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 § 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.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mengel et al. US 2013/0001803 A1 in view of Harikrishna “Thermal conductivity‑structure‑processing relationships for amorphous nano‑porous organo‑silicate thin films” and King US 20140011014 A1.
Re claim 19, Mengel et al. teach an apparatus comprising: a first heat transfer component (212); a material (204) on a first side of the first heat transfer component,; a thermally conductive material filling porosity of the material (para 51, 31), ; and a second heat transfer component (202) bonded to the material .
Mengel et al. fail to explicitly teach material details.
Harikrishna teach wherein the cured porous organo-silicate material has an interconnected porosity (page 581),
a cured porous organo-silicate material , the interconnected porosity of the cured porous organo-silicate material (abs), wherein the thermally conductive material comprises a metal or metal oxide (3.8 section, page 581), to increase the thermal conductivity.
When combined, the instant combination teach a second heat transfer component bonded to the cured porous organo-silicate material having the filled interconnected porosity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the interconnected porosity of the cured porous organo-silicate material as taught by Harikrishna in the Mengel et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for optimal heat exchange.
Additionally, King Teach a thermally conductive material filling porosity of the material, wherein the thermally conductive material comprises a metal or metal oxide (para 41) to fill the pores.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the interconnected porosity of the cured porous organo-silicate material as taught by King in the Mengel et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for optimal heat exchange.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mengel et al. , as modified by Harikrishna and King, further in view of Lionti US 20200378001 A1.
Re claim 20, Mengel et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach overburden.
Lionti teach overburden of the thermally conductive material between the first and second heat transfer components to protect pores or organo silicate (para 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include overburden as taught by Lionti in the Mengel et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for porous material processing in electronic applications (para 5).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mengel et al. , as modified by Harikrishna and King, and Lionti US 20200378001 A1 and Lee US 20250014965 A1.
Re claim 21, Mengel et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach a finned heat sink.
Lee teach a wherein the first heat transfer component comprises a finned heat sink (120) and wherein the second heat transfer component (170) comprises a heat spreader to mount two components for spreading heat on opposites sides of a thermal transfer material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a finned heat sink as taught by Lee in the Mengel et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for providing efficient transfer of heat away from certain areas such as electronic components or other surfaces that are subject to heat.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mengel et al. , as modified by Harikrishna and King, and Lionti US 20200378001 A1 and Lee US 20250014965 A1 .
Re claim 22, Mengel et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach other thermally conductive material.
Lionti teach other thermally conductive material filling connected porosity of the other cured porous organo-silicate material to protect the pores of the material (para 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include overburden as taught by Lionti in the Mengel et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for porous material processing in electronic applications (para 5).
Mengel et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach a placement.
Lee teach wherein a first side of the second heat transfer (170) component faces the first side of the first heat transfer component (120, stacked sides face each other), further comprising: other cured porous organo-silicate material (110) on a second side of the second heat transfer component; and an additional component (150, 140) bonded to the other cured porous organo-silicate material having the filled connected porosity (noting in the instant combination , the “porous organo-silicate material” is placed in the structure of the secondary reference in place of 110, noting two 110 which represent placement of the “the porous organo-silicate material” and the “other cured porous organo-silicate material”) to mount two components for spreading heat on opposites sides of a thermal transfer material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a placement as taught by Lee in the Mengel et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for providing efficient transfer of heat away from certain areas such as electronic components or other surfaces that are subject to heat.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mengel et al. , as modified by Harikrishna and King, and OTSUKA US 20230135684 A1.
Re claim 23, Mengel et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach porosity of at least 9%.
OTSUKA teach wherein the cured porous organo-silicate material has the interconnected porosity of at least 9% to change interconnectedness of a material with voids ( Para 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include porosity of at least 9% as taught by OTSUKAin the Mengel et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for porous material alterations for different heat exchange paths (para 23).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art fail to teach the newly amended scop to the independent claim. However, the scope of the independent claim has been changed in the latest reply and therefore the examiner is now relying on Harikrishna “Thermal conductivity‑structure‑processing relationships for amorphous nano‑porous organo‑silicate thin films” and King US 20140011014 A1to teach the recited change in scope (see detailed rejection above). Therefore, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims dependent on the independent claim(s) are allowable based upon their dependence from an independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments with respect to claim(s) 19 have been addressed above. Thus, the rejections are proper and remain.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Colburn US 20130009315 A1.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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.
/GORDON A JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights