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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 3 and 5-6 are amended in view of applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 2/5/2024. Therefore, claims 1-7 are currently under examination.
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 1-7 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.
Claim 1 recites “a step size of 0.2µm”. However, neither the claims nor instant specification provides clear meaning for the claimed step size, which appear to be an increment of some sort used or determined by the claimed measuring device. Therefore, the scope of claim 1 is vague and indefinite.
Claim 5 recites “The copper-diamond compositing according to claim 1, wherein a thermal conductivity is W/m·K or higher”. However, claim 7 does not clearly indicate which material the claimed thermal conductivity is a property of. In other words, it is not clear if the claimed thermal conductivity is directed to the thermal conductivity of the copper-diamond composition, the diamond particles of the copper-diamond composite or the copper particles of the copper-diamond composite. Therefore, claim 5 is vague and indefinite.
Claims 2-4 and 6-7 are also rejected since they depend on rejected claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over CN110951984 (CN984).
CN984 teaches a copper-diamond composite made by a process that applies to the process of making the claimed copper-diamond composite discussed in the instant specification as follows:
Instant Specification
CN984
-Mixing Cu powders and diamond particles
-Mixing Cr-plated diamond particles with high purity copper powder having an average grain size of 2.6-3µm [0008]
-Sintering the mixture to form the copper-diamond composite at a firing temperature of 800-1100°C for 5min-3hrs, wherein if spark plasma sinter is used, the sintering pressure is 10MPa or higher
-Subjecting the mixture to spark plasma sintering at a temperature of 900-1100°C and a pressure of 10-50MPa for 6-20min [0006].
Regarding claims 1-4, since the copper-diamond composite of CN984 is produced by a process under conditions(i.e. spark plasma sintering technique, temperature, pressure and duration) that are the same as the process used to make the claimed copper-diamond composite, and the size of the copper powder in the mixture is 2.6-3µm, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that the copper-diamond composite made by CN984 to have the same or significantly similar properties, grain structures and particle size, including the claimed 10%(A10), 50%(A50) and 90%(A90) area mean diameter of single-crystal particles of copper as recited in claims 1-4, when measured by the claimed procedure.
Additionally, claimed procedure is directed to a testing/measuring method to obtain X% area mean diameter (Ax) of singer-crystal particles of copper in the produced copper-diamond composite, wherein Ax may be 10%(A10), 50%(A50) and 90%(A90). The claimed procedure steps (i-iv) do not materially change the claimed copper-diamond composite product, therefore, do not patentably distinguish the claimed copper-diamond composite from the copper-diamond composite of CN984.
Furthermore, A10(10% area mean diameter of copper single-crystal particles) is smaller than A50(50% area mean diameter of copper single-crystal particles), and A50(50% area mean diameter of copper single-crystal particles) is smaller than A90(90% area mean diameter of copper single-crystal particles), based on the cumulative curve, as described in step (iv) of the procedure as recited in claim 1, of the cross-sectional areas of copper single-crystal particles. Therefore, (A50-A10)/A50 in the copper-diamond composite of CN984 would have read on or significantly overlap the claimed 0.3 or more and less than 1.0 as recited the claim 2. (A90-A10)/A50 in the copper-diamond composite of CN984 would have read on or significantly overlap the claimed 1.0 or more and 5.0 or less as recited the claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Examples 1-2 of CN984 further teaches thermal conductivities of their respective copper-diamond composites are 790 W/m·K and 798 W/m·K, which read on the claimed thermal conductivity of 600 W/m·K or higher.
Regarding claims 6-7, one of the benefits of CN984’s copper-diamond composite is improving fluidity of bonding metal[0012], which implies the claimed metal film joined to at least one face of the copper-diamond composite. Additionally, CN984 further teaches that copper/diamond composite is a heat dissipation material and is widely used in applications such as electronics, aerospace, satellite communication, and many other industries[0002], which meets the limitations of claims 6-7.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bai et a. “Thermal Conductivity of Cu/Diamond Composites Prepared by a New Pretreatment of Diamond Powder”, Composites: Part B, vol. 52, pg. 182-186, 2013(Bai).
Bai teaches a copper-diamond composite made by a process that applies to the process of making the claimed copper-diamond composite discussed in the instant specification as follows:
Instant Specification
Bai
-Mixing Cu powders and diamond particles
-Mixing diamond particles with copper powder having an average grain size of 5-10µm (2.Experimental)
-Sintering the mixture to form the copper-diamond composite at a firing temperature of 800-1100°C for 5min-3hrs, wherein if spark plasma sinter is used, the sintering pressure is 10MPa or higher
-Subjecting the mixture to spark plasma sintering at a temperature of 1200K(i.e. 927°C) and hold for 6min (2.Experimental).
Regarding claims 1-4, since the copper-diamond composite of Bai is produced by a process under conditions(i.e. spark plasma sintering technique, temperature and duration) that are the same as the process used to make the claimed copper-diamond composite, and the size of the copper powder in the mixture is 5-10µm, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that the copper-diamond composite made by Bai to have the same or significantly similar properties, grain structures and particle size, including the claimed 10%(A10), 50%(A50) and 90%(A90) area mean diameter of single-crystal particles of copper as recited in claims 1-4, when measured by the claimed procedure.
Additionally, claimed procedure is directed to a testing/measuring method to obtain X% area mean diameter (Ax) of singer-crystal particles of copper in the produced copper-diamond composite, wherein Ax may be 10%(A10), 50%(A50) and 90%(A90). The claimed procedure steps (i-iv) do not materially change the claimed copper-diamond composite product, therefore, do not patentably distinguish the claimed copper-diamond composite from the copper-diamond composite of Bai.
Furthermore, A10(10% area mean diameter of copper single-crystal particles) is smaller than A50(50% area mean diameter of copper single-crystal particles), and A50(50% area mean diameter of copper single-crystal particles) is smaller than A90(90% area mean diameter of copper single-crystal particles), based on the cumulative curve, as described in step (iv) of the procedure as recited in claim 1, of the cross-sectional areas of copper single-crystal particles. Therefore, (A50-A10)/A50 in the copper-diamond composite of Bai would have read on or significantly overlap the claimed 0.3 or more and less than 1.0 as recited the claim 2. (A90-A10)/A50 in the copper-diamond composite of Bai would have read on or significantly overlap the claimed 1.0 or more and 5.0 or less as recited the claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Bai further teaches the its copper/diamond composite has a maximum thermal conductivity of 672 W/m·K(3.2 Thermal Conductivity).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bai et a. “Thermal Conductivity of Cu/Diamond Composites Prepared by a New Pretreatment of Diamond Powder”, Composites: Part B, vol. 52, pg. 182-186, 2013(Bai), and further in view of Abyzov US 2010/0319900(Abyzov).
The teachings of Bai are discussed in section 8 above.
Regarding claims 6-7, Bai recognizes that the copper-diamond composite is heat sink material (i.e. heat dissipating material) and are used widely in electronics applications (1. Introduction).
However, Bai does not explicitly teach the claimed metal film joined to at least one face of the copper-diamond composite as recited in claim 6 and the electronic component provided over a heat dissipation member (i.e. copper-diamond composite) as recited in claim 7.
Abyzov teaches applying copper-diamond composite in manufacturing of X-ray tubes, wherein the copper-diamond composite is used as a substrate for a copper anode[0076]. Abyzoy further teaches copper-diamond composites can be used in manufacturing various electronic devices[0077-0078].
Regarding claims 6-7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the copper-diamond composite of Bai as a base substrate for support a copper anode in the manufacturing of X-day as taught by Abyzoy with expected success. The copper anode as taught by Bai in view of Abyzoy reads on the claimed metal film joined to at least one surface of the copper-diamond composite as recited in claim 6 and an electronic component that provided over the copper-diamond composite(i.e. heat dissipation member).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOIS L ZHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-1248. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
LOIS ZHENG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/LOIS L ZHENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights