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
Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed 01 May 2024, 11 July 2024, and 26 December 2025. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see the attached USPTO Form.
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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumamoto (JP-2018203857-A) in view of Takano (JP-2009029985-A).
With regard to claim 1, Kumamoto teaches a thermally conductive sheet comprising a fluorine resin (i.e., the claimed fluororesin) and a thermally conductive filler (Abstract). Kumamoto further teaches that other resins, such as acrylic resins, may be combined with the fluororesin to ensure sheet flexibility and sufficiently suppress outgassing (para [0035]), thereby reading on the claimed heat conductive sheet.
Kumamoto does not explicitly teach the claimed molecular weight of the acrylic resin.
In the same field of endeavor, Takano teaches a heat storage acrylic resin sheet comprising a hydroxyl-group-containing acrylic resin that exhibits good heat storage performance and adhesion under severe conditions (Abstract). Takano further teaches combining this resin with heat-conductive fillers, such as boron nitride and graphite (para [0057]), and specifically limits the weight average molecular weight of the acrylic resin to a range of 800 to 20,000 (para [0026]), which reads on the claimed range. Takano establishes that when the average molecular weight is below 800 result in inferior heat, weather resistance, diminished curability, whereas weight exceeding 20,000 compromise fluidity, workability, and additive dispersion (para [0026]).
With regard to the molecular weight, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to formulate Kumamoto’s sheet using an acrylic resin with a weight average molecular weight of 20,000 or less to achieve the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention, as Kumamoto’s sheet can be readily combined with an acrylic resin to successfully yield the recognized effective properties (e.g. thermal performance and adhesion) within the operating parameters established in Nishimura.
With regard to claim 2, Kumamoto teaches a fluororesin that is preferably liquid under normal temperature and pressure (Abstract), which reads directly onto the liquid fluororesin limitation.
With regard to claim 3, Kumamoto teaches that two or more types of fluororesin may be used in combination. Specifically, it classifies these into a liquid fluororesin (which is liquid at normal temperature and pressure) and a solid fluororesin (which is solid at normal temperature and pressure) (para [0018]), which reads on the claimed limitations of utilizing both liquid and solid fluororesin.
With regard to claim 4, Kumamoto does not teach the claimed molecular weight of the acrylic resin.
As stated above, Kumamoto in combination of Takano teaches a molecular weight that falls within claimed limitation range of 10,000 or less.
With regard to claim 5, Kumamoto teaches that all the exemplary embodiments are liquid at normal temperature and pressure (para [0052]). Specifically, Comparative Example 1 utilizes an acrylic resin (e.g. acrylate ester copolymer resin, Comparative Example 1, para [0073]). These disclosures in combination read on the acrylic resin is a liquid at normal temperature and pressure.
With regard to claim 6, Kumamoto teaches an acrylate ester copolymer resin (manufactured by Nagase CEMEX Corporation, trade name “HTR-811DR”, butyl acrylate / ethyl acrylate / 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate copolymer) ( Comparative Example 1, para [0073]), which reads on the acrylic resin including a hydroxyl group.
With regard to claim 7, Kumamoto teaches that the ratio of the other resin (i.e., acrylic resin) to the total amount of the fluororesin is 30 wt.% (para [0035]), which falls within the claimed limitation range of 20 to 70 wt.%.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumamoto (JP-2018203857-A) in view of Takano (JP-2009029985-A) as applied to claims 1-7 above, and further in view of Ito (US-20180231337-A1).
The teachings of Kumamoto and Takano are disclosed above.
With regard to claim 8, Kumamoto and Takano do not explicitly teach the thermally conductive sheet’s configuration.
In the same field of endeavor, Ito teaches a heat conductive sheet comprising side-by-side joined strips. Each strip contains a mixture of resin and a carbon material (e.g. graphite, para [0040]), which yields superior strip strength, thermal conductivity, and overall efficiency (paras. [0010 and 0026]. Ito further teaches that suitable resins may include combinations of thermoplastic resins (e.g. acrylic resin, para [0030]) and thermosetting resins (e.g. fluororesin, para [0030]). This disclosure substantially overlaps in components and application among the cited references and the claimed invention.
With regard to the configuration, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to formulate Kumamoto’s sheets into the configuration taught by Ito to achieve the claimed invention. The cited references collectively teach the same constituent components (i.e., fluororesin, acrylic resin, and conductive filler). A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these known elements, with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the heightened thermal conductivity, structural strength, and efficiency established in Ito.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aja A Walker whose telephone number is (571)272-0037. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-5.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/A.A.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights