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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 28, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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 15-29 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.
In claim 15 line 12, it is unclear what is meant by “on the so”.
Claims 16-29 are rejected due to dependency on claim 15.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15, 20, 21, 24, 26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2018/0023904 (Kato et al.).
Regarding claim 15, Kato discloses a discloses a method for manufacturing a heat spreader (heat transport structure) (see paragraph 0001), the method comprising the steps of:
Depositing an adhesive on a major surface of at least one graphite layer (see paragraphs 0162-0163, 0278), to obtain at least one graphite layer coated by an adhesive layer, wherein the adhesive layer has a preferred thickness of 1 to 7 μm (see paragraph 0249), which is within the claimed range of 0.5-10 μm, and includes a solvent (see paragraph 0586 where it is state that polyimide precursor is applied in the form of a solution) and the at least one graphite layer has a thickness of 10-200 μm (see paragraph 0225), which is within the claimed range of 10-200 μm.
Graphite sheets as discussed in the reference (see paragraph 0225) would inherently have two opposed major surfaces. Kato also discloses positioning a further graphite layer having a thickness from 10-200 μm, on the at least one graphite layer coated by the adhesive on top so as to define a second stack of layers having top and bottom graphite layers (see paragraphs 0388-0390),
Compressing the second stack of layers with a pressure of 7, 10 or 15 MPa (see Table 4) to define a graphite-based laminate, which is within the claimed pressure range of 7 to 20 MPa,
Heating the graphite-base laminate such that solvent of the adhesive is removed (see paragraph 0586 where drying is discussed).
Regarding claim 20, Kato also discloses that the graphite layer is made of a heat treated graphitizable polymer (see paragraphs 0217-0219).
Regarding claim 21, Kato also discloses that the at least one graphite layer has a preferred thickness from 15 to 100 μm (see paragraph 0225), which is within the claimed range of 15 to 200 μm.
Regarding claim 24, Kato also discloses that the compression is made by a press (pressing machine) (see paragraph 0575).
Regarding claim 26, Kato discloses examples where the compression is done with a pressure of 10 or 15 MPa (see Table 4), which is within the claimed pressure range of 10 to 16 MPa.
Regarding claim 29, Kato also discloses a method for using the graphite laminate as recited in claim 16 comprising using the graphite laminate in a heat spreader (heat transport structure) (see paragraph 0001).
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 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0023904 (Kato et al.) in view of US 6,131,651 (Richey, III).
Regarding claim 16 and 17, Kato discloses a method as discussed above. The reference does not state that the deposition step is made by spraying the adhesive or rubbing the adhesive; however, in an analogous field of heat spreading, Richey teaches that it is known to apply adhesives by spraying or painting (rubbing) (see column 3, lines 46-48). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that to apply the adhesive of Kato using any known application method, including spraying or rubbing.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0023904 (Kato et al.) in view of “Chemical effects of organo-silanized SiO2 nanofillers on epoxy adhesives” (Heo et al.).
Regarding claim 18, Kato discloses a method as discussed above. Kato discloses that the adhesive may be epoxy resin (see paragraphs 0242); however, it is not stated that the adhesive layer comprises organofunctional silanes and functionalized nanoscale SiO2 particles. Heo teaches that providing epoxy resins with organofunctional silanes and functionalized nanoscale SiO2 particles helps improve brittleness and poor mechanical resistance of epoxy resins (see page 184). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide organofunctional silanes and functionalized nanoscale SiO2 particles in the Kato epoxy resin, in order to improve brittleness and poor mechanical resistance of the Kato epoxy resin.
Claims 19, 22, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0023904 (Kato et al.).
Regarding claim 19, Kato discloses that the adhesive layer has a thickness in a preferred range of 1 to 7 μm (see paragraph 0248), which overlaps the claimed range of 1 to 5 μm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 22, Kato also discloses that the at least one graphite layer has an in-plane thermal conductivity of not less than 1000 W.mK-1 (see paragraph 0221), which overlaps the claimed range of 400 to 2500 W.mK-1. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 27, Kato also discloses a graphite laminate, manufactured as recited in claim 15, comprising at least two graphite layers, each having a thickness in a preferred range from 15-100 μm (see paragraph 0225), which is within the claimed range of 5-100 μm, and at least one adhesive layer having a preferred thickness of 1 to 7 μm (see paragraph 0249), which overlaps the claimed range of 1 to 5 μm, wherein the at least two graphite layers and the at least on adhesive layer are disposed alternately on top of each other and a top layer and a bottom layer of the graphite laminate are from the at least two graphite layers (see paragraphs 0178-0179). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 28, Kato also discloses that the at least two graphite layers numbers from not less than 3 (see paragraph 0177), which overlaps the claimed range of two to seven.
Claims 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0023904 (Kato et al.) in view of US 2013/0000811 (Engeldinger et al.).
Regarding claims 23 and 25, Kato discloses a method as discussed above. The reference does not state that the compression is made by a roller, only that a pressing machine is used (see paragraph 0575). Engeldinger teaches that hydraulic press machines and pressing machines with rollers are known (see paragraph 0102). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that any known type of pressing machine could be used for the pressing step of Kato, including hydraulic press or roller.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENDY L BOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-7466. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-6:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/WENDY L BOSS/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749