. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art combination teaches mixing carbon fiber and particulate alumina, and molding the composition in the form of a block, followed by cutting into sheets (Ohta, paragraphs 0068-0070).
Regarding claim 11, the prior art combination teaches a thermally conductive body for use by being placed between a heat generating body and a heat radiating body, for use in electronic components (Ohta, Abstract, paragraphs 0002, 0051). Note that a heat radiating body is within the scope of a heat dissipating body.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Ohta teaches that the thermally conductive filler may comprise a fibrous filler and a particulate filler (Ohta, paragraph 0037, Fig. 1A and 1B). Ohta teaches that a non-fibrous filler includes aluminum oxide (Id., paragraph 0034). Additionally, Watanabe teaches that a thermally conductive filler is preferably contained in the conductive layer, wherein the filler includes metal oxides and hydroxides such as aluminum oxide and aluminum hydroxide (Watanabe, paragraphs 0059-0061). Watanabe teaches that the thermally conductive sheet comprises 10% to 25% by volume of the carbon fiber, and 25% to 60% by volume of the thermally conductive filler, relative to about 30% to 50% by volume of the polymer composition (Id., paragraph 0095).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the composition of the prior art combination, wherein the particulate filler comprises aluminum hydroxide, and adjusting and varying the volume amounts of the fibrous filler and particulate filler, such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by Watanabe, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional thermally conductive composition comprising particulate fillers known in the art as being functionally equivalent and predictably suitable for similar applications, and comprising filler contents known in the art as being predictably suitable for similar heat conductive sheet applications, based on the desired properties including softness and tacking properties.
Regarding claim 16, Ohta does not appear to teach the claimed thickness and average major axis length. However, Watanabe teaches that the thickness of the carbon fiber oriented thermally conductive layer is preferably 0.25 to 10 mm (Watanabe, paragraph 0042), wherein the diameter of the carbon fiber is preferably 5 to 20 µm and the average fiber length is more preferably 15 to 200 µm (Id., paragraphs 0052-0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the composition of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the thickness of the composition and the average fiber length of the carbon fibers, such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by Watanabe, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional thermally conductive composition having a thickness and average carbon fiber length known in the art as being predictably suitable for similar heat conductive applications.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are moot based on the new grounds of rejection. However, to the extent Applicants’ arguments apply to the current rejection, those arguments are addressed below.
Applicants argue that in Ding, the base material is a woven fiber cloth, whereas the thermally conductive body of Ohta is molded from a thermally conductive polymer composition. Applicants argue that a person skilled in the art would not have had any reasonable expectation of success when referring to the hardness of a member which has a fundamentally different structure.
Regarding Applicants’ arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ohta establishes a thermally conductive body comprising carbon fibers oriented in a silicone matrix. Note that although Ohta does not disclose a shore OO hardness value, the composite of Ohta necessarily comprises a hardness value property. Ding establishes a similar silicone heat conductive composite sheet obtained by curing a base material substrate layer with a silicon rubber composition, wherein the composition includes a thermally conductive filler. Although Ding teaches that the substrate layer is a carbon fiber cloth, Ding teaches that the shore OO hardness of the silicone rubber composite layer is 25-90, and that the composite is molded. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the thermally conductive composition art would have been motivated to determine a suitable hardness, such as a shore OO hardness within the claimed range, when forming a similar thermally conductive composition comprising carbon fibers and silicone, as Ding establishes such hardness values were known to be suitable for such a purpose.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights