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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on June 23rd, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: both claims have a repetition with "polymer polymer". Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lofgreen et al. (US 20200098661 A1) in view of Shimobe et al. (US 20150194376 A1).
Regarding claim 1, FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 of Lofgreen et al. teach a thermal interface material (140; FIG. 1B; paragraph 0040), comprising:
a low melting point gallium alloy (140; FIG. 1B; paragraph 0040).
Lofgreen et al. does not teach the material comprising a mercapto group-containing silicone oil.
Shimobe et al. teaches a potential combination including mercapto silane and silicone oil (paragraph 0086).
Lofgreen et al. and Shimobe et al. are both analogous to the claimed invention in that they involve thermal interfaces. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lofgreen et al. to have a mercapto group-containing silicone oil. This a known material used in thermosetting resin compositions (paragraph 0086).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lofgreen et al. in view of Shimobe et al. teaches the thermal interface material of claim 1. Lofgreen et al. does not teach the material wherein the low melting point gallium alloy comprises from 80 wt. % to 97 wt. % of the total weight of the thermal interface material. However, Lofgreen et al. does teach the gallium comprising 68.5% of the TIM (140; FIG. 1B; paragraph 0040). The ordinary artisan would have recognized the gallium composition to be a result effective variable affecting the phase of the interface (paragraph 0040). Thus, it would have been obvious to set the gallium alloy composition within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lofgreen et al. in view of Shimobe et al. teaches the thermal interface material of claim 1. Neither Lofgreen et al. nor Shimobe et al. teach the material wherein the mercapto-group containing silicone oil comprises from 0.1 wt. % to 3 wt. % of the total weight of the thermal interface material. However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the silicone oil composition to be a result effective variable affecting the composition of additives within the material (paragraph 0055). Thus, it would have been obvious to set the silicone oil composition within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B.
Claims 2, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lofgreen et al. in view of Shimobe et al. and further in view of Czubarow et al. (US 20050072334 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lofgreen et al. in view of Shimobe et al. teaches the thermal interface material of claim 1. Lofgreen does not teach the material further comprising:
an emulsifying compound;
at least one polymer;
a thermally conductive powder; and
a coupling compound.
Shimobe et al. teaches additives such as silane coupling agents (paragraph 0086). Shimobe et al. does not teach the material further comprising:
an emulsifying compound;
at least one polymer; and
a thermally conductive powder.
Czubarow et al. teaches a thermal interface material containing a polymer component (paragraph 0026), a surfactant (paragraph 0028), and a powder that can be used as a conductive filler (paragraph 0029).
Lofgreen et al., Shimobe et al., and Czubarow et al. are all analogous to the claimed invention in that they involve thermal interfaces. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lofgreen et al. to have a coupling compound. Coupling compounds are known materials used in thermosetting resin compositions (Czubarow et al., paragraph 0086) with the others being known components of thermal interface materials (Czubarow et al., paragraph 0026, paragraph 0028, paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of the combination of Lofgreen et al. in view of Shimobe et al. and further in view of Czubarow et al. teaches the thermal interface material of claim 2. Neither Lofgreen et al. nor Shimobe et al. teach the material wherein the thermally conductive powder comprises a metal-nitride compound and the thermally conductive powder comprises from 0 wt. % to 10 wt. % of the total weight of the thermal interface material.
Czubarow et al. teaches a thermally conductive filler may be boron nitride (paragraph 0029) and make up 10% and 80% of the interface material by weight (paragraph 0030).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lofgreen et al. to have the thermally conductive powder comprise a metal-nitride compound and the thermally conductive powder comprise from 0 wt. % to 10 wt. % of the total weight of the thermal interface material. These are known aspects of these conductive materials (paragraph 0029, paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of the combination of Lofgreen et al. in view of Shimobe et al. and further in view of Czubarow et al. teaches the thermal interface material of claim 2. Lofgreen et al. does not teach the material wherein the coupling compound comprises a silane and the coupling compound comprises from 0 wt. % to 0.45 wt. % of the total weight of the thermal interface material.
Shimobe et al. teaches coupling agents including silane compounds (paragraph 0086). Shimobe et al. does not teach the material wherein the coupling compound comprises from 0 wt. % to 0.45 wt. % of the total weight of the thermal interface material. However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the coupling compound composition to be a result effective variable affecting the composition of additives within the material (paragraph 005). Thus, it would have been obvious to set the silicone oil composition within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B.
