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 .
Priority
This application is a continuation of PCT/KR2023/002833, filed 03/02/2023 and published as WO 2023/210945 A1 on 11/02/2023. This application also claims benefit of KR 10-2022-0052723, filed 04/28/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Primary Examiner has considered the IDS filed 10/28/2024.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites a phrase that can be implied (“The present invention relates to”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Interpretation
In independent claim 1, the Primary Examiner interprets “containing a carboxyl group at a terminal thereof,” as meaning “having a terminal carboxyl group.”
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.
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 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over KR 102333315 B1 in view of JP 2871409 B2, cited by Applicant (reference made to the respective English-language translations).
KR 102333315 B1 has a common inventor (LEE, Hyun Ho) with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). KR 315 was published 12/01/2021, which is before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the foreign priority document (04/28/2022).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Claim 1
KR 315 teaches a method for coating a graphite heat-dissipating sheet [0001], the method comprising forming a layer on a surface of graphite sheet by electrostatic spray-application of a powder paint [0019]. The powder paint comprises:
60-80 parts-by-weight (pbw) of an epoxy resin;
10-30 pbw of a polyester resin containing a terminal carboxyl group;
0.1-5 pbw of a curing accelerator; and
10-20 pbw of a layered silicate [0011].
The amount of epoxy resin and layered silicate share and endpoint with the claimed ranges of the epoxy resin and layered clay mineral. MPEP § 2131.03. Moreover, KR 315 teaches that the epoxy resin is a bisphenol A-type epoxy resin [0026]. Finally, the instant specification discloses that the claimed “layered clay mineral” can be a layered silicate. Spec. at [0035].
KR 315 does not explicitly teach that the epoxy resin consists of 30-40 wt.-% of an ortho-cresol novolac epoxy resin with a softening point of 70-90°C; that the bisphenol A epoxy resin is present in an amount of 60-70 wt.-% and has a softening point of 110-120°C.
JP 409 teaches a powder paint that can be electrostatically applied to a substrate [0027] having 50-90 wt.-% bisphenol A having a softening point of 75-135°C and 10-50 wt.-% of novolac epoxy resin having a softening point of 30-120°C [0007]. JP 409 teaches specific examples of the novolac include Araldite ECN 1235, 1273, 1280, and 1299, all of which are o-cresol novolac epoxy resins. See attached product data sheets. The powder composition of JP 409 additionally contains an imidazole curing agent [0014], the same as used in KR 315 [0031].
KR 315 teaches that coatings are applied to graphitic heat-dissipating substrates to prevent the generation of dust and flying particles when processing the substrates into sheets or structures [0003]. JP 207 teaches that the coating film does not produce burrs (i.e., a defect that must be remedied) when cut. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the process of KR 315 so as to formulate the epoxy resin of the powder coating to contain 50-90 wt.-% bisphenol A having a softening point of 75-135°C and 10-50 wt.-% of novolac epoxy resin having a softening point of 30-120°C (overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious, MPEP § 2144.05). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so by the desire and expectation of successfully forming a powder coating film over the graphite substrate having an excellent finish and good machinability.
Claim 2
KR 315 teaches that the graphite heat dissipation sheet may be made of any one of natural graphite, artificial graphite, expanded graphite, graphene, and kish graphite, or a combination thereof [0012].
Claim 3
KR 315 teaches forming the coating layer simultaneously on the front, back, and edges of the graphite heat-dissipating sheet [0013].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KR 102493712 B1; KR 102493723 B1; KR 102493729 B1; and KR 102496435 B1.
All of these documents disclose a heat-dissipating coating system built from a binder resin (urethane-type or epoxy-type, 30–85 wt % depending on the embodiment) combined with thermally conductive fillers and additives. The primary fillers are graphite family particles (expanded, artificial, or natural graphite) – typically 5–25 wt % – which are mil-exfoliated (2–6 h, zirconia beads 0.05–3 mm) to generate graphene nanoplates (GNPs) and graphene (0.1–50 µm). Secondary conductive phases may include metal powders (Al, Cu, Fe, Zn, Sn, Ti, Ni, Mg, V, Cr, Zr; flake 5–40 µm), carbon nanotubes, graphene, alumina, AlN, BN, SiC, etc. An additive package (3–10 wt %) supplies dispersants, anti-settling agents, defoamers, matting agents and antioxidants; acetate-based solvents (10–60 wt %) adjust viscosity (300–1 500 cPs).
The coating can be supplied as a single-component (blocked isocyanate) or two-component (di-isocyanate or amine hardener) formulation, cured at 70–100 °C (two-component) or 120–180 °C (single-component).
In the sheet-type embodiments, a heat-dissipating layer is applied to a graphite sheet (thickness 10 µm–1 mm) that may be laminated with a thin PET or adhesive film, or directly to a metal thin-film (Cu, Al, Au, etc.). Optional layers include an EMI-shielding copper film (20–1 000 µm) and an adhesive layer (5–50 µm). A release layer may be added for easy removal.
The instant application addresses the same problem as these documents—protecting a fragile graphite heat-dissipation sheet while improving its thermal performance for high-resolution displays—but with a different composition. The disclosed coating is a dry powder paint applied by electrostatic spraying and then thermally cured. Its formulation consists of 80-90 wt % epoxy resin, specifically a blend of 30-40 wt % ortho-cresol novolac epoxy (softening point 70-90 °C) and 60-70 wt % bisphenol-A epoxy (softening point 110-120 °C), together with 10-30 wt % carboxyl-terminated polyester resin, 0.1-5 wt % curing accelerator, and 20-30 wt % layered clay mineral (halloysite, kaolinite, etc.). No solvent is used, and the coating thickness ranges from 2 µm to 300 µm. The process eliminates liquid-film drying problems and enables simultaneous coating of the front, rear and edges of the sheet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM P FLETCHER III whose telephone number is (571)272-1419. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM - 5 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, Duane Smith can be reached at (571) 272-1166. 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.
WILLIAM PHILLIP FLETCHER III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/WILLIAM P FLETCHER III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
4 December 2025