CTNF 18/984,217 CTNF 91752 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “heat generating device” in claim 16 and 19. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 17-20 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 17 recites the limitation "the polymer matrix". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, it will be interpreted as “the matrix material”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-3, 11-12, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kazem et al. (US Pat No. 10,777,483), hereinafter referred to as Kazem . Re claim 1 , Kazem teaches a heat transfer assembly, comprising: a first surface ( see Fig 3B upper surface of 206 ); a second surface ( see Fig 3B bottom surface of 210 ) spaced from the first surface by a gap ( db1 ) having a mean gap width ( db1; C8-9, lns 65-68, 1-20 ); and a thermal interface material ( e.g. 204 ) disposed in the gap and in contact with the first and second surfaces ( see Fig 3b ), the thermal interface material including a matrix material ( 314; e.g. C4-lns 35-45, “The TIM can be created by forming an emulsion of the polymer and the liquid metal such that liquid metal droplets are substantially dispersed” ) and a particulated metal filler ( 312 ) dispersed in the matrix material, the particulated metal filler having a melting point temperature of between 0° C. and 100° C. ( e.g. C4-lns 5-36, “The liquid metal can be in the liquid phase at least at a temperature of no greater than 30 degrees Celsius (e.g., in its bulk form, can comprise a melting point of less than 30 degrees Celsius), such as, for example, no greater than 25 degrees Celsius, no greater than 20 degrees Celsius, no greater than 15 degrees Celsius, no greater than 10 degrees Celsius, no greater than 5 degrees Celsius” ) and a mean particle size that is equal to or larger than the mean gap width, wherein the mean gap width is less than 500 μm ( e.g. C10-lns 5-25, “A eutectic alloy of Gallium, Indium, and Tin (Galinstan) (melting temperature, Tm=19° C.) was dispersed into an elastomer using shear mixing to prepare an uncured TIM emulsion of liquid metal droplets comprising an average particle size of 30 microns. The Galinstan loading was 50% by volume of the uncured TIM emulsion. The uncured TIM emulsion was applied on a heat generating device (e.g., die) and was compressed between the heat sink and the die in the uncured state until a desired bondline thickness (BLT) was achieved to form an uncured assembly. While compressing the uncured TIM between the heat sink and the die, the pressure used for the compression was measured at the respective bondline thickness and the results are shown in FIG. 4. As illustrated, the pressure for compression was no greater than 50 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) during compression from a BLT of 80 microns to 29 microns which is applicable for various packaging equipment” ). Re claim 2 , Kazem teaches the heat transfer assembly as in claim 1, including 40-95% by volume of the particulated metal filler in the thermal interface material ( e.g. C4-5-lns 60-65, 1-15, “The TIM can comprise at least 1% liquid metal droplets by total volume of the TIM, such as, for example, at least 5% liquid metal droplets, at least 10% liquid metal droplets, at least 20% liquid metal droplets, at least 30% liquid metal droplets, at least 40% liquid metal droplets, at least 50% liquid metal droplets, or at least 60% liquid metal droplets, all based on the total volume of the liquid metal droplets” ). Re claim 3 , Kazem teaches the heat transfer assembly as in claim 1, wherein the particulated metal filler is an alloy of one or more of gallium, indium, bismuth, tin, and zinc ( e.g. C10-lns 5-25, “A eutectic alloy of Gallium, Indium, and Tin (Galinstan) (melting temperature, Tm=19° C.)” ). Re claim 11 , Kazem teaches the heat transfer assembly as in claim 1, wherein the mean particle size of the particulated metal filler is at least 150% of the mean gap width ( e.g. C7-lns 35-65, “For example, the average particle size of the liquid metal droplets 312 … 50% greater than the bondline distance” ). Re claim 12 , Kazem teaches the heat transfer assembly as in claim 1, wherein the mean gap width is less than 200 μm ( e.g. claim 3, “wherein a bondline distance formed between the die and the upper layer in the cured assembly is no greater than 150 microns” ). Re claim 16 , Kazem teaches the heat transfer assembly as in claim 1, wherein the first surface is associated with a heat generating device ( 206 ), and the second surface is associated with a heat dissipater ( 210 ), wherein the heat dissipater is a heat sink or a heat spreader ( e.g. C9-lns 49-55, “The die 206 can comprise, for example, an integrated circuit, such as a processor or an ASIC, or a system-on-a-chip (SOC)” … “The upper layer 210 can be an integrated heat spreader” ). Re claim 17 , Kazem teaches a method for forming a heat transfer assembly defining a gap having a mean gap width separating a first surface from a second surface, the method comprising: (a) Providing a thermal interface material ( e.g. 204 ) comprising: (i) a matrix material ( e.g. 314 ); (ii) a particulated metal filler ( e.g. 312 ) dispersed in the matrix material, the particulated metal filler having a melting point temperature of between 0° C. and 100° C. ( e.g. C10-lns 5-25, “A eutectic alloy of Gallium, Indium, and Tin (Galinstan) (melting temperature, Tm=19° C.) was dispersed into an elastomer” ), and a solid phase mean particle size that is equal to or greater than the mean gap width ( e.g. C10-lns 5-25, “A eutectic alloy of Gallium, Indium, and Tin (Galinstan) (melting temperature, Tm=19° C.) was dispersed into an elastomer using shear mixing to prepare an uncured TIM emulsion of liquid metal droplets comprising an average particle size of 30 microns. The Galinstan loading was 50% by volume of the uncured TIM emulsion. The uncured TIM emulsion was applied on a heat generating device (e.g., die) and was compressed between the heat sink and the die in the uncured state until a desired bondline thickness (BLT) was achieved to form an uncured assembly. While compressing the uncured TIM between the heat sink and the die, the pressure used for the compression was measured at the respective bondline thickness and the results are shown in FIG. 4. As illustrated, the pressure for compression was no greater than 50 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) during compression from a BLT of 80 microns to 29 microns which is applicable for various packaging equipment” ); and (b) applying the thermal interface material ( 204 ) to at least one of the first surface ( see Fig 3B upper surface of 206 ) and the second surface ( see Fig 3B bottom surface of 210 ). Re claim 18 , Kazem teaches the method as in claim 17, including contacting the thermal interface material ( 204 ) to both of the first and second surfaces and arranging the first and second surfaces to be separated by the gap ( see Fig 3B ). Re claim 19-20 , Kazem teaches the method as in claim 18, wherein the first surface is associated with a heat generating device; and wherein the second surface is associated with a heat dissipater ( e.g. C9-lns 49-55, “The die 206 can comprise, for example, an integrated circuit, such as a processor or an ASIC, or a system-on-a-chip (SOC)” … “The upper layer 210 can be an integrated heat spreader” ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4-9, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazem, in view of Misra (US Pat No. 6,984,685), hereinafter referred to as Misra . Re claim 4 , Kazem teaches the heat transfer assembly as in claim 3. Kazem does not teach the limitation of wherein the particulated metal filler is an alloy of between 50-75% by weight gallium, 10-30% by weight indium, and 5-20% by weight tin. However, Misra teaches a thermal interface material comprising a particulated metal filler ( e.g. 23 ) is an alloy of between 50-75% by weight gallium, 10-30% by weight indium, and 5-20% by weight tin ( see Table 5, Alloy 5 ). Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kazem and integrated wherein the particulated metal filler is an alloy of between 50-75% by weight gallium, 10-30% by weight indium, and 5-20% by weight tin, as taught by Misra, in order to improve the mechanically stability and thermally conductivity ( see Misra C1-lns 25-30 ). Re claim 5 , Kazem, as modified, teaches the heat transfer assembly as in claim 4. Kazem further teaches the limitation of wherein the particulated metal filler has a melting point temperature of between 0° C. and 20° C ( e.g. C10-lns 5-25, “A eutectic alloy of Gallium, Indium, and Tin (Galinstan) (melting temperature, Tm=19° C.)” ). Re claim 6 , Kazem teaches the heat transfer assembly as in claim 1. Kazem does not teach the limitation of including a hydrophobic surface active agent chemically bonded to a surface of the particulated metal filler. However, Misra teaches a thermal interface material comprising a particulated metal filler ( e.g. 23 ); and a hydrophobic surface ( e.g. C6-lns 25-45, “Silanes and other surface active agents including titanates, zirconates and/or assorted surface active agents are preferred to improve rheology and stability of the dispersion, and particularly for creating a hydrophobic barrier. Surface treatments with surface active agents that work well for improving rheology as well as stability of the dispersion, especially against moisture, are alkyl functional silanes, such as for example octyl triethoxy silane (OTES). Another example is methyl trimethoxy (MTMS) silane. These silanes bind to the oxides on the surface of the metal particles, creating a durable hydrophobic barrier” ) active agent chemically bonded to a surface of the particulated metal filler. Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kazem and integrated a hydrophobic surface active agent chemically bonded to a surface of the particulated metal filler, as taught by Misra, in order to improve the mechanically stability and thermally conductivity ( see Misra C1-lns 25-30 ). Re claim 7 , Kazem, as modified, teaches the heat transfer assembly as in claim 6. Kazem further teaches the limitation of wherein the hydrophobic surface active agent includes an alkyl-tri-alkoxy silane ( e.g. C6-lns 25-45, “ are alkyl functional silanes ” ). Re claim 8-9 , Kazem teaches the heat transfer assembly as in claim 1. Kazem does not teach the limitation of wherein a weight ratio of the particulated metal filler to the matrix material is between 20:1 and 60:1; wherein the weight ratio of the particulated metal filler to the matrix material is between 30:1 and 55:1. However, Misra teaches a thermal interface material comprising a particulated metal filler ( e.g. 23 ); wherein a weight ratio of the particulated metal filler to the matrix material is between 18:1 ( e.g. Table 2 ). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a weight ratio of the particulated metal filler to the matrix material is between 30:1 and 55:1, for the purpose of improving the mechanically stability and thermally conductivity, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II) Re claim 13 , Kazem teaches the heat transfer assembly as in claim 3. Kazem does not teach the limitation of including a mesh body disposed in the gap. However, Misra teaches a thermal interface material comprising a gap ( gap between 21 and 22 ) and including a mesh body ( e.g. C9-lns 10-15, “Given the presence of the stabilizing mesh grid, overall stability of the composite is preserved” ) disposed in the gap. Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kazem and integrated a mesh body disposed in the gap, as taught by Misra, in order to improve the mechanically stability and thermally conductivity ( see Misra C9-lns 10-15 ). Re claim 14 , Kazem, as modified, teaches the heat transfer assembly as in claim 13. Misra further teaches the limitation of wherein the mesh body is embedded in the thermal interface material ( e.g. C9-lns 10-15, “Given the presence of the stabilizing mesh grid, overall stability of the composite is preserved” ). Re claim 15 , Kazem, as modified, teaches the heat transfer assembly as in claim 13. Misra further teaches the limitation of wherein the mesh body comprises a metal or graphite ( e.g. C4-lns 48-55, “The grid is preferably a thin mesh body fabricated from a highly thermally conductive metal such as, for example, copper or aluminum” ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazem . Re claim 10 , Kazem teaches the heat transfer assembly as in claim 1. Kazem teaches the limitation of wherein the matrix material includes a thermoplastic elastomer ( e.g. C3-lns 40-45, “the polymer can be elastomeric (e.g., rubbery, soft, stretchy) or rigid (e.g., glassy). For example, the polymer can be elastomeric” ) and is formed from a fluid resin having a viscosity of between 200-1,000 cP at 25° C ( e.g. C4-lns 50-65, “The composition and/or mixing techniques can be chosen such that the viscosity of the TIM emulsion in an uncured state is … less than 10,000 cP” ). Kazem does not teach the limitation of wherein the matrix material includes the viscosity of between 200-1,000 cPat 25° C. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the viscosity of between 200-1,000 cPat 25° C, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II) Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (see PTO-892) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON NIEVES whose telephone number is (571)270-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm. 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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. /NELSON J NIEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 06/13/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/984,217 Page 2 Art Unit: 3763
Prosecution Insights