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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 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.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (CN 112266771 A), as machine translated, in view of Noikas et al. (US 20180155565 A1), Versini et al. (US 20220389257 A1), and Li et al. (CN 103641510 A), as machine translated.
Regarding claims 1, 3-7, and 11, Tang teaches “a capillary copper powder paste” (which reads upon “a copper paste for printing a capillary structure, consisting of”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0002]). Tang teaches “a capillary copper powder paste for ultrathin heat spreaders, comprising, by mass fraction, the following components based on the total amount of capillary copper powder paste: 73.4%–82.32% copper powder, 3.06%–3.42% pore-forming agent, and 14.26%–23.54% paste system” (which reads upon “copper powder”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0008]). Tang teaches that “the pore-forming agent is any one or more of urea, cyanuric acid, PMMA microspheres, and PS microspheres” (which reads upon “a high molecular polymer, microspheres of the high molecular polymer”, as recited in the instant claim; which reads upon claim 3; paragraph [0011]; PMMA is polymethyl methacrylate). Tang teaches that “the solvent is any one or a combination of two or more of ethanol, deionized water, ethylene glycol, lauryl alcohol, pinoresinol, fatty amines, fatty esters, fatty ethers, fatty hydrocarbons, and fatty ketones” (which reads upon “a solvent”, as recited in the instant claim; which reads upon claim 4; paragraph [0009]). Tang teaches that “the thickener is any one or a combination of two or more of polybutene, polyamide wax, polyurethane, ethyl cellulose, and bentonite” (which reads upon “a binder”, as recited in the instant claim; which reads upon claim 5; paragraph [0009]). Tang teaches that “the thickener is any one or a combination of two or more of polybutene, polyamide wax, polyurethane, ethyl cellulose, and bentonite” (which reads upon “a dispersant”, as recited in the instant claim; which reads upon claim 6; paragraph [0009]; ethyl cellulose is a cellulose derivative; Tang teaches two or more, including a combination of polyurethane which reads on the binder and ethyl cellulose which reads on the dispersant). Tang teaches that “the rheology modifier is any one or a combination of two or more of hydrogenated castor oil, paraffin oil, polyethylene glycol, and activated clay” (which reads upon “a leveling agent”, as recited in the instant claim; which reads upon claim 7; paragraph [0009]). Tang teaches that “the copper powder includes irregular copper powder and spherical or near-spherical copper powder, the particle size of the powder is 1 μm to 23 μm” (which reads upon “wherein the particle size of the copper powder ranges from 0.5 µm to 10 µm”, as recited in the instant claim; which reads upon claim 11; paragraph [0010]). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Here, the claimed range of from 0.5 µm to 10 µm overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art of 1 μm to 23 μm. The claimed value of 3 µm lies inside the range disclosed by the prior art of 1 μm to 23 μm. Accordingly, the prior art renders the claim obvious.
Tang is silent regarding a tackifier.
Noikas is similarly concerned with combining a first resin and carrier liquid to form a paste (paragraph [0134]). Noikas teaches that “in some examples, the method comprises adding a tackifier” (which reads upon “a tackifier”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0141]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the paste of Tang to include a tackifier, as taught by Noikas to improve adhesion. It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Modified Tang is silent regarding an antioxidant.
Versini is similarly concerned with conductive pastes (paragraph [0002]). Versini teaches that “the inks according to the present invention therefore optionally comprise metal microparticles of silver, copper and/or nickel” (which reads upon “copper powder”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0089]). Versini teaches “examples of antioxidant agents: ascorbic acid or vitamin C (E300), sodium ascorbate (E301), calcium ascorbate (E302), 5-6-1-diacetyl ascorbic acid (E303), 6-1-palmityl ascorbic acid (E304); citric acid (E330), sodium citrate (E331), potassium citrate (E332) and calcium citrate (E333); tartric acid (E334), sodium tartrate (E335), potassium tartrate (E336) and sodium and potassium tartrate (E337); butylhydroxyanisol (E320) and butylhydroxytoluol (E321); octyl gallate (E311) or dodecyl gallate (E312); sodium lactate (E325), potassium lactate (E326) or calcium lactate (E327); lecithins (E322); natural tocopherols (E306), synthetic α-tocopherol (E307), synthetic γ-tocopherol (E308) and synthetic δ-tocopherol (E309), all the tocopherols forming vitamin E; eugenol, thymol and/or cinnamaldehyde, as well as a mixture of two or more of said antioxidant agents ” (which reads upon “an antioxidant”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0106]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the paste of Tang to include an antioxidant, as taught by Versini to prevent or lessen oxidation of the copper and maintain structural integrity of the final product. It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Modified Tang is silent regarding the particle size of microspheres of the high molecular polymer, specifically, that the particle size of microspheres of the high molecular polymer ranges from 1 µm to 50 µm. Regarding the subject limitation, in order to carry out the invention of Tang, it would have been necessary and obvious to look to the prior art for exemplary particle sizes of microspheres of PMMA used as a pore forming agent. Li provides this teaching. Li is similarly concerned with preparing porous materials by adding PMMA microspheres as pore-forming agents (paragraph [0011]). Li teaches that “the PMMA microspheres, used as pore-forming agents, have an average particle size D<sub> 50 </sub> of 2μm-10μm” (paragraph [0023]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the paste of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the particle sizes of microspheres of PMMA, such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by Li, motivated to form a conventional paste using known and tested particle sizes of microspheres of PMMA predictably suitable for pore forming agent applications. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Here, the claimed range of from 1 μm to 50 μm overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art of 2 μm to 10 μm. Accordingly, the prior art renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 2, modified Tang teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Li teaches that “the PMMA microspheres, used as pore-forming agents, have an average particle size D<sub> 50 </sub> of 2μm-10μm” (paragraph [0023]). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Here, the claimed range of from 300-3000 mesh (4 – 50 μm) or from 5000-12000 mesh (1 – 4 μm) overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art of 2 μm to 10 μm. Accordingly, the prior art renders the claim obvious. Regarding the porosity of the PMMA, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01 I. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01 II. Here, the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, PMMA microspheres.
Regarding claim 8, modified Tang teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Noikas teaches that “the tackifier is selected from rosin resins, hydrocarbon resins, terpene resins, copolymers of vinyl acrylate and combinations thereof” (paragraph [0103]; hydrocarbon resins reads on C5 and C9 petroleum resins).
Regarding claim 9, modified Tang teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Versini teaches “examples of antioxidant agents: ascorbic acid or vitamin C (E300), sodium ascorbate (E301), calcium ascorbate (E302), 5-6-1-diacetyl ascorbic acid (E303), 6-1-palmityl ascorbic acid (E304); citric acid (E330), sodium citrate (E331), potassium citrate (E332) and calcium citrate (E333); tartric acid (E334), sodium tartrate (E335), potassium tartrate (E336) and sodium and potassium tartrate (E337); butylhydroxyanisol (E320) and butylhydroxytoluol (E321); octyl gallate (E311) or dodecyl gallate (E312); sodium lactate (E325), potassium lactate (E326) or calcium lactate (E327); lecithins (E322); natural tocopherols (E306), synthetic α-tocopherol (E307), synthetic γ-tocopherol (E308) and synthetic δ-tocopherol (E309), all the tocopherols forming vitamin E; eugenol, thymol and/or cinnamaldehyde, as well as a mixture of two or more of said antioxidant agents” (paragraph [0106]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Tang teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Tang teaches “14.11%–20.8% solvent” (which reads upon “the mass fraction of the solvent is 1%-70% of a mixture of the copper powder and the high molecular polymer”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0008]). Tang teaches that “0.14%–2.45% thickener” (which reads upon “the mass fraction of the binder is 0.1%-30% of the mixture of the copper powder and the high molecular polymer”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0008]). Tang teaches that “0.14%–2.45% thickener” (which reads upon “the mass fraction of the dispersant is 0.01%-5% of the mixture of the copper powder and the high molecular polymer”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0008]). Tang teaches that “0.01%–0.29% rheology modifier” (which reads upon “the mass fraction of the leveling agent is 0.01%-10% of the mixture of the copper powder and the high molecular polymer”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0008]). Noikas teaches that “about 1 wt. % or less of tackifier by total weight of the composition” (which reads upon “the mass fraction of the tackifier is 0.01%-5% of the mixture of the copper powder and the high molecular polymer”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0109]). Versini teaches that “their content will be limited to less than 10% by weight, for example less than 5% by weight, even less than 1% by weight” (which reads upon “the mass fraction of the antioxidant is 0.01%-10% of the mixture of the copper powder and the high molecular polymer”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0096]). Modified Tang discloses the claimed invention except for that the mass ratio of the copper powder to the high molecular polymer is 8-9: 1. It should be noted that the mass ratio of the copper powder to the high molecular polymer is a result effective variable. Li teaches that “the characteristic of this process is that a volatile pore-forming agent is added to the ceramic raw materials” (paragraph [0006]). Li teaches that “the pore-forming agent occupies a certain space in the green body” (paragraph [0006]). Li teaches that “after sintering, the pore-forming agent leaves the matrix to form pores” (paragraph [0006]). Tang teaches that “under a nitrogen-protected reducing atmosphere, sinter at 750℃～950℃ for no less than 5 minutes to obtain capillary structure” (paragraph [0016]). Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the more pore-forming agent is used, the greater the porosity of the sintered product. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to create the paste with the claimed mass ratio of the copper powder to the high molecular polymer since 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). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the mass ratio of the copper powder to the high molecular polymer to ensure the desired porosity of the final sintered product.
Regarding claim 12, modified Tang teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Tang teaches to “Mix the rheology modifier, thickener, pore-forming agent and copper powder in the solvent until homogeneous to obtain a capillary copper powder paste” (paragraph [0033]). Changes in sequence of adding Ingredients has been held to be obvious. Selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946). See MPEP § 2144.04 IV C.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q2: 3/30-4/3/26; Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. 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.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733