DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This application is entitled to and claims the benefit of priority of KR Patent App. No. 10-2022-0079368, filed 06/29/2022. The preliminary amendment filed on 06/21/2023 is entered and acknowledged by the Examiner.
3. Claims 1-8 are pending. Claims 1-8 are under examination on the merits.
Drawings
4. The drawings are received on 06/21/2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Priority
5. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted on 08/24/2023 under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 1, 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: It is suggested that “PI films" should be spell out in the first occurrence in the claim so as to engender claim language clarity (i.e., polyimide (PI) films). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
8. Claims 1-5, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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. Claim 1 recites “a predetermined distance”, wherein applicant fails to articulate by sufficiently distinct functional language, applicant regards as those which will facilitate “a predetermined distance” requisite to identifying the required distance between a pair of PI films to be a space apart or matter claimed. The instant specification does not explain how to determine the "predetermined distance" or provides multiple methods without guidance on which to use. This is common with "terms of degree" or terms of approximation (like "about" or "substantially") that require an objective standard within the patent's description, thus claim 1 constitutes indefinite subject matter as per the metes and bounds of said phrase engenders indeterminacy in scope and the language of the claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim from the application disclosure. Claims 2-5, 8 being depended on claim 1 are rejected as well.
9. Claims 1-5, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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. Claim 1 recites “a predetermined region”, wherein applicant fails to articulate by sufficiently distinct functional language, applicant regards as those which will facilitate “a predetermined region” requisite to identifying the required distance between a pair of PI films to be a space apart or matter claimed. The instant specification fails to define the boundaries, criteria, or method for determining that region, thus claim 1 constitutes indefinite subject matter as per the metes and bounds of said phrase engenders indeterminacy in scope and the language of the claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim from the application disclosure. Claims 2-5, 8 being depended on claim 1 are rejected as well.
10. Claims 1-5, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the upper surface of the pair of PI film laminates" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-5, 8 being depended on claim 1 are rejected as well.
For the purpose of examination against the prior art the preamble of claim 1 is construed to recites ”an upper surface of the pair of PI film laminates”.
11. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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. Claim 2 recites the limitation "disposing a first release film" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination against the prior art the preamble of claim 2 is construed to recites ”disposing the first release film”.
12. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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. Claim 2 recites “a predetermined region”, wherein applicant fails to articulate by sufficiently distinct functional language, applicant regards as those which will facilitate “a predetermined region” requisite to identifying the required distance between a pair of PI films to be a space apart or matter claimed. The instant specification fails to define the boundaries, criteria, or method for determining that region, thus claim 2 constitutes indefinite subject matter as per the metes and bounds of said phrase engenders indeterminacy in scope and the language of the claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim from the application disclosure.
13. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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. Claim 4 recites “metal material having an elongation property”, wherein applicant fails to articulate by sufficiently distinct functional language, applicant regards as those which will facilitate “an elongation property” requisite to identifying the material's ability to stretch or deform under tensile stress before breaking, measured as a percentage of its original length, indicating its ductility and flexibility (i.e., the measurement method). Thus, claim 4 constitutes indefinite subject matter as per the metes and bounds of said phrase engenders indeterminacy in scope and the language of the claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim from the application disclosure.
14. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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. Claim 5 recites the limitation "wherein manufacturing a heat dissipation sheet" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination against the prior art the preamble of claim 5 is construed to recites ” wherein the manufacturing a heat dissipation sheet”.
15. Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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. Claim 6 recites “a predetermined distance”, wherein applicant fails to articulate by sufficiently distinct functional language, applicant regards as those which will facilitate “a predetermined distance” requisite to identifying the required distance between a pair of PI films to be a space apart or matter claimed. The instant specification does not explain how to determine the "predetermined distance" or provides multiple methods without guidance on which to use. This is common with "terms of degree" or terms of approximation (like "about" or "substantially") that require an objective standard within the patent's description, thus claim 6 constitutes indefinite subject matter as per the metes and bounds of said phrase engenders indeterminacy in scope and the language of the claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim from the application disclosure. Claim 7 being depended on claim 6 is rejected as well.
16. Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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. Claim 5 recites “a predetermined region”, wherein applicant fails to articulate by sufficiently distinct functional language, applicant regards as those which will facilitate “a predetermined region” requisite to identifying the required distance between a pair of PI films to be a space apart or matter claimed. The instant specification fails to define the boundaries, criteria, or method for determining that region, thus claim 5 constitutes indefinite subject matter as per the metes and bounds of said phrase engenders indeterminacy in scope and the language of the claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim from the application disclosure. Claims 2-5, 8 being depended on claim 1 are rejected as well.
17. Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the upper surface of the pair of PI film laminates" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 being depended on claim 6 is rejected as well.
For the purpose of examination against the prior art the preamble of claim 6 is construed to recites ”an upper surface of the pair of PI film laminates”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
18. 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.
19. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by An et al. (US Pub. No. 2015-0311468 A1, hereinafter “’468”).
Regarding claim 8: ‘468 discloses a method of manufacturing a flexible display apparatus (i.e., heat dissipation sheet; Page 1, [0003]), the method comprising: coating a support substrate with a first polymer layer; carbonizing or graphitizing the first polymer layer; forming a first barrier layer on the carbonized or graphitized first polymer layer; and forming an organic light emitting device on the first barrier layer (Page 7, Claim 8), wherein the forming of the first barrier layer comprises forming the first barrier layer to cover the carbonized or graphitized first polymer layer so that at least a portion of the first barrier layer contacts the support substrate at an outer portion of the carbonized or graphitized first polymer layer (Page 7, Claim 9). ‘468 discloses the method, further comprising: coating the first barrier layer with a second polymer layer; carbonizing or graphitizing the second polymer layer; and forming a second barrier layer on the carbonized or graphitized second polymer layer (Page 7, Claim 10).
Claim 8 is viewed as product-by-process claims and hence the methods they are created by are not pertinent, unless applicant can show a different product is produced. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” See MPEP 2113.
Allowable Subject Matter
20. Claims 1-7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
21. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The most pertinent prior art known by the Examiner is in the attached form PTO-892.
Kuei-Sen Cheng (US Pub. No. 2017/0115074 A1, hereinafter “’074”) teaches a method of forming a composite heat dissipating structure, the method comprising: providing an electrodeposited copper foil having a drum-side and a deposited-side; the deposited-side of the copper foil exhibiting a surface roughness (Rz) in the range of 0.3 to 1.0 µm; coating a slurry of graphene powder on the deposited-side of the copper foil; drying the slurry to form a layer of graphene in contact with the deposited-side of the copper foil; the layer of graphene having a first thickness; reducing the thickness of the layer of graphene layer by consolidating the graphene layer in combination with the copper foil under pressure to form a reduced thickness of graphene in contact with the copper foil; and, recovering the composite heat dissipating structure. ‘074 teaches the method, further comprising applying a layer of adhesive to the graphene layer after the reducing step, and further comprising coating a slurry of graphene powder on the drum-side of the copper foil, wherein the slurry is an aqueous slurry, and wherein the step of reducing the thickness of the graphene layer comprises consolidating the graphene layer with the copper foil at a pressure of at least 1000 kg in a roller press.
Young-Su Park (US Pub. No. 2016/0153730 A1, hereinafter “’730”) teaches a method of manufacturing a heat dissipation sheet using a graphene/graphite nanoplate/carbon nanotube/nano-metal complex, the method comprising: preparing a first heat dissipation film by coating and sintering a composition for dissipating heat comprising a graphene/graphite nanoplate/carbon nanotube/nano-metal complex dispersion solution and a binder on a substrate and then removing the substrate; and forming a second heat dissipation film on one surface or two opposite surfaces of the first heat dissipation film by using a graphene adhesive comprising the graphene/graphite nanoplate/carbon nanotube/nano-metal complex dispersion solution and an adhesive, wherein the forming comprises: preparing a second heat dissipation film by coating the graphene adhesive on a release film; and laminating a surface of the second heat dissipation film coated with the graphene adhesive on the one surface or two opposite surfaces of the first heat dissipation film. ‘730 teaches the graphene/graphite nanoplate/carbon nanotube/nano-metal complex dispersion solution is prepared through a method comprising: expanding expandable graphite to obtain graphene worms; repeating twice or more heat-treating the ground graphene worms after grinding the graphene worms; cutting the ground and heat-treated graphene worms while homogenizing by means of a high pressure homogenizer after mixing the ground and heat-treated graphene worms with a solvent; forming a graphene/graphite nanoplate/nano-metal complex dispersion solution by adding a metal alkoxide coupling agent to a graphene layer binder dispersion solution obtained through the homogenizing and cutting and then performing ultrasonication; and forming a graphene/graphite nanoplate/carbon nanotube/nano-metal complex by adding an aqueous carbon nanotube dispersion solution to the formed graphene/graphite nanoplate/nano-metal complex dispersion solution and then stirring. ‘730 teaches the substrate is a thin metal or plastic film, and wherein the binder is at least one binder resin selected from the group as set forth.
None of the documents teaches individually or in combination or suggest the recited method of manufacturing a heat dissipation sheet, comprising: arranging a pair of PI films to be spaced apart by a predetermined distance in a horizontal direction; forming a pair of PI film laminates by laminating a plurality of PI films on the pair of PI films, respectively; drying the pair of PI film laminates, followed by carbonization and graphitization; disposing a first release film having a metal thin film formed on a predetermined region on one surface of the upper surface of the pair of PI film laminates; attaching a second release film having a double-sided tape formed thereon to a lower surface of one of the pair of PI film laminates; firstly rolling an upper surface of the first release film and a lower surface of the second release film by a pair of rolling rollers; removing the first release film and the second release film from the pair of PI film laminates, respectively; folding the pair of PI film laminates based on points spaced apart by a predetermined distance; and manufacturing a heat dissipation sheet made of a multi-layered PI film laminate by performing secondary rolling on the upper and lower surfaces of the folded PI film laminate with the pair of rolling rollers. Therefore, the instant claims are distinguished over the prior art.
Examiner Information
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571) 270-3449. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9.00 A.M. -7 P.M..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. 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.
/Bijan Ahvazi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
01/17/2025
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov