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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS has been consider after it was pointed out that the Transmittal is identical to the IDS filed on 11/15/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Klug (US2002/0160197 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Klug discloses a method for making a graphite sheet material (abstract) comprising: blending an exfoliated graphite material [0035, 0041] to reduce the particle size thereof (implicit that a blender reduces the particle size); and form a graphite particulate material; and compacting said graphite particulate material to make a compacted graphite material [0010].
Regarding claim 4, Klug discloses wherein said exfoliated graphite material comprises exfoliated flakes [0028, 0008].
Regarding claim 9, Klug discloses wherein said method further comprises embossing an at least one major surface of said compacted graphite material to form a patterned compacted graphite material [0017].
Regarding claim 10, Klug discloses wherein embossing said at least one major surface of said compacted graphite material increases the through-plane thermal conductivity of said compacted graphite material [0044-0045].
Regarding claim 11, Klug discloses embossing said at least one major surface of said compacted graphite material comprises using at least one patterned reciprocating platen press or die press to emboss said at least one major surface of said compacted graphite material to form said patterned compacted graphite material [0049].
Regarding claim 12, Klug discloses wherein embossing said at least one major surface of said compacted graphite material comprises using roller embossing apparatus to emboss said at least one major surface of said compacted graphite material to form said patterned compacted graphite material [0049, 0051].
Regarding claim 13, Klug teaches further comprising compressing said patterned compacted graphite material to flatten said at least one major surface [0010].
Regarding claim 14, Klug teaches wherein compacting said graphite particulate material to make said compacted graphite material comprises simultaneously embossing said graphite particulate material so an at least one major surface of said compacted graphite material is patterned [0017].
Regarding claim 15, Klug teaches comprising compressing said compacted graphite material to flatten said at least one major surface [0010].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 8 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klug (US2002/0160197 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Klug teaches wherein compacting said graphite particulate material to make said compacted graphite material comprises compressing said graphite particulate material in a die cavity [0009]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand molding under pressure would be obvious to modify the surface/cavity to match desired shaped so that the rolling pressing can happen on a die cavity shaping the material. MPEP 2144.05 states It has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 16, Klug teaches wherein compacting said graphite particulate material in said die cavity to make said compacted graphite material comprises using a patterned die press so that an at least one major surface of said compacted graphite material is patterned [0017].
Regarding claim 17, Klug teaches comprises flexible graphite sheet [0017], but doesn’t explicitly disclose the through-plane to in- plane thermal conductivity ratio of said graphite sheet material is lower than the through-plane to in-plane thermal conductivity ratio of said flexible graphite sheet. However, Klug discloses the thermal anisotropy can be controlled in order to provide desired heat dissipation capability [0015]. MPEP 2144.05 discloses In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the through-plane to in- plane thermal conductivity ratio of said graphite sheet material is lower than the through-plane to in-plane thermal conductivity ratio of said flexible graphite sheet based on the desired heat dissipation capability.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klug (US2002/0160197 A1) in view of Ko (US2008/0171194 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Klug doesn’t explicitly disclose graphite particular material is powder. However analogous art, Ko, discloses carbonaceous component is generally in the form of a powder [0013]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated powdered material since it is conventionally well known. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 6, Klug teaches wherein said exfoliated graphite material comprises exfoliated graphite flakes and blending said exfoliated graphite material comprises chopping up said exfoliated graphite material using an industrial blender (V-shaped blender is industrial) [0038].
Klug doesn’t explicitly disclose graphite particular material is powder. However analogous art, Ko, discloses carbonaceous component is generally in the form of a powder [0013]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated powdered material since it is conventionally well known. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 7, Klug teaches wherein said exfoliated graphite material comprises exfoliated graphite flakes [0035, 0041], and blending said exfoliated graphite material comprises chopping up said exfoliated graphite material using an industrial blender (V-shaped blender is industrial) [0038].
Klug doesn’t explicitly disclose graphite particular material is powder. However analogous art, Ko, discloses carbonaceous component is generally in the form of a powder [0013]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated powdered material since it is conventionally well known. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klug (US2002/0160197 A1) in view of Kenna (US 2017/0006736 A1).
Regarding claims 18-20, Klug does not explicitly disclose wherein the through-plane thermal conductivity of said graphite sheet material exceeds 20 W/mK; wherein the through-plane thermal conductivity of said graphite sheet material is in the range of 20 W/mK to 30 W/mK; said graphite sheet material exceeds 40 W/mK. Analogous graphite sheet material art, Kenna, discloses with a through-plane conductivities of 20 W/mK to 30 W/mK and higher have been obtained by compressing exfoliated graphite and reducing the size of the graphite particles or flakes and/or by randomizing their orientation prior to compression [0074]. MPEP 2144.05 states overlapping range is a prima facie evidence of obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a range of 20-30 W/mK and higher than 40 W/mK for the benefit of spreading heat laterally [0071].
Regarding claim 21, Klug does not explicitly disclose wherein the thickness of said graphite sheet material is in the range of 100-200 microns. Analogous graphite sheet material art, Kenna, discloses the thickness of said graphite sheet material is in the range of 100-200 microns [0076]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the resulting flexible graphite material in 100-200 microns for the benefit of spreading heat laterally [0071].
Regarding claim 22, Klug does not explicitly disclose wherein the thickness of said graphite sheet material is in the range of 100-200 microns and wherein the through-plane thermal conductivity of said graphite sheet material exceeds 20 W/mK. Analogous graphite sheet material art, Kenna, discloses with a through-plane conductivities of 20 W/mK to 30 W/mK and higher have been obtained by compressing exfoliated graphite and reducing the size of the graphite particles or flakes and/or by randomizing their orientation prior to compression [0074]. Kenna further discloses the thickness of said graphite sheet material is in the range of 100-200 microns [0076]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a range higher than 20 W/mK and the resulting flexible graphite material in 100-200 microns for the benefit of spreading heat laterally [0071].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that it is not implicit for a blender to reduce the particle size of the exfoliated graphite material and that the term blending can have different meanings and further states the prior art, Klug, does not disclose blending in terms of reducing the particle size as mentioned in claim 3. Applicant then points to [0023-0026] to describe blending exfoliated graphite to form a powder and [0159] refers to a suitable quantity of blended graphite (in powder form after blending).
Examiner disagrees. 1.) In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., powder from) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
2.) Further Examiner has included a supporting evidence (under NPL) that discloses V-shaped blenders (Klug discloses the use of V-shaped blenders [0038]) to decrease the size of materials (under Benefits of V shaped blender). Also given the broad limitation, even a 0.01% reduction in size due to the V-shaped blender would read on the claim limitation. Therefore unless applicant specifically points out the process in which the graphite material is reduced in particle size or by how much the particle size is reduced, the current prior art reads on the claim language due to its broad language.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is 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 FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754