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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/17/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1, the limitation of “each of the plurality of carbon sheets having a first end and a second” renders the scope of the claim indefinite since it is not clear whether applicant refers “second” to “second end”.
Claims 2-16 are rejected due to its dependency to the rejected claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 5-8,11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dornauer et al. (US 20170365538A1). Regarding claim 1, Dornauer et al. discloses a heat exchanger comprising a plurality of carbon sheets, each of the plurality of carbon sheets having a first end and a second (either end of the sheet 102 is interchangeably to be a first end or second end), wherein the plurality of carbon sheets are thermally anisotropic in the direction extending from the first end to the second end (graphite sheets as claimed are inherently strongly anisotropic), and a support structure comprising one or more holding regions, wherein the plurality of carbon sheets are connected to the support structure at the one or more holding regions; wherein the plurality of carbon sheets comprises 2 or more carbon sheet stacked on each other.
Regarding claim 5, Dornauer et al. discloses that the carbon sheets are pyrolytic graphite sheets (paragraph 11)
Regarding claim 6, Dornauer et al. further discloses (paragraph 15) that each of the carbon sheets have a thickness between about 20 microns to 200 microns. (0.010mm to 3.75 mm includes claimed range 20 micron-200 micron).
Regarding claim 7, Dornauer et al. further discloses (paragraph 15) that each of the carbon sheets have a thickness between about 45 micron to 80 micron. (0.010mm to 3.75 mm includes claimed range 20 micron-200 micron).
Regarding claim 8, Dornauer et al. further discloses (figure 1) that the support structure comprises a first holding region (104) and a second holding region (106), wherein the first holding region comprises a first pressure plate (104a +104b), wherein the first end of the plurality of carbon sheets are inserted through and held in placed by the first pressure plate, wherein the second holding region comprises a second pressure plate (106a +106b), wherein the second ends of the plurality of carbon sheets are inserted through and held in place by the second pressure plate.
Regarding claim 11, Dornauer et al. further discloses (figure 1) that the first end of the plurality of carbon sheets (102), the second ends of the plurality of carbon sheets or both the first and second ends of the plurality of carbon sheets extend all of the way through the pressure plates.
Regarding claim 13, Dornauer et al. discloses (paragraph 29) a high temperature heat source (graphic processor) in thermal communication with the first ends of the plurality of carbon sheet (side with holding region 104).
Regarding claim 14, Dornauer et al. further discloses (figure 1) that the support structure comprises a first holding region (106) and a second holding region (104), wherein the first holding region comprises a first pressure plate (106a +106b), wherein the first end of the plurality of carbon sheets are inserted through and held in placed by the first pressure plate, wherein the second holding region comprises a second pressure plate (104a +104b), wherein the second ends of the plurality of carbon sheets are inserted through and held in place by the second pressure plate.
Dornauer et al. further discloses (paragraph 29) a low temperature heat source (LED in thermal communication with the second end of the plurality of carbon sheet (side with holding region 104).
Regarding claim 15, Dornauer et al. further discloses (paragraph 14) a layer of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) on at least one side of each of the plurality of carbon sheets.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kutsumizu et al. (US 20170368795A1). Regarding claim 1, Kutsumizu et al. discloses (figures 7, 20 and 25) a heat exchanger comprising a plurality of carbon sheets (1 or 213 or 222), each of the plurality of carbon sheets having a first end and a second (either fixing end, 202 of the sheet is interchangeably to be a first end or second end), wherein the plurality of carbon sheets are thermally anisotropic in the direction extending from the first end to the second end (graphite sheets as claimed are inherently strongly anisotropic, paragraph 121-124), and a support structure (204, 218) comprising one or more holding regions, wherein the plurality of carbon sheets are connected to the support structure at the one or more holding regions; wherein the plurality of carbon sheets comprises 2 or more carbon sheet stacked on each other. (paragraph 81).
Regarding claims 2-4, Kutsumizu et al further discloses (paragraph 138) that the plurality of carbon sheets comprises not less than 2 and not more than 1000 sheet, therefore the disclosure anticipates the claimed range of 10 to 100 sheets (claim 2) or 20 to 100 (claim 3) and 20 to 60 (claims 4).
Regarding claim 6, Kutsumizu et al. l. further discloses (paragraph 117) that each of the carbon sheets have a thickness between 1 to 100 microns, which overlap with the claimed range about 20 microns to 200 microns.
Regarding claim 7, Kutsumizu et al. further discloses (paragraph 117) that each of the carbon sheets have a thickness between about 1 to 100 microns, which overlaps with the claimed range 45 microns to 80 microns.
Regarding claim 8, Kutsumizu et al. . further discloses (figures 20 and 25) that the support structure comprises a first holding region (204 or 218) and a second holding region (204 or 218), wherein the first holding region comprises a first pressure plate (204 or 218), wherein the first end of the plurality of carbon sheets are inserted through and held in placed by the first pressure plate, wherein the second holding region comprises a second pressure plate (204 or 218), wherein the second ends of the plurality of carbon sheets are inserted through and held in place by the second pressure plate.
Regarding claim 11, Kutsumizu et al. further discloses (figure 25) that the first end of the plurality of carbon sheets (222), the second ends of the plurality of carbon sheets or both the first and second ends of the plurality of carbon sheets extend all of the way through the pressure plates (218).
Regarding claim 12, Kutsumizu et al further discloses (figure 17 or 25) that the first end of the plurality of carbon sheets, the second end of the plurality of carbon sheets, or both the first and second ends of the plurality of carbon sheets only extend through a portion of the pressure plates (204).
Regarding claim 13, Kutsumizu et al. discloses (figure 26) a high temperature heat source (223) in thermal communication with the first ends of the plurality of carbon sheet (side with holding region 104).
Regarding claim 14 Kutsumizu et al. further discloses (figure 26) a low temperature heat source (either 223 or 224) in thermal communication with the second end of the plurality of carbon sheet, wherein either heat source 223 or cooling source 224 is reasonably considered as the claimed limitation “ a lower temperature heat source.”
Regarding claim 15, Kutsumizu et al. further discloses (paragraph 360) a layer of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) on at least one side of each of the plurality of carbon sheets.
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 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dornauer et al. (US 20170365538A1) in view of KR 19980083852A and Lemak et al. (US 8,085, 531B2). Regarding claims 9-10, Dornauer et discloses (figure 1 and paragraph 10) that the first and second ends of the plurality of carbon sheets are held in place by the first and second pressure plates (104a,104b, 106a, 106b) using combination of mechanical fastener and adhesive bonding. Dornauer et does not disclose that the adhesive fastener is an epoxy and mechanical fastener is screw (claim 9) and silver epoxy (claim 10). KR 19980083852A discloses that silver epoxy is known to be used as a conductive adhesive, which can improve the thermal transmission between two surfaces.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use silver epoxy as an adhesive for improving the thermal conduction between the surfaces.
Lemark et al (figure 6 and column 5, lines 65- column 6, line 2) further teaches of a mechanical fastener can include a screw (12) for a purpose of securing two objects in a very close contact. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Lemark et al’s teaching in Dornauer’s device for a purpose of securing two objects in a very close contact.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dornauer et al. (US 20170365538A1) in view of Kato et al. ( CN 107148669A). Dornauer et al. substantially discloses all of applicant’s claimed invention except for the number of sheets is between 10-100 sheets. (claim 2), 20-100 sheets (claim 3) and 20-60 sheets (claims 4). However, Dornauer et al. discloses (paragraph 11) that the graphite sheet (102) can include any suitable number of sheets. Kato et al. discloses (paragraph 192) a graphite laminate can comprise from 5 to 1000 sheets for a purpose of forming an effective heat transmission body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Kato’s teaching in Dornauer’s device for a purpose of forming an effective heat transmission body.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record either taken singularly or in combination fail to disclose the invention as claimed. In particular, reference to Dornauer et al is the closest prior art but fail to disclose the plurality of carbon sheets are stacked in two or more alternating pairs, so that side of carbon sheets having the PET layer in a first pair are in contact with each other, and untreated sides of carbon sheets in a second pair are in contact with each other.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fan et al. (US 10347559B2) discloses a high thermal conductivity composite.
Bollard et al. (US 9,405,335B1) discloses a heat pipe cooling arrangement.
Kilroy et al. (US 9,271,427) discloses a flexible thermal transfer strips.
Sauer et al. (US 20150211815A1) discloses a thermal bridge element.
Koch et al. (US 2015/0096731A1) discloses a device and system for dissipating heat.
Lazarev (US 8,124,966) discloses an anisotropic film.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THO V DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4793. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 10-6PM.
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, Atkisson Jianying can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/THO V DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights