DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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.
3. Claim(s) 1-6, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMADA et al., US 2021/0242385 A1.
Claim 1. YAMADA et al., disclose a heat dissipation member (such as the one in fig. 12 of the reference) comprising:
-a copper-diamond composite where a plurality of diamond particles (item 10) are dispersed in a metal matrix (item 70) containing copper;
-and a metal film (item 82) that is joined to at least one face of the copper-diamond composite, wherein in at least one cross-section of the heat dissipation member in a lamination direction, a transition region where the metal film and at least one of the plurality of diamond particles are present is provided at an interface (item 80P) between the copper-diamond composite and the metal film,
-and in a surface of the copper-diamond composite, a proportion of an exposed area of the diamond particles obtained from (the exposed area of the diamond particles/an area of the metal matrix) x 100% is 1% or more and 50% or less.
YAMADA et al., appear to not clearly indicate “in a surface of the copper-diamond composite, a proportion of an exposed area of the diamond particles obtained from (the exposed area of the diamond particles/an area of the metal matrix) x 100% is 1% or more and 50% or less”.
However, [0041] of YAMADA et al., disclose that the proportion (mass fraction) of particles having an average particle size of 200 μm or greater and 400 μm or less to all of the diamond particles is preferably 50% or more.
Therefore, to reduce a thickness of a composite material for semiconductor light emitting device e.g. LED manufacture, it 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 to use an exposed area of the diamond particles obtained from (the exposed area of the diamond particles/an area of the metal matrix) x 100% is 1% or more and 50% or less”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Allen, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 2. YAMADA et al., disclose the heat dissipation member according to claim 1, wherein a width of the transition region in a thickness direction is 20-μm or more and 100-μm or less (this limitation would read through [0077] wherein is disclosed the thickness of the metal layer 82 is preferably, for example, 50-μm or greater and 500-μm or less).
Claim 3. YAMADA et al., disclose the heat dissipation member according to claim 1, wherein a thermal conductivity of the copper-diamond composite is 600 W/m-K or higher (this limitation would read through [0029] wherein is disclosed that Poly-crystalline diamond particles have a thermal conductivity of, for example, in a range of about 900 to 1800 [W/mK]. Diamond particles produced using CVD have a thermal conductivity of, for example, in a range of about 900 to 1800 [W/mK]).
Claim 4. YAMADA et al., disclose the heat dissipation member according to claim 1, wherein when a particle size distribution of the diamond particles is measured using an image particle size distribution analyzer, a sphericity S.sub.50 corresponding to a cumulative value of 50% in a volume particle size distribution of sphericity of the diamond particles is 0.75 or more (this limitation would read through [0029] wherein is disclosed that the diamond particles in the mixed powder may include particles having an average particle size of 200-μm or greater and 400-μm or less, and particles having an average particle size of 40-μm or greater and 80-μm or less).
Claim 5. YAMADA et al., disclose the heat dissipation member according to claim 1, wherein when a particle size distribution of the diamond particles is measured using an image particle size distribution analyzer, a particle diameter D.sub.50 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 (this limitation would read through [0029] wherein is disclosed that the diamond particles in the mixed powder may include particles having an average particle size of 200-μm or greater and 400-μm or less, and particles having an average particle size of 40-μm or greater and 80-μm or less).
Claim 6. YAMADA et al., disclose an electronic device comprising: the heat dissipation member according to claim 1; and an electronic component (item fig. 15) that is provided over the heat dissipation member.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant contends that: Applicant respectfully disagrees with the rejection at least for the following reasons:
(1) The specification of the present application states: "In addition, according to further findings of the present inventors, it was found that the degree of smoothness of the surface of the copper-diamond composite, the width of the transition region, and the proportion of the exposed area of the diamond particles can be appropriately controlled, for example, by appropriately adjusting the particle diameter or sphericity of the diamond particles, the grain size (grit number) of a grindstone used for grinding and polishing, and the like and using grinding means under mild conditions".
This argument is not persuasive. Examiner notes that applicant’s fig. 1, [0031] indicates that at least a part of the diamond particles 20a is exposed on a surface (joint interface 12) of the copper-diamond composite 30, which is similar to Yamada’s fig. 12, wherein is shown that at least a part of the diamond particles 10 is exposed on a surface of the copper-diamond composite 80, in the same manner. As noted further, the limitation of the “degree of smoothness of the surface of the copper-diamond composite, the width of the transition region, and the proportion of the exposed area of the diamond particles can be appropriately controlled” is not even claimed in the claim. Thus, Yamada obviously meets the scope of the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WILNER JEAN BAPTISTE whose telephone number is (571)270-7394. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 8:00-6:00.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
/W.J/Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights