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. Claims 1-18 are currently pending and under examination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 1. Claims 1 -3 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saga (JP 2015044953 A, hereinafter Saga). Regarding claim 1 , the preamble term “ thermal interface ” is an intended use and does not add structural difference, thus the intended use is extended little patentable weight. See MPEP § 2112.02. Saga teaches a polymer composition has good thermal conductivity and good volumetric resistivity (i.e., electrical insulation) ([0007]) , and the polymer composition is used as a housing for electrical and electronic devices to dissipate heat ([0006]). Saga teaches that the polymer composition compris es (a) a polymer , and (b) coated carbon particles ([0007], claim 1). The polymer reads on the claimed resin. Saga teaches that "coated carbon particles" means at least part or all of the outer surface of the carbon particles is coated with a co ating material ([0014]) , the co ating material is metal such as a metal oxide ([0038]), which reads on the claimed carbon-based material having a surface coated with an inorganic substance . Regarding claim s 2 and 3 , Saga teaches that component (b) coated carbon particles include both coated flake carbon particles and coated fibrous carbon particles ([0034] ; [0074], [0076], Table 5, Example E8 ). Saga teaches that the coated flake carbon particles have an aspect ratio of less than 2 ([0035]), which reads on the claimed first carbon-based material (B1). Saga also teaches that the coated fibrous carbon particles have an aspect ratio of from 3 to 15 ([0036]), which falls within the claimed range of “ equal to or greater than 3 and equal to or less than 1200 ”, and reads on the claimed second carbon-based material (B2) , and reads on the claimed aspect ratio of the second carbon-based material (B2) being larger than an aspect ratio of the first carbon-based material (B1). Regarding claim s 7-13 , Saga teaches that Table 5 show s the volumetric concentrations of each component used to prepare the polymer composition ([0065]) . Saga teaches that Example E8 in Table 5 comprises a coated graphite particle in a plate shape ( i.e. the coated flake carbon particles ; the claimed first carbon-based material (B1) ) with an amount of 13 vol.%, and a coated carbon fiber ( i.e. the coated fibrous carbon particles ; the claimed second carbon-based material (B2) ) with an amount of 12 vol.% based on the total amount of the polymer composition ([0074], [0076], Table 5), which fall within the claimed ranges of “ equal to or greater than 1% by volume and equal to or less than 90% by volume ” and “ equal to or greater than 0.1% by volume and equal to or less than 30% by volume ”, and reads on the claimed proportion of the first carbon-based material (B1) to a total of the thermal interface composition being larger than proportion of the second carbon-based material (B2) to the total of the thermal interface composition. Regarding claim 14 , Saga teaches that component (a) the polymer is an epoxy polymer ([0025]). 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. 2. Claims 1 -18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe ( US 2017 / 0345734 A1 , hereinafter Watanabe ) in view of Ota ( JP 2015178543 A , hereinafter Ota). Regarding claim s 1 -6 , the preamble term “thermal interface” is an intended use and does not add structural difference, thus the intended use is extended little patentable weight. See MPEP § 2112.02. Watanabe teaches a thermally conductive sheet has good flexibility and thermal conductivity , and the thermally conductive sheet is arranged and used between a heat-generating body and a heat-dissipating body in order to enhance the efficiency of the heat transfer ([0001], [0031]). Watanabe teaches that the thermally conductive sheet compris es a sheet-like formed body produced by curing a mixed composition , wherein the mixed composition comprises an uncured polymer matrix, a flat graphite powder, and a thermally conductive filler having an aspect ratio of 2 or less ([0035], claim 1). Thus, the mixed composition of Watanabe reads on the claimed composition. The uncured polymer matrix of Watanabe reads on the claimed resin (A). Watanabe also teaches that the flat graphite powder has an aspect ratio of more than 2 ([0042]), such as an aspect ratio of about 2 to about 24 ([0085]), which overlaps with the claimed range of “ equal to or greater than 3 and equal to or less than 1200 ”. The flat graphite powder of Watanabe reads on the claimed second carbon-based material (B2) being a plate graphite . Watanabe also teaches that the thermally conductive filler can be spherical graphite ([0052]), and the thermally conductive filler has an aspect ratio of 2 or less ([0053]), which reads on the claimed first carbon-based material (B1) , and reads on the claimed aspect ratio of the second carbon-based material (B2) being larger than an aspect ratio of the first carbon-based material (B1). The combination of the flat graphite powder and the thermally conductive filler that is spherical graphite as taught by Watanabe reads on the claimed carbon-based material (B) . Watanabe does not teach that the flat graphite powder and the spherical graphite are surface coated with an inorganic substance . However, Ota teaches that a highly thermally conductive inorganic filler composite particle is produced by coating magnesium carbonate to the surface of graphite ([0016]) , which reads on the claimed carbon-based material having a surface coated with an inorganic substance . Ota also teaches that t he shape of the graphite is not limited, and any shape such as plate graphite can be used ([0020]). Ota further teaches that the highly thermally conductive inorganic filler composite particle produced by coating magnesium carbonate to the surface of graphite has high thermal conductivity and good insulating property ([0005], [0023]), and the highly thermally conductive inorganic filler composite particle is used as an inorganic filler for a heat dissipation component such as a heat dissipation sheet in order to efficiently dissipate the heat generated from electronic components ([0014] , [0002] ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the flat graphite powder and the spherical graphite as taught by Watanabe being surface coated with magnesium carbonate as taught by Ota, in order to obtain high thermal conductivity and good insulating property with a reasonable expectation of success, because the inorganic filler composite particle produced by coating magnesium carbonate to the surface of graphite has high thermal conductivity and good insulating property as recognized by Ota. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claims 7 -1 3 , Watanabe teaches that t he flat graphite powder ( the claimed second carbon-based material (B2) ) is in an amount of 75 to 135 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the uncured polymer matrix ([0050]), t he thermally conductive filler such as spherical graphite ( the claimed first carbon-based material (B1) ) is in an amount of 250 to 700 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the uncured polymer matrix ([0055]); w hen the amounts added are converted into percent by volume, the flat graphite powder corresponds to about 10% to 28% by volume, and the thermally conductive filler corresponds to about 28% to 60% by volume, with respect to about 30% to 50% by volume of the uncured polymer matrix ([0057]). Thus, the flat graphite powder ( the claimed second carbon-based material (B2) ) of Watanabe can be in an amount of about 10% to 28% by volume based on the total amount of the mixed composition , t he thermally conductive filler such as spherical graphite ( the claimed first carbon-based material (B1) ) of Watanabe can be in an amount of about 28% to 60% by volume based on the total amount of the mixed composition , which fall within the claimed ranges of “ equal to or greater than 0.1% by volume and equal to or less than 30% by volume ” and “ equal to or greater than 1% by volume and equal to or less than 90% by volume ”, and read on the claimed proportion of the first carbon-based material (B1) to a total of the thermal interface composition being larger than proportion of the second carbon-based material (B2) to the total of the thermal interface composition. Regarding claims 14-17 , Watanabe teaches that the uncured polymer matrix ( the claimed resin (A) ) contains a silicone polymer ([0012], claim 2). Regarding claim 1 8 , Watanabe teaches that the mixed composition ( the claimed composition ) is cured, then molded to form a thermally conductive sheet ([0061]-[0063]), which reads on the claimed thermal interface material formed by molding the thermal interface composition into a sheet shape. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIAJIA JANIE CAI whose telephone number is 571-270-0951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 571-272-2817. 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. /JIAJIA JANIE CAI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1761 /MATTHEW R DIAZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761