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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed on September 16, 2025. Claims 1, 4-5 and 9-14 are pending.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0023960) in view of Groppel (US 7,582,706), and further in view of Lo et al. (US 2023/0249438).
Re. Cl. 1, claim 1 contains product by process limitations. It has been held that
method limitations in a product claim do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. Thus, even though a product-by-process claim is limited and defined by a process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself.
Accordingly, if the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious
from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.
Chen et al. discloses a thermally conductive board comprising: a top metal layer;
a bottom metal layer; and an electrically insulating but thermally conductive layer laminated between the top metal layer and the bottom metal layer, and comprising a polymer matrix and a thermally conductive filler dispersed in the polymer matrix [0006], wherein: the polymer matrix comprises an epoxy-based composition comprising epoxy as the main product with one or more other elements.
Chen et al. does not state the epoxy based composition consisting of epoxy and
chlorine impurities; chlorine content ranging from 80 ppm to 90 ppm, whereby the thermally conductive board has a service life ranging from 800 hours to 900 hours under a harsh environment, and wherein the harsh environment includes a high temperature of 850C, a relative humidity of 85%.
However, Groppel teaches the use of a resin composition having epoxy and
chlorine impurities, chlorine content ranging from 80 ppm to 90 ppm (Col. 4, lines 37-44), whereby the thermally conductive board has a service life ranging from 800 hours to 900 hours, wherein the harsh environment includes a high temperature of 850C, a relative humidity of 85% (Col. 2, lines 18-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen et al.’s polymer matrix epoxy-based composition with Groppel’s resin composition having epoxy and chlorine impurities; chlorine content ranging from 80 ppm to 90 ppm, whereby the thermally conductive board has a service life ranging from 800 hours to 900 hours under a harsh environment, and wherein the harsh environment includes a high temperature of 850C, a relative humidity of 85%. Doing so would provide a highly conductive thermal insulative material.
Chen’s invention as modified by Groppel, discloses all the claimed limitations
except for withstanding a DC voltage of 1kV. However, Lo et al teaches the use of a thermally conductive board comprising: a top metal layer; a bottom metal layer; and an electrically insulating but thermally conductive layer laminated between the top metal layer and the bottom metal layer, and comprising a polymer matrix and a thermally conductive filler dispersed in the polymer matrix that can withstand high temperatures and a DC voltage of 1kV.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Chen et al.’s thermally conductive board with Lo et al’s thermally conductive board that’s capable of withstanding high temperature and a DC voltage of 1kV. Doing so would an enhanced thermal conductive board capable of sustaining high temperatures and voltages for a long time and reduce corrosion.
Re. Cls. 4 and 5, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention based on Chen's disclosure to have a thermally conductive board comprising: wherein the total weight of the electrically insulating but thermally conductive layer is calculated as 100%, and the epoxy-based composition accounts for 10% to 40% and the thermally conductive filler accounts for 60% to 90% [0007, 0013]. Doing so would accommodate different cooling designs for electronic devices.
Re. Cl. 9, Chen et al., as modified by Lo et al. both disclose a thermally
conductive board comprising: wherein the thermally conductive board has an adhesion strength ranging from 1 kg/cm to 2.1 kg/cm ([0021]). Lo et al discloses a thermally conductive board comprising adhesion strength ranging from 1 kg/cm to 2.1 kg/cm ([0021])
Re. Cl. 10, Chen et al. discloses a thermally conductive board comprising:
wherein the thermally conductive filler is selected from the group consisting of zirconium nitride, boron nitride, aluminum nitride, silicon nitride, aluminum oxide, magnesium oxide, zinc oxide, silicon dioxide, titanium dioxide, and any combination thereof [0008].
Re. Cl. 11, Chen et al. discloses a thermally conductive board comprising:
wherein the electrically insulating but thermally conductive layer does not comprise a glass fiber.
Re. Cl. 12, Chen et al. as modified by Lo et al. both disclose a thermally
conductive board comprising: wherein the epoxy-based composition has a glass transition temperature (T,) of at least 130°C [0029]. Lo et al discloses the glass transition temperature ([0025])
Re. Cls. 13 and 14, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention based on Chen’s disclosure to have a thermally conductive board comprising: the top metal layer has a thickness ranging from 0.01 mm to 3 mm, and the bottom metal layer has a thickness ranging from 0.1 mm to 3 mm; and a thermally conductive board comprising: wherein the electrically insulating but thermally conductive layer has a thickness ranging from 0.03 mm to 0.3 mm. Doing so would provide a variety of alternate designs and layer thicknesses for cooling for electronic devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states, claim 1 has been amended to define and interpret the scope of the particular range of chlorine content more clearly. However, based on the rejections of Chen et al. in view of Groppel, and furthermore in view of Lo et al. the examiner believes the scope of the claimed limitations are meet.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 TERRELL L MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-4797. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 am to 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, Terrell L McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632