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 .
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.
Claims 100, 101, 106, 110 and 128 - 130 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Matabayas, Jr. (US 2005/0061496) as evidenced by Solder Alloys by Indium Corporation, https://www.indium.com/products/alloys/solder-alloys/
Matabayas, Jr. is directed to a thermal interface material (Abstract).
As to claim 100, Matabayas, Jr. teaches an interface material having aligned
carbon nanotubes in the thermal interface material [0019]. The carbon nanotubes may be combined with one or more other materials [0020]. Matabayas, Jr. teach thermally conductive or other filler materials may also be combined 404 with the carbon nanotubes and the prepared clay to form the combined material in some embodiments. Thermally conductive fillers may help improve the thermal conductivity of the combined, aligned material by improving the heat transfer along carbon nanotube paths that have gaps. The conductive fillers may improve the thermal conductivity of the gaps 320. Matabayas, Jr. teach fillers such as solders such as indium and others [0037]. The Examiner submits that the carbon nanotubes would be more thermally conductive than the metal as the prior art teaches the same combination of materials for the discontinuous fibers and metal.
As to claim 101, Matabayas, Jr. additionally teaches tin solder (Matabayas, Jr. ,claim 7).
As to claim 106, Matabayas, Jr. teaches tin solder (Matabayas, Jr. ,claim 7). The limitation of the metal is “contained within a conductive medium” is met by solder itself as solder would be its own medium. Applicant does not provide details as to the nature of the medium or any other parameters other that the “medium” is conductive; solder is conductive.
As to claim 110, Matabayas, Jr. teach the use of solders such as indium [0037] as discussed above. As evidenced by Solder Alloys by Indium Corporation, indium solder has a range of liquidus/solidus temperatures from 118 – 310 degrees C depending on the content of indium in the composition (see Indium chart).
As to claim 128, Matabayas, Jr. teach that the thermal interface material can have a thermal conductivity of greater than 100W/mK [0021].
As to claims 129 and 130, Matabayas, Jr. teach the thermal interface layer along with a heat source and a heat receiver [0022-0023]. As the thermal interface layer serves as a mechanism to move heat from a heat source to a heat receiver, the layer would exhibit claimed anisotropic heat conductivity.
Claims 100, 106, 107, 108, 109, 116 – 117, 123 and 127 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kruckenber et al. (EP 2,013,408) (cited on IDS dated 10/19/2023).
Kruckenber et al. is directed to carbon based composites for aircraft engines
[0008].
As to claims 100 and 127, Kruckenber et al. teach yarns or tows that be processed into a unidirectional material to form a composite structure [0011]. Kruckenber et al. teach that the carbon fibers can be treated with nanoreinforcement materials that can be added to a liquid solution containing solvent, adhesive or fiber sizing [0010]. The nanofibers or carbon nanotubes may be aligned in the direction of the micron-sized carbon fibers. This reads on at least 30% and at least 50% volume alignment as all fibers/nanotubes are aligned in Kruckenber et al. The carbon nanotubes or nanofibers may be coated with metals or functionalized for further modification [0010]. Kruckenber et al. teach that the carbon nanotubes can be coated with metals, such as silver, using techniques known in the art [0045]. Examiner submits that the carbon fiber tows/nanotubes would be more thermally conductive than the metal as the prior art teaches the same combination of materials for the discontinuous fibers and metal.
As to claims 106, 107, 108 and 123, Kruckenber et al. teach above that the carbon nanotubes are coated with metals which would meet the limitation of “at least some of the metal is interspersed with the plurality of discontinuous fibers”, “at least some of the metal covers a first side of the substrate” and “at least 30% of the lengths of discontinuous fibers are in contact with the metal”. It should be noted that the claims do not preclude partial coating thus the presence of the metal on the fibers and within the substrate meet the claim limitations. The limitation of the metal is “contained within a conductive medium” is met by the metal itself as the metal itself would be its own medium. Applicant does not provide details as to the nature of the medium or any other parameters other that the “medium” is conductive; metal is conductive.
As to claim 109, Kruckenber et al. teach that electroless plating provides a metal coating layer roughly about 10 to 20 nm in thickness [0048] which meets the limitation of “at least some of the metal surrounds the plurality of discontinuous fibers”.
As to claims 116 and 117, Kruckenber et al. teach that the carbon fibers contain at least 90% by carbon [0027] and have a high modulus which is at least 200 GPa [0029].
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.
Claims 102 – 105, 110 and 112 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matabayas, Jr. (US 2005/0061496) (cited on IDS dated 12/14/23) as evidenced by Solder Alloys by Indium Corporation, https://www.indium.com/products/alloys/solder-alloys/ in view of Lewis et al. (US 7,663,242).
Matabayas, Jr. teach the claimed invention above but fail to teach a transition metal rich solder alloy as required by claim 102, the solder comprises an oxide coated liquid metal as required by claim 103, the solder comprises an oxide coated liquid metal transition metal rich solder alloy as required by claim 104, the metal comprises a thermal chemical vapor deposited metal as required by claim 105, the metal has a melting temperature of no more than 265 C as required by claim 110 and the metal comprises nickel as required by claim 112.
Lewis et al. is directed to a thermal interface material for bonding components of electronic devices (column 2, lines 8 – 19). Lewis et al. teach that the thermal interface material comprises a solder component comprising a bonding component selected from the group consisting of In, Cu, Au, Sn, Pb, Sb, Ag and alloys and mixtures there of (column 2, lines 19 – 43). The solder melts at a temperature less than about 300 degrees C (column 3, lines 38 – 55). Lewis et al. teach additionally a CTE modifying component which minimize the impact of the CTE mismatch in an electronic package (column 4, lines 38 – 55). In a preferred embodiment, low expansion iron-nickel alloys such as KOVAR or INVAR are useful (column 4, lines 55 – 68) because they have a very low CTE, are readily wetted by and incorporated into the solder alloy, have a relatively high thermal conductivity and have a relative high ductility which makes them amenable to post-alloying processing (column 5, lines 5 – 15). In one embodiment, the CTE modifies can be pre-wet with solder to ensuring bonding the bonding component during reflow. In particular, the certain additives may be coated with a thin layer of solder by an appropriate method such as plating, thermal spraying, vacuum deposition or reducing processing (column 5, lines 30 – 45).
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to use solder, in particular the above disclosed solder components along with a low expansion iron-nickel alloy as disclosed by Lewis et al. as the metal component in Matabayas, Jr. in order to create a thermal interface material with good bonding, relatively high thermal conductivity and ductility.
Additionally, regarding claim 105, Lewis et al. teach using appropriate method such as plating, thermal spraying, vacuum deposition or reducing processing (column 5, lines 30 – 45). Lewis et al. do not specifically teach thermal chemical vapor deposited metal. The method of applying the metal is not germane to the claimed composition. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to select thermal chemical vapor depositing to apply the metal as simple substitution of one method over another would have a predictable result. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). In the instant case, the metal solder for thermal interface materials would predictably have good bonding, relatively high thermal conductivity and ductility.
Claim 115 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matabayas, Jr. (US 2005/0061496) (cited on IDS dated 12/14/23) as evidenced by Solder Alloys by Indium Corporation, https://www.indium.com/products/alloys/solder-alloys/ in view of Ramakrishna et al. (US 2017/0135227).
Matabayas, Jr. teach the claimed invention, in particular, the use of metal solder above but fail to teach solder flux in contact with the metal.
Ramakrishna et al. is directed to engineered residue solder paste technology (Title) where the solder joint exhibits improved mechanical and/or thermo-mechanical properties [0001] such as increased strength, increased reliability and increased resistance to thermal cycling [0013]. Ramakrishna et al. teach that the presence of flux along with the solder allows one to optimize and improve mechanical and/or thermomechanical properties, see examples [0198-0220].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include solder flux as taught by Ramakrishna et al. with the solder of Matabayas, Jr. motivated by the desire to create a substrate with increased strength, increased reliability and increased resistance to thermal cycling (Ramakrishna et al., [0013]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A BOYD whose telephone number is (571)272-7783. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm with alternating Fridays off.
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, Sri Kumar can be reached at (571) 272-7769. 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.
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786