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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for particle size distribution of the diamond particles and sphericity measured using an image particle size distribution analyzer with sizes of 300 µm or less, however, does not reasonably provide enablement for “a sphericity S50 corresponding to a cumulative value of 50% in a volume particle size distribution of sphericity of the diamond particles is 0.75 or more” or “a particle diameter D50 corresponding to a cumulative value of 50% in a volume particle size distribution of particle diameter of the diamond particles is 300 µm or less”. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to enable of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. In the instant case, the instant disclosure does not provide the detailed information, process of method, which if implemented, with produce diamond particle embedded within the diamond-copper matrix composite with “a sphericity S50 corresponding to a cumulative value of 50% in a volume particle size distribution of sphericity of the diamond particles is 0.75 or more” or “a particle diameter D50 corresponding to a cumulative value of 50% in a volume particle size distribution of particle diameter of the diamond particles is 300 µm or less” without undue experimentation. Although it is commonly known that spherical particles can be closely packed within a composite matrix, hence increasing its volume packing. However, applicant has not provided the means and methods as to enable one of ordinary skill in the art, without undue to experimentation, to achieve the claimed parameters. It appears that applicant either considers that achieving the claimed parameters well-known in the art, hence no need to mention how one of ordinary skill in the art can achieve, or there are specific methods and means by which applicant has achieved and able to control “a sphericity S50 corresponding to a cumulative value of 50% in a volume particle size distribution of sphericity of the diamond particles is 0.75 or more” or “a particle diameter D50 corresponding to a cumulative value of 50% in a volume particle size distribution of particle diameter of the diamond particles is 300 µm or less”, which applicant has not described as to enable one of ordinary skill in the art, to make and used the claimed limitations without undue experimentation.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMADA et al. (US 2021/0242385), (hereinafter, YAMADA) in view of Zain-ul-abdein et al. ("Numerical investigation of the effect of interfacial thermal resistance upon the thermal conductivity of copper/diamond composites," Materials and Design 86, pp 248–258, 2015), (hereinafter, Zain-ul-abdein).
PNG
media_image1.png
551
861
media_image1.png
Greyscale
RE Claim 1, YAMADA discloses in FIGS. 1-12 a heat dissipation member and a method of making the same. YAMADA discloses a heat dissipation member [abstract] comprising:
a copper-diamond composite 80, referring to FIGS. 10-13 [0037, 0045-0046 and 0102] where a plurality of diamond particles 10 are dispersed in a metal matrix 70 “copper” containing copper [0068, 0071 and 0075]; and
a metal film 82 “copper” that is joined to at least one face of the copper-diamond composite 80, wherein in at least one cross-section of the heat dissipation member 80/82 in a lamination direction, at least one of the plurality of diamond particles 10 is configured to be in contact with both of the metal film 82 and the metal matrix 70 “copper”, and
using “bimodal mixed powder”, wherein a mixture of large and small sizes of diamond particles in order to achieve smaller total surface area of the diamond particles, hence the smaller the contribution of thermal resistance at the interface between the diamond particle and Cu [0041]. This implies that the diamond particles surface area with respect to the surface area the metal matrix 70 is a result effective variable.
YAMADA disclosure is not explicit that in a surface of the copper-diamond composite 80, a proportion of an exposed area of the diamond particles 10 obtained from (the exposed area of the diamond particles 10/an area of the metal matrix 80) x100% is 1% or more and 50% or less.
However, since the diamond particles surface area with respect to the surface area the metal matrix 70 is established as result effective variable, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to provide have a proportion of an exposed area of the diamond particles 10 obtained from (the exposed area of the diamond particles 10/an area of the metal matrix 80) x100% is 1% or more and 50% or less in order to reduce the contribution of thermal resistance at the interface between the diamond particle and Cu, as evidenced by Zain-ul-abdein, who discloses the reduction of diamond volume fraction decreases the interfacial fraction area in copper-diamond matrix composite, referring to FIG. 11, which in turn reduces the thermal resistance and enhances the thermal conductivity of the copper-diamond matrix composite, referring to FIGS. 9, 10 and 12 [pages 255-256], since it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
RE Claim 2, YAMADA discloses a heat dissipation member, wherein the plurality of diamond particles 10 include not only first diamond particles 10 that are in contact with both of the metal film 82 and the metal matrix 70 but also second diamond particles 10 of which all faces are embedded in the metal matrix 70, referring to FIG. 12, and at least one of the first diamond particles 10 and at least one of the second diamond particles 10 are configured to be in contact with each other, referring to FIG. 12.
RE Claim 3, YAMADA discloses a heat dissipation member, wherein a thermal conductivity of the copper-diamond composite is 600 W/m-K or higher [0063].
RE Claim 6, YAMADA discloses an electronic device comprising:
the heat dissipation member 24; and
an electronic component 22 “LED” that is provided over the heat dissipation member 24 [0106].
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMADA et al. (US 2021/0242385), (hereinafter, YAMADA) in view of Zain-ul-abdein et al. ("Numerical investigation of the effect of interfacial thermal resistance upon the thermal conductivity of copper/diamond composites," Materials and Design 86, pp 248–258, 2015), (hereinafter, Zain-ul-abdein) as implemented in Claim 1 and in further view of Tavangar et al. ("Assessing predictive schemes for thermal conductivity against diamond-reinforced silver matrix composites at intermediate phase contrast," Scripta Materialia, 56 357–360, 2007), (hereinafter, Tavangar).
RE Claims 4 and 5, YAMADA discloses a heat dissipation member, wherein diamond particles sizes is between 40 µm and 500 µm, which overlaps the claimed range of the claimed size of 300 µm or less, hence prima facie obvious.
However, YAMADA does not disclose a particle size distribution of the diamond particles is measured using an image particle size distribution analyzer, a sphericity S50 corresponding to a cumulative value of 50% in a volume particle size distribution of sphericity of the diamond particles is 0.75 or more or a particle size distribution of the diamond particles is measured using an image particle size distribution analyzer, a particle diameter D50 corresponding to a cumulative value of 50% in a volume particle size distribution of particle diameter of the diamond particles is 300 µm or less.
However, in a related art, Tavangar discloses effected of diamond particles reinforced size and shape on the diamond-silver matrix, wherein the effective conductivity of the matrix composite is a function of diamond spheres diameters “a” and interface thermal conductance “hb”, referring to equations 1 and 2 [left-hand column, page 358], wherein the effective conductivity is maximized and approach the intrinsic value of the thermal conductivity, which implies that thermal conductivity is a result effective variable of the diameter and shape of the diamond particles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing time of the instant application was made to use the claimed diameter and sphericity value to achieve closed-packed diamond particles, hence achieve higher thermal conductivities, since it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YASSER ABDELAZIEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5783. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 6 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, Leonard Chang can be reached at (571)270-3691. 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.
/YASSER A ABDELAZIEZ, PhD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights