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
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-5, in the reply filed on 04/28/2026 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 6 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 04/28/2026.
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.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (KR 10-2421490) (Choi) in view of Kitagawa (JP 2018-107154), Joo (US 2018/0162098) and Fujiwara (JP 2005-210035).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of KR 10-2421490, JP 2018-107154 and JP 2005-210035. The citation of prior art in the rejection refers to the provided machine translations.
In reference to claims 1, 3 and 5, Choi teaches a thermal conductive sheet composite ([0001]). The composite includes an anisotropic thermal conductive film having a plurality of micropores ([0011]). The thermal conductive film is a graphite film ([0012]) (corresponding to a graphite structure comprising: a graphite plate). FIG. 5(a), provided below, shows a micropore extends through the graphite film 20 (corresponding to a graphite plate including at least one through-hole passing through the graphite plate in a direction orthogonal to a basal surface of the graphite plate).
Choi further teaches a first meta layer formed on one side of the graphite film, a second metal layer formed on the second side of the graphite film and a thermal conductive column formed inside at least one of the plurality of micropores between the first metal layer and the second metal layer, wherein the outer surface of the thermal conductive column is in close contact with the inner surface of the at least one micropore and has a central opening in a direction perpendicular to the graphite film ([0011]). The first metal layer, second metal layer and heat conduction column are a copper layer ([0012]; [0052]) (corresponding to a second metal covering a region surrounded by the inner peripheral surface of the at least one through-hole).
Choi does not explicitly teach (1) a coating layer covering an inner peripheral surface of the at least one through-hole and an entire circumference of the graphite plate, (2) the metal layers and heat conduction column are porous metal layers and (3) a third metal covering an entire circumference of the metal layers, as presently claimed.
With respect to (1), Kitagawa teaches a heat dissipation substrate including a graphite sheet as a base material and a conductive copper layer arranged on one side of the base material ([0013]). To improve adhesion between the conductive copper layer and the graphite substrate, a thin metal film of nickel and nichrome alloys is placed as an underlayer for the copper layer ([0020]) (corresponding to a coating layer; the coating layer contains any one of metals of nickel and titanium, or an alloy containing the any one of metals as a main component, as the first metal). The film thickness is 20 nm to 100 nm (i.e., 0.02 µm to 0.1 µm) (corresponding to a thickness in a range from 0.01 µm to 20 µm inclusive).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
In light of the motivation of Kitagawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have a thin metal film of nickel applied to the graphite film of Choi before the copper layers, in order to improve adhesion between the copper layers and the graphite film.
Choi further teaches the copper is on the outer surface of the graphite film and the thermal conductive column is formed within the micropores (Choi, [0055]). Given that Choi in view of Kitagawa teaches the a nickel film between the copper and graphite film, it is clear the outer surface of the graphite film will include a nickel film and copper layers (corresponding to a coating layer covering an inner peripheral surface of the at least one through-hole and an entire circumference of the graphite plate; a second metal covering an entire circumference of the coating layer including a region surrounding the inner peripheral surface of the at least one through-hole).
Given that the thin nickel film of that Choi in view of Kitagawa is substantially identical to the present claimed coating layer in composition, it is clear that the thin nickel film of that Choi in view of Kitagawa would intrinsically be capable of forming a compound with carbon atoms constituting the graphite film.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
“Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties Applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. (MPEP 2112.01).
With respect to (2), Choi teaches the composite sheet is used for heat dissipation of various electronic components ([0058]; [0067]).
Joo teaches a fused sheet for electronic equipment high heat dissipation (Abstract). The fused sheet includes a porous metal and a graphite sheet ([0014]). The fused sheet provides electromagnetic wave absorption/extinction and shielding, and for electronic equipment high heat dissipation, based on a technical theory that fine pores of a porous metal sheet absorb electromagnetic waves to convert and extinct thermal energy through diffused reflection ([0015]; [0034]). The porous metal sheet is formed of copper ([0020]-[0022]).
In light of the motivation of Joo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the copper layers of Choi in view of Kitagawa be porous copper layers, in order to absorb electromagnetic waves convert and extinct thermal energy through diffused reflection.
With respect to (3), Choi teaches adhesive layers can be used to additionally laminate other materials onto the thermal conductive sheet composite ([0060]).
Fujiwara teaches a graphite composite material including a first sheet made of graphite and a second and third sheet made of metal laminated on and integrated on both main surfaces of thereof, characterized in that the exposed end face of the first sheet is sealed ([0008]). The first and second metal sheets are copper and a thickness of the second and third sheets is 0.02 to 20 mm (i.e., 20-20,000 µm) ([0011]; [0019]) (corresponding to a third metal covering an entire circumference of the porous second metal; the third metal is copper or an alloy containing copper as a main component, and the third metal is formed covering an outer periphery of the porous second metal while having a thickness in a range from 1 µm to 100 µm inclusive and causing an outside from the graphite plate to be formed of the third metal bonded). The end face of the graphite sheet is sealed without being exposed, dust generation, i.e., the shedding of graphite powder, can be prevented. Therefore, even when used in electronic devices, it will not cause short circuits and can maintain high reliability ([0023]).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
In light of the motivation of Fujiwara, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to include the second and third sheet made of copper laminated on both faces of and sealing in the thermal conductive sheet composite of Choi in view of Kitagawa and Joo, in order to ensure the graphite sheet is sealed without being exposed and thereby preventing shedding of graphite and provide a highly [AltContent: textbox (through-hole)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (graphite plate)][AltContent: textbox (second metal)]
PNG
media_image1.png
348
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
reliable electronic device, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
In reference to claim 2, Choi in view of Kitagawa, Joo and Fujiwara teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Choi further teaches a hole size is 0.6 mm and a hole area occupies 5% of a total area ([0082]) (corresponding to the at least one through-hole has a total area in a range from 5% to50% inclusive with respect to an area of the graphite plate, and a maximum area per one through-hole is in a range from 5% to 80% inclusive with respect to the total area of the graphite plate).
In reference to claim 4, Choi in view of Kitagawa, Joo and Fujiwara teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Choi in view of Kitagawa, Joo and Fujiwara teaches the copper layer is a porous copper layer (Joo, [0020]-[0022]) (corresponding to the porous second metal is copper or an alloy containing copper as a main component, and the porous second metal is formed over the entire circumference of the coating layer). The thickness of the porous copper layer can be from 0.01 mm to 50 mm (Joo, [0072]) (corresponding to a thickness in a range from 0.01 mm to 0.5 mm).
Given that the porous copper layer of Choi in view of Kitagawa, Joo and Fujiwara is substantially identical to the presently claimed porous second metal in composition and structure (Joo, [0074]), the porous copper layer of Choi in view of Kitagawa, Joo and Fujiwara would intrinsically have a porosity in a range from 5% to 30%.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary I Omori whose telephone number is (571)270-1203. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/MARY I OMORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights