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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/20/2026 has been entered.
Currently, claim 2 is cancelled, claims 14-15 have been added, claims 1 and 3-15 are pending and claims 3-5, 10 and 12-13 are withdrawn.
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, 6-9, 11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe Kotaro et al. (JP 2017135227 hereinafter “Watanabe”) in view of Kokubo et al. (US Publication No.: 2014/0054023 hereinafter “Kokubo”).
With respect to claims 1 and 14-15, Watanabe discloses a thermal conductor (Figs. 5-6) comprising: a thermal-conduction portion including a surface comprising metal (Fig. 5, top surface of 2 and para 0015 of translation made of metal such as copper or aluminum); and a protrusion extending from the thermal-conduction portion (Figs. 5-6, protrusion 3 extends from 2), wherein the protrusion includes a core made of a metal bulk body (Figs. 5-6, core 3 and para 0015 made from metal), and a first metal fiber structure fusion-bonded around the core (Figs. 5-6, metal fiber 4 is around 3 and Para 0015 and 0017 explains 4 is a porous bod).
Watanabe does not disclose one end of the protrusion attached to the surface of the thermal conduction portion via a fusion bond (per claims 1 and 14) or an adhesive containing a metal paste (per claims 1 and 15), and wherein the core is separated by the first metal fiber structure from the thermal-conduction portion (per claim 1).
Kokubo teaches protrusions attached to a metal plate by an adhesive that separates a core from a thermal-conduction portion (Fig. 8a-8b, protrusion is attached to thermal-conduction portion 81 by adhesive 85) or by fusion bonding that separates a core from a thermal-conduction portion (Figs. 6a-6c, brazing material 82 is between the protrusion 92 and thermal-conduction portion 81). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have attached the protrusions of Watanabe to a thermal-conduction portion by an adhesive or thermal bonding creating a metal fiber structure between the protrusion and the thermal-conduction portion as taught by Kokubo for ease of manufacturing and better joining conditions (Para 0046-0054).
It is noted that claims 1 and 14-15 contains a product by process limitation (i.e. attached via a fusion bond or adhesive) and that the product by process limitation does not limit the claim to recite the step, just the structure obtained by performing the step. Further, in product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With respect to claim 6, Watanabe and Kokubo teach the thermal conductor according to claim 1 as discussed above. Watanabe also discloses wherein a ratio of a contact area of the first metal fiber structure to an area of an outer peripheral surface of the core at a joining interface between the core and the first metal fiber structure of the protrusion is 20% to 80% (Para 0018 it can be from 40%-90%).
With respect to claim 7, Watanabe and Kokubo teach the thermal conductor according to claim 1 as discussed above. Watanabe also discloses wherein a space factor of metal fibers in the first metal fiber structure is 30% to 80% (Para 0023-0025).
With respect to claim 8, Watanabe and Kokubo teach the thermal conductor according to claim 1 as discussed above. Watanabe also discloses wherein a presence ratio of metal fibers in a cross-section of the first metal fiber structure is 30% to 80% (Para 0025).
With respect to claim 9, Watanabe and Kokubo teach the thermal conductor according to claim 2 as discussed above. Watanabe also discloses wherein a space factor of the first metal fiber structure at a joining interface between a surface of the thermal-conduction portion and the protrusion is 40% to 80% (Para 0023-0025).
With respect to claim 11, Watanabe and Kokubo teach the thermal conductor according to claim 1 as discussed above. Watanabe also discloses wherein the protrusion has a rod shape (Figs. 5-6, 3 and 4 is a rod shape) or a plate shape (Figs. 1-2, 3 and 4 are plate shaped).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 14-15 have been considered but are moot because the reference Kokubo teaches the newly added claim limitations and the product by process limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE E ROJOHN III whose telephone number is (571)270-5431. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571)272-1184. 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.
/CLAIRE E ROJOHN III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights