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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 8/21/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 8/21/2026 is acknowledged.
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) 1-8, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Zeng (CN113881228A) in view of Wang (CN116622238A).
Regarding claim 1, Zeng teaches a high thermal conductivity structure (see Fig. 1-2) comprising: a polymer base material (a polymer basebody – Page 8); a plurality of carbon fibers (carbon fibers – see Fig. 1 & Page 8) positioned in a direction (see vertical direction) within the polymer base material; and a horizontal thermal conductive layer (bottom layer of polymer basebody – Page 8); formed on a surface or both surfaces of the polymer base material, the horizontal thermal conductive layer comprising reduced graphene oxide (graphene oxide as bridging agent – Page 8), and the rGO is positioned in a horizontal direction perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the plurality of carbon fibers (see Fig. 1), and wherein the rGO and the plurality of carbon fibers contact with each other, thereby forming a thermal path.
Zeng does not teach wherein a longest length of the rGO is smaller than a spacing between the plurality of carbon fibers.
Wang teaches (see Fig. 1) wherein a longest length of the carbon particles (2) is smaller than a spacing between the plurality of carbon fibers (3) (see “the distance between the adjacent sides of the carbon fibre 3 is greater than the maximum particle diameter of the heat-conducting particles 2” - Page 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zeng to include the spacing and sizes as taught by Wang, in order to improve heat conduction (Page 8).
Regarding claim 2, Zeng teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Zeng further teaches the polymer base material comprises epoxy (Page 4).
Regarding claim 3, Zeng teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Zeng further teaches the plurality of carbon fibers have a length of 0.2 millimeters (mm) to 2.0 mm (see overlapping ranges of 60 microns – 2 mm, or 150 microns to 500 microns – Page 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 4, Zeng teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Zeng does not teach the plurality of carbon fibers have a content of 40 volume% to 70 volume% in the high thermal conductivity structure.
Wang further teaches the plurality of carbon fibers have a content of 40 volume% to 70 volume% in the high thermal conductivity structure (40% - Page 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zeng to include the volume % as taught by Wang, in order to provide good heat conducting performance (Page 9).
Regarding claim 5, Zeng teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Zeng further teaches the plurality of carbon fibers have an average diameter of 2 micrometers (μm) to 50 μm (see overlapping range of 2-20 microns Page 8), and Zeng does not teach an average spacing between adjacent carbon fibers is 1 μm to 10 μm. Wang further teaches the spacing is set to be smaller than the greatest length of particles (see “the distance between the adjacent sides of the carbon fibre 3 is greater than the maximum particle diameter of the heat-conducting particles 2” - Page 8), and Zeng further teaches the maximum dimension is 5 microns (Page 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 6, Zeng teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Zeng further teaches a cross section of the plurality of carbon fibers has a semi-major axis that is 100% to 110% of a semi-minor axis (see cross-section of Fig. 2, which is to scale).
Regarding claim 7, Zeng teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Zeng further teaches the rGO has an area of 0.5 μm2 to 4 μm2 (see effective diameter of 0.5-5 microns of graphene, Page 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 8, Zeng teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Zeng further teaches
the horizontal thermal conductive layer has a thickness of 0.5 μm to 20 μm (integral layer as defined above).
Regarding claim 11, Zeng teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Zeng further teaches the high thermal conductivity structure is adhesive-free between the rGO and the plurality of carbon fibers (see Page 8).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Zeng (CN113881228A) in view of Wang (CN116622238A) and Kudoh (US20210130570A1).
Regarding claim 9, Zeng teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Zeng does not teach
the horizontal thermal conductive layer has a surface roughness of 0.2 μm to 2.0 μm.
Kudoh teaches the horizontal thermal conductive layer has a surface roughness of 0.2 μm to 2.0 μm (less than 10 microns - ¶[0093]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zeng to include the surface roughness of Kudoh, in order to improve efficiency of contact (¶[0093]).
Regarding claim 10, Zeng teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Zeng does not teach
the high thermal conductivity structure has a thermal conductivity of 30 W/mK to 160 W/mK.
Kudoh teaches wherein the thermal conductivity of the sheet may be 50 W/mK or less (¶[0090]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zeng to include the surface roughness of Kudoh, in order to provide excellent thermal conductivity (¶[0090]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S RUPPERT whose telephone number is (571)272-9911. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 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, 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.
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights