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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I corresponding to claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 7/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/16/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuasa et al. (US 2018/0215668 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yuasa discloses a porous carrier for carrying a highly thermally conductive metal material (a porous silicon carbide body impregnated with an aluminum alloy per paragraph 0010), composed of small-size particles, mid-size particles, and large-size particles that are each independently silicon carbide, diamond, diamond-like and/or graphene particles (three different particle sizes of Silicon carbide are disclosed per paragraphs 0019-0022), wherein a particle size ratio of the small-size particles, the mid-size particles, and the large-size particles is 1: 2 to 2.5: 3 to 20. Yuasa discloses the three different particle sizes However, Yuasa does not explicitly disclose the ratio between the small to medium to large-size particles is 1 : 2 to 2.5: 3 to 20, but Yuasa does disclose ranges of particle sizes where the particle sizes could fall with the ratio claimed; since a small particle of less than 8µm, a medium particle of 8µm to 80µm and the large size particle of 80 to 800µ per paragraphs 0019-0022 of Yuasa would have particles sizes within those ranges that could meet the particle size ratio of 1 : 2 to 2.5: 3 to 20 as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratio of sizes between the three particle sizes to fall within the claimed range as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see paragraph 0026 where the particle sizes can vary) and since it has been held that “[i]n 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 I
Regarding claim 2, Yuasa as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 above and Yuasa further discloses the porous carrier has a porosity from 20% to 70% ( a volume percent of 60% which would have a porosity of 40% to be filled with the aluminum alloy per paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 3, Yuasa as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 above and Yuasa does not explicitly disclose a particle size of the small-size particles ranges from 0.1 µm to 5 µm, a particle size of the mid-size particles ranges from 2 µm to 10 µm, and a particle size of the large-size particles ranges from 10 µm to 100 µm. However Yuasa does disclose ranges of particle sizes where the particle sizes overlap with the ranges claimed; since a small particle of less than 8µm, a medium particle of 8µm to 80µm and the large size particle of 80 to 800µ per paragraphs 0019-0022 of Yuasa would have particles sizes within those ranges that would meet the limitations of a particle size of the small-size particles ranges from 0.1 µm to 5 µm, a particle size of the mid-size particles ranges from 2 µm to 10 µm, and a particle size of the large-size particles ranges from 10 µm to 100 µm since the claimed ranges and the ranges disclosed by Yuasa overlap.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sizes of the three particle sizes to fall within the claimed range as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see paragraph 0026 where the particle sizes can vary and the explicit sizes of the ranges claimed are simply given per exemplary purposes per paragraph 0027) and since it has been held that “[i]n 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 4, Yuasa as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 above and Yuasa does not explicitly disclose a weight ratio of the small-size particles, the mid-size particles, and the large-size particles is 1:3:4, based on a total weight of the porous carrier. While Yasue discloses similar ratios of mass percent in table 1 of Yuasa.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the weight ratio to fall to fall within the claimed range as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see paragraph 0026 where the weight ratio is given as a preferred example and not disclosed as critical to the invention) and since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 5, Yuasa as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 above and Yuasa further discloses a percentage of the silicon carbide particles is greater than or equal to 99% out of a sum of the small-size particles, the mid-size particles, and the large-size particles (silicon carbide makes up the small medium and large particles per paragraphs 0018-0021).
Regarding claim 8, Yuasa as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 above and Yuasa further discloses a metal surface layer coated on an outside of the porous carrier and formed from a highly thermally conductive metal material, wherein pores of the porous carrier are filled with the highly thermally conductive metal (metal, specifically an aluminum alloy, fills the pores of the silicon carbide preform and covers a surface of the preform as described in at least example 1 in paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 9, Yuasa as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 8 above and Yuasa does not explicitly disclose the metal surface layer has a thickness greater than 5µm as Yuasa is silent as to a thickness of the metal on the surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Yuasa to have a metal surface layer to have a thickness of greater than 5µm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. In the instant case, the device of Yuasa would not operate differently with the claimed surface layer thickness and since the meal layer just has to cover the surface of the silicon carbide preform the device would function appropriately having the claimed thickness. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the thickness is given for exemplary purposes only per paragraph 0033 of the specification.
Regarding claim 10, Yuasa as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 9 above and Yuasa does not explicitly disclose the metal surface layer and the heat spreader satisfy a relationship: 2A/T ≤ 50%; where A represents a covering thickness of the metal surface layer on the upper surface or the lower surface, and T represents a total thickness of the heat spreader. As Yuasa is silent as to thickness of the meatal surface layer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Yuasa to have the metal surface layer and the heat spreader satisfy a relationship: 2A/T ≤ 50% since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. In the instant case, the device of Yuasa would not operate differently with the claimed surface layer thickness and since the meal layer just has to cover the surface of the silicon carbide preform the device would function appropriately having the claimed thickness ratio. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the thickness is given for exemplary purposes only per paragraph 0033-0034 of the specification.
Regarding claim 11, Yuasa as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 above and Yuasa further discloses the highly thermally conductive metal is copper, silver, aluminum, or any alloy thereof (and aluminum alloy in example 1 per paragraph 0045) ; wherein the heat spreader has a thermal conductivity coefficient greater than 180 W/m-K (252 W/mK is disclosed in paragraph 0046).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuasa et al. (US 2018/0215668 A1) In view of Sung (US 2004/0175875 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Yuasa as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 above and Yuasa does not explicitly disclose a percentage of the silicon carbide particles is less than 30% out of a sum of the small-size particles, the mid-size particles, and the large-size particles as Yuasa only discloses Silicon carbide as the particles.
Sung teaches (Figure 1-4) a porous carrier for carrying a highly thermally conductive metal material (a combination of Dimond particles mixed with copper per the example of paragraph 0124), composed of small-size particles, mid-size particles, and large-size particles that are each independently silicon carbide, diamond, diamond-like and/or graphene particles (different size diamond participles as seen in figure 2-4 and per paragraph 0112-0113) where disclose a percentage of the silicon carbide particles is less than 30% out of a sum of the small-size particles, the mid-size particles, and the large-size particles as Yuasa only discloses Silicon carbide as the particles (the particles are only diamond particles).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the particles of Yuasa to be diamond particles as disclosed by Sung. Doing so would provide a heat spreader that could provide a greater thermal conductivity than metal silicon carbide composite heat spreader as recognized by Sung (per paragraph 0005 and 0010).
7. (Original) The porous carrier according to claim 1, wherein a percentage of the silicon carbide particles is less than 1% out of a sum of the small-size particles, the mid-size particles, and the large-size particles.
Regarding claim 7, Yuasa as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 above and Yuasa does not explicitly disclose a percentage of the silicon carbide particles is less than 1% out of a sum of the small-size particles, the mid-size particles, and the large-size particles as Yuasa only discloses Silicon carbide as the particles.
Sung teaches (Figure 1-4) a porous carrier for carrying a highly thermally conductive metal material (a combination of Dimond particles mixed with copper per the example of paragraph 0124), composed of small-size particles, mid-size particles, and large-size particles that are each independently silicon carbide, diamond, diamond-like and/or graphene particles (different size diamond participles as seen in figure 2-4 and per paragraph 0112-0113) where disclose a percentage of the silicon carbide particles is less than 1% out of a sum of the small-size particles, the mid-size particles, and the large-size particles as Yuasa only discloses Silicon carbide as the particles (the particles are only diamond particles).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the particles of Yuasa to be diamond particles as disclosed by Sung. Doing so would provide a heat spreader that could provide a greater thermal conductivity than metal silicon carbide composite heat spreader as recognized by Sung (per paragraph 0005 and 0010).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sugiyama et al. (US 20040130018 A1), Iwayama et al. (US 20110256419 A1), Iwayama et al. (US 20130009301 A1), Iwayama et al. (US 20130328184 A1), and Xu et al. (WO 2023024570 A1) disclose similar heat spreaders with particles of varying sizes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANS R. WEILAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-3 EST and alternating Fridays.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/HANS R WEILAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights