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.
Claim 2 is 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 2 limitation “a thickness of an adhesive resin layer” is indefinite, as it is unclear if “an adhesive resin layer” is in reference to a first adhesive resin, a second adhesive resin, or another resin layer.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Norimatsu (JP2017228563, citations based on machine translation, publicly available 12/28/2017).
Regarding claim 1, Norimatsu teaches a method of manufacturing a heat dissipation sheet [0027], the method comprising:
generating, over a substrate, a plurality of linear carbon materials each
configured to include a first end that faces the substrate (Figure 7 and [0052]-[0054], [0058]-[0060]);
transferring the plurality of linear carbon materials to a transfer member
by bringing a second end of each of the plurality of linear carbon materials into
contact with the transfer member, the second end being over a side opposite to
the first end (Figure 2 and 7, [0059]-[0062], and [0067]);
transferring the plurality of linear carbon materials to a first adhesive
resin by bringing the first end of each of the plurality of linear carbon materials
transferred to the transfer member into contact with a first surface of the first
adhesive resin that includes a second surface over which a first release sheet is
disposed, the first surface being over a side opposite to the second surface, and
by removing the transfer member from the second end (Figure 8 and [0065]-[0069]); and
disposing the second end by bringing the second end into contact with a
fourth surface of a second adhesive resin that includes a third surface over which
a second release sheet is disposed, the fourth surface being over a side opposite
to the third surface (Figure 9 and [0078]-[0080]).
Regarding claim 3, Norimatsu teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein a gap is provided between the plurality of linear carbon materials (Figures 7-10).
Regarding claim 4, Norimatsu teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein
wherein the plurality of linear carbon materials are provided with a surface density of 1 x1010 pieces/cm2 or more [0056].
Regarding claim 5, Norimatsu teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the first end is embedded in the first adhesive resin, and wherein the second end is embedded in the second adhesive resin (Figure 8, 9, and 11a and 11b; [0065]-[0069], [0078]-[0080]).
Regarding claim 6, Norimatsu teaches the process as applied to claim 1, further comprising adjusting a distance between a first end surface of the first end and the first surface to form a first adhesive resin layer between the first end surface and the first surface and adjusting a distance between a second end surface of the second end and the second surface to form a second adhesive resin layer between the second end surface and the second surface are both performed while adjusting a temperature of each of the first adhesive resin and the second adhesive resin (Figure 11a-11b, [0081], [0087]-[0095]).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norimatsu (JP2017228563, citations based on machine translation), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Liu (US 10,184,734).
Regarding claim 2, Norimatsu teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
Norimatsu teaches the thickness of each resin film is 10 microns or more [0066], [0107]. Norimatsu teaches a first resin film having a thickness of about 20 microns to 50 microns [0066]. Norimatsu teaches the thickness of each resin cannot be too thick or thin [0104]-[0107]. If the thickness is too thin, the rigidity of the heat radiation sheet is insufficient and the sheet becomes difficult to handle [0106]. If the thickness is too thick, the bonding of the two resin films covers the carbon materials completely [0104].
Norimatsu does not teach a thickness of an adhesive resin layer to be in contact with an end of each of the plurality of linear carbon materials is 200 nm to 800 nm.
Liu teaches a heat dissipation structure including a thermal interface material including a matrix and a plurality of carbon nanotubes dispersed in the matrix and a transition layer (Abstract and Figure 2 and 3). Liu teaches the ends of the plurality of carbon nanotubes are buried in the transition layer, wherein the material of the transition layer can be an epoxy resin, polyester, or polyethylene (Col 3, ln 6-12). Liu teaches the interface thermal resistance between the transition layer 120 and the heat sink or the heat source is less than that between the carbon nanotubes and the heat sink or the heat source, and an interface thermal resistance between the heat dissipation structure 10 and the heat sink or the heat source depends on the thermal resistance of the transition layer 120 and the interface thermal resistance between the transition
layer 120 and the heat sink or the heat source (Col 3, ln 12-34).
Liu teaches if the thickness of the transition layer is too great, the thermal resistance of the transition layer would be too high, resulting in a high interface thermal resistance between the heat dissipation structure and the heat sink or head source. Liu teaches if the thickness of the transition layer is too small, the interface thermal resistance between the transition layer and the heat sink or heat source would also be high, resulting in a high interface thermal resistance between the heat dissipation structure and the heat sink or the heat source. Liu teaches a thickness of the transition layer can be in the range from about 1 nm to about 100 nm provides desirable heat dissipation (Col 3, ln 12-34).
Based on the teachings of both Norimatsu and Liu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention that thickness of the resin film layers in heat dissipation sheet is a result effective variable that influences the heat dissipation capabilities of the sheet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the resin film thickness of Norimatsu in order to optimize the heat dissipation capability while maintaining the handleability of the sheet as taught by Norimatsu and Liu and, in doing so, would have arrived at an adhesive resin layer thickness of 200 nm to 800 nm.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 5712721095. 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.
HANA C. PAGE
Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/HANA C PAGE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights