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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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) 1 – 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albaugh (US 2014/0302333 A1) in view of Sun (US 2017/0067701 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Albaugh (US 2014/0302333 A1) discloses a printed circuit board (PCB) (Fig 4) comprising open circuitry (e.g. lower 38; [0022-0023] “traces”) and comprising a deposited material (e.g. upper 38; [0006,0012,0019,0026]) over at least one area of the PCB (12), the deposited material comprising at least a thermally-conductive material ([0022-0023] “thick film traces”, “heat spreader”) to provide at least one thermal conductive trace ([0022-0023] “heat spreader”) by the thermally-conductive material ([0022-0023]) being over an electrically-insulating material (42; [0022-0023] “dielectric”) of the deposited material, wherein the at least one thermal conductive trace (e.g. upper 38) comprises a first portion (annotated FIRST PORTION; portion of 38 deposited directly onto the surface of 12; note that the claim language has not limited this structures of this claimed portion or region) of the thermally-conductive material (38) that is devoid of the electrically-insulating material (42) thereunder and a second portion (annotated SECOND PORTION; portion of the same 38 comprising a portion deposited onto the surface of 42; note that the claim language has not limited this structures of this claimed portion or region) of the thermally-conductive material (38) positioned over the electrically-insulating material (42) that is positioned over at least one electrically-conductive feature of the open circuitry (lower 38).
Albaugh does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one thermal conductive trace is to provide heat spreading from at least one hot area of the PCB to a remote area of the PCB.
Sun (US 2017/0067701 A1) teaches of a printed circuit board (PCB) (Fig 2) comprising open circuitry (14; [0023] “such as a central processing unit (CPU), a graphic processing unit (GPU), a charging integrated circuit (charging IC), a power choke, a radio frequency power amplifier (RFPA), a power management processor (i.e., a power management integrated circuit (PMIC)”) and comprising a deposited material (100) over at least one area of the PCB (12), the deposited material ([0024]) comprising at least a thermally-conductive material ([0024] “graphite thermal conductor”) to enable at least one thermal conductive trace (100 is thermal trace or path as seen in Fig 2) by the thermally-conductive material ([0024]) and being over the open circuitry (14), wherein the at least one thermal conductive trace (100) is to provide heat spreading from at least one hot area (area or portion about 14; [0024] “heat generating component) of the PCB (12) to a remote area ([0024]; see Fig 2 showing 100 is lead from 14 towards a remote area of 12; note that this claimed area is not structurally limited nor a periphery of this area is defined) of the PCB (12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the board as disclosed by Albaugh, wherein the at least one thermal conductive trace is to provide heat spreading from at least one hot area of the PCB to a remote area of the PCB as taught by Sun, in order to provide heat dissipation, reduce temperatures, ensure normal operation of devices, reduce noises and increase efficiency (Sun, [0004-0007,0024]).
Claim states a “deposited” but “deposited” does not represent product structure but only refers to the process by which the material is formed. Thus, the Claim is a product claim that recites a process step(s) of depositing and is thus treated as a product-by-process claim. See MPEP 2113.
PNG
media_image1.png
452
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 from Albaugh (US 2014/0302333 A1)
Regarding Claim 2, Albaugh in view of Sun teaches the limitations of the preceding claim, including the thermally conductive trace.
Albaugh further discloses the PCB (Fig 4) of claim 1, wherein the thermal conductive trace (e.g. upper 38; [0024] “heat spreader”) comprises the thermally-conductive material ([0024]) along with the electrically-insulating material (42), (from a single process), over areas of the PCB (see Fig 4) that comprise the open circuitry (e.g. lower 38).
Claim states “from a single process” but “from a single process” does not represent product structure but only refers to the process by which the material is formed. Thus, the Claim is a product claim that recites a process step(s) of single processing and is thus treated as a product-by-process claim. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 3, Albaugh in view of Sun teaches the limitations of the preceding claim, including the thermally conductive trace.
Sun further teaches the PCB (Fig 2) of claim 1, wherein the remote area (see Fig 2 showing 100 is lead from 14 towards a remote area of 12; note that this claimed area is not structurally limited nor a periphery of this area is defined) and the at least one thermal conductive trace (100) are to expand a surface area of the heat spreading or are to allow heat dissipation using a heat removal system ([0024] “transmits the heat generated by the heat generating component 14 to other components having relatively lower temperature, for example other portions of the circuit board 12 located far away from the heat generating component 14, the housing 16 or other components of the electronic device 10”).
Regarding Claim 5, Albaugh in view of Sun teaches the limitations of the preceding claim, including the thermally conductive trace.
Albaugh further discloses the PCB (Fig 4) of claim 1, wherein the electrically-insulating material (38) is over at least one electrically-conductive feature (42; [0022-0024]) of the open circuitry (see Fig 4), with the thermally-conductive material ([0022-0024]) being over the electrically-insulating material (42), and wherein the thermally-conductive material (38) is printed as lines (see Fig 4 showing 38 are lines) that are thinner (height of 38 or thickness of 38 is thinner that the width of 42 in left-right direction of Fig 4) relative to at least a width (width of 42 in left-right direction of Fig 4) of the electrically-insulating material (42).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albaugh (US 2014/0302333 A1) in view of Sun (US 2017/0067701 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Chitwood (US 5,166,864).
Regarding Claim 4, Albaugh in view of Sun teaches the limitations of the preceding claim, including the thermally conductive trace.
Albaugh does not explicitly disclose the PCB of claim 1, wherein the thermal conductive trace is conformal over one or more features that include non-planar surfaces and embedded components within planar surfaces on the PCB.
Chitwood (US 5,166,864) teaches of a printed circuit board (PCB) (Fig 1-6) wherein a thermal conductive layer (38; Column 1, lines 5-10,35-45,62-66) is conformal (see Fig 1-6; Column 3, lines 2-34) over one or more features (20,22,44,46) that include non-planar surfaces and embedded components within planar surfaces on the PCB.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the board as taught by Albaugh in view of Sun, wherein the thermal conductive layer is conformal over one or more features that include non-planar surfaces and embedded components within planar surfaces on the PCB as taught by Chitwood, in order to withdraw or conduct heat, and provide a structure without the need of machining a specific shape (Chitwood, Column 1, lines 5-66), such that Albaugh in view of Sun and Chitwood teaches the thermal conductive trace is conformal over one or more features that includes non-planar surfaces and embedded components within planar surfaces on the PCB.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 2017/0067701 A1) in view of Kolb (US 2003/0155987 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ballenger (US 6,621,705 B1).
Regarding Claim 6, Sun in view of Kolb teaches the limitations of the preceding claim, including the thermally conductive trace.
Sun does not disclose the PCB of claim 1, further comprising: at least one heat sink associated with the at least one thermal conductive trace, wherein the at least one heat sink is (printed) of the thermally-conductive material and is devoid of the electrically-insulating material (in a single process).
Ballenger (US 6,621,705 B1) teaches of a PCB (Fig 5) comprising: at least one heat sink (512) associated with at least one thermal conductive trace (510), wherein the at least one heat sink (512) is (printed) of the thermally-conductive material (Column 2, line 56-Column 3, line 28; both trace and sink are formed from copper or aluminum) and is devoid of the electrically-insulating material (in a single process).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the board as taught by Sun in view of Kolb, further comprising: at least one heat sink associated with the at least one thermal conductive trace, wherein the at least one heat sink is (printed) of the thermally-conductive material and is devoid of the electrically-insulating material (in a single process) as taught by Ballenger, in order to allow heat to dissipate at a remote location, provide a direct heat transfer path, provide an effective way of dissipating heat, and increase surface area to create turbulence to the air stream (Ballenger, Column 2, line 56-Column 3, line 28, Column 3, line 65-Column 4, line 25).
Claim states a “printed” and “in the single process” but “printed” and “in a single process” does not represent product structure but only refers to the process by which the material is formed. Thus, the Claim is a product claim that recites a process step(s) of printing and single processing and is thus treated as a product-by-process claim. See MPEP 2113.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albaugh (US 2014/0302333 A1) in view of Sun (US 2017/0067701 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kolb (US 2003/0155987 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Albaugh in view of Sun teaches the limitations of the preceding claim, including the thermally conductive trace.
Albaugh does not disclose the PCB of claim 1, further comprising: an insulating polymer or non-polymer to form the electrically-insulating material and a conductive particle composite to form the thermally-conductive material.
Kolb (US 2003/0155987 A1) teaches of a PCB (Fig 17) comprising: an insulating polymer ([0071-0122]) or non-polymer ([0071-0122]) to form an electrically-insulating material (102) and a conductive particle ([0119]) composite ([0071-0122]) to form a thermally-conductive material (104).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the board as taught by Albaugh in view of Sun, further comprising: an insulating polymer or non-polymer to form the electrically-insulating material and a conductive particle composite to form the thermally-conductive material as taught by Kolb, in order to provide a conformal coating, adherence to surfaces of the circuit board and circuitry, provide protection, and effectively provide heat dissipation (Kolb, [0069-0071,0119-0125]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ROSHN K VARGHESE whose telephone number is (571)270-7975. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 900 am-300 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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at 571-272-2342. 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.
/ROSHN K VARGHESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights