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 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 9-10 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 9 recites the limitation "the thickness" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret this to indicate filler thickness.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the concavo-convex shape" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret this to indicate filler thickness.
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(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Spengler (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0030188). Spengler shows that it is known to carry out a method for manufacturing a plate-like body (Abstract) comprising a molding step of placing a raw fabric including a resin component and a filler component on intaglios of a mold, wherein the intaglios correspond to concave/convex shape (substrate material 30; 0046, claim 25), applying a pressure at a top of the raw fabric, while suctioning the raw fabric at a bottom of the mold (0034, 0049), wherein the plate-like body has a concave/convex shape including raised portions and intaglio portions (Figures 3-5).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Lin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0224466. Lin et al., hereafter “Lin,” show that molded heat sinks are known in the prior art (0051, 0060).
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) 1-9, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin. Regarding Claim 1, Lin shows that it is known to have a plate-like bolded body (Abstract) comprising a resin component and a filler component which are molded into a desired shape (0051, 0060) wherein the tensile strength of the body is 50MPa or more (0035). Lin specifically notes that his composition can be molded into any desired shape, but he does not specifically show the claimed concavo/convex design. However, it would have been obvious to impart any appropriate/desired design as the molded shape because configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)). It is the position of the examiner that Lin’s tensile strength would be consistent throughout his molded body (0% change), therefore meeting the claimed limitation of a difference of 10% or less between the various areas of the molded body.
Regarding Claim 2, Lin shows that it is known to have a plate-like bolded body (Abstract) comprising a resin component and a filler component which are molded into a desired shape with sides (Figure 3, 8; 0051, 0060) wherein the tensile strength of the body is 50MPa or more (0035). Lin specifically notes that his composition can be molded into any desired shape, but he does not specifically show the claimed concavo/convex design. However, it would have been obvious to impart any appropriate/desired design as the molded shape because configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)). It is the position of the examiner that Lin’s tensile strength would be consistent throughout his molded body (no deviation), therefore meeting the claimed limitation of a standard deviation of 100 or less between the various areas of the molded body.
Regarding Claim 3, Lin shows the body of claim 2 above, including one wherein the tensile strength is 50MPa or more (0035).
Regarding Claim 4, Lin shows the body of claim 2 above, including one wherein the resin component is a thermoplastic polymer (0063).
Regarding Claim 5, Lin shows the body of claim 2 above, including one wherein the filler component comprises a fibrous filler (0063).
Regarding Claim 6, Lin shows the body of claim 5 above, but he does not specifically show the aspect ratio of the filler. However, it would have been obvious to choose any appropriate aspect ratio, such as that which is claimed, in Lin’s body composition because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Regarding Claim 7, Lin shows the body of claim 6 above, including one wherein the fibrous filler has a cross sectional diameter of 1um-100um (0074).
Regarding Claim 8, Lin shows the body of claim 1 above, including one wherein the filler component is an amount of 1-100 parts by weight (0063).
Regarding Claim 9, Lin shows the body of claim 1 above, including one wherein the thickness ranges from 100um-100mm (0040).
Regarding Claim 19, Lin shows the body of claim 1 above, including one wherein the resin component is a thermoplastic polymer (0063).
Regarding Claim 20, Lin shows the body of claim 1 above, including one wherein the filler component comprises a fibrous filler (0063).
Claim(s) 12-13, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spengler.
Regarding Claim 12, Spengler shows the method of claim 10 above, including pressing the raw fabric into a raised shape (Figures 3-5; 0034). Spengler does not specifically show that the raw fabric’s shape corresponds to intaglios of the second mold. However, it would have been obvious to impart any appropriate/desired design into the shape of the raw fabric because configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)).
Regarding Claims 13, 15, and 16, Spengler shows the method of claim 10 above, but he does not specifically show the temperature and pressure calculations and details. However, since temperature/pressure are result-effective variables, it would have been obvious to choose any appropriate values, such as those calculated/claimed, during Spengler’s method because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA HUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
MONICA ANNE HUSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/MONICA A HUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742