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lofgreen et al. to have the coupling compound comprise a silane and the coupling compound comprise from 0 wt. % to 0.45 wt. % of the total weight of the thermal interface material. These are known aspects of thermosetting resin compositions (paragraph 0086).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lofgreen et al. in view of Shimobe et al. and Czubarow et al. and further in view of Zheng et al. (US 20170018481 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of the combination of Lofgreen et al. in view of Shimobe et al. and further in view of Czubarow et al. teaches the thermal interface material of claim 2. Neither Lofgreen et al. nor Shimobe et al. nor Czubarow et al. teach the material wherein the at least one polymer comprises a first polymer and a second polymer, the first polymer comprising a silicon-based polymer polymer and the second polymer comprising a diol-modified polymer.
FIG. 1B of Zeng et al. teaches a TIM (10; FIG. 1B; paragraph 0037) comprising one or more polymers that can be made of silicone material (paragraph 0042) or diols (paragraph 0042).
Lofgreen et al., Shimobe et al., Czubarow et al., and Zeng et al. are all analogous to the claimed invention in that they involve thermal interfaces. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lofgreen et al. to have the at least one polymer comprise a first polymer and a second polymer, the first polymer comprising a silicon-based polymer and the second polymer comprising a diol-modified polymer. These are known materials used in polymers (paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of the combination of Lofgreen et al. in view of Shimobe et al. and Czubarow et al. and further in view of Zeng et al. teaches the thermal interface material of claim 2. Neither Lofgreen et al. nor Shimobe et al. nor Czubarow et al. nor Zeng et al. teach wherein the silicone-based polymer comprises from 0 wt. % to 3 wt. % of the total weight of the thermal interface material and the diol-modified polymer comprises from 0 wt. % to 3 wt. % of the total weight of the thermal interface material.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the polymer composition to be a result effective variable affecting the composition of the thermal interface material (paragraph 0042). Thus, it would have been obvious to set the silicone-based polymer composition and the diol-modified polymer composition within the claimed ranges, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lofgreen et al. in view of Shimobe et al. and Czubarow et al. and further in view of Tsai et al. (US 4821794 A).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of the combination of Lofgreen et al. in view of Shimobe et al. and further in view of Czubarow et al. teaches the thermal interface material of claim 2. Neither Lofgreen et al. nor Shimobe et al. teach the material wherein the emulsifying compound comprises a trioleate and the emulsifying compound comprises between 0 wt. % to 1.5 wt. % of the total weight of the thermal interface material.
Czubarow teaches the surfactant comprising between 1% and 50% of the thermal interface material’s weight (paragraph 0026). Czubarow et al. does not teach the emulsifying compound comprising a trioleate.
Tsai et al. teaches surfactants include sorbitan trioleate that are used for emulsion (column 6, lines 46-53).
Lofgreen et al., Shimobe et al., Czubarow et al., and Tsai et al. are both analogous to the claimed invention in that they involve chemicals for thermal devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lofgreen et al. to have the emulsifying compound comprise a trioleate and the emulsifying compound comprise between 0 wt. % to 1.5 wt. % of the total weight of the thermal interface material. These are known aspects for surfactant (Tsai et al., column 6, lines 46-53) and thermal interface materials (paragraph 0026).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lofgreen et al. in view of Shimobe et al. teaches the thermal interface material of claim 1. Neither Lofgreen et al. nor Shimobe et al. teach the material wherein the mercapto-group containing silicone oil comprises:
a polymeric mercapto group-containing thiol;
an acrylic-containing silicone oil; and
a photoinitiator.
Akaike et al. (US 20180286829 A1) teaches a surface-treating agent using a mercapto group with dodecane thiol. Akaike et al. does not teach a silicone oil comprising:
a polymeric mercapto group-containing thiol;
an acrylic-containing silicone oil; and
a photoinitiator.
Jayaraman et al. (US 20070155047 A1) teaches defoaming agents including silicones and acrylic polymers and various silicone oils (paragraph 0109). Jayaraman et al. does not teach a silicone oil comprising:
a polymeric mercapto group-containing thiol; and
a photoinitiator.
Boday et al. teaches a flexible-to-rigid tube with a silicone containing material and a photoinitiator (paragraph 0061). Boday et al. does not teach a silicone oil comprising:
a polymeric mercapto group-containing thiol; and
a photoinitiator.
None of the located prior art teaches these limitations. Therefore, it would be improper in hindsight to modify Lofgreen et al. to have the mercapto-group containing silicone oil comprise a polymeric mercapto group-containing thiol and a photoinitiator.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 5 and thus allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Baskarn (US 20060220198 A1) concerns a packaged integrated circuit that makes use of low melting point gallium alloy to form an electrically conductive liquid. Ichikawa et al. (US 20090246915 A1) concerns an adhesive composition for a semiconductor device that includes a silicone compound with a mercapto group..
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB A VLCEK whose telephone number is (571)272-9665. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00 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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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.
/J.A.V./ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights