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
The restriction requirement of 4/8/2026 is moot in view of Applicant’s amendments filed 6/8/2026. All claims are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the material” should be “the solid material”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 12-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Martel et al. (US 2021/0285110).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Martel discloses a metallic substrate having a first layer of nickel and an abrasive layer having a matrix and an abrasive at least partially embedded in the matrix (corresponding to the claimed inclusions) (¶ 11). The first layer is a strike layer formed by electroplating (¶ 23). The substrate surface is roughened (¶ 51), which improves adhesion of the layers. The matrix of the abrasive layer is formed by electroplating (¶¶ 57-58). The substrate is a turbine blade airfoil (¶ 11), which are intrinsically thermally dissipative structures, as turbines typically operate at very high temperatures often exceeding the melting point of the metal the turbine substrates are made out of.
Regarding claim 2, as the matrix of Martel is applied by electroplating, electrical current is necessarily passed through the strike layer to cause electrochemical deposition.
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Martel teaches the abrasive grit is a boron nitride (¶ 57). As this is the same material as that claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect it to impart an increased heat transfer rate and reduced coefficient of thermal expansion, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 12, Martel discloses an interlayer which is formed between the strike and the abrasive layer (¶ 29). The interlayer is ductile (¶ 56). Further, as turbine blades draw away heat, they can be considered a heatsink.
Regarding claim 18, Martel discloses a metallic substrate having a first layer of nickel and an abrasive layer having a matrix and an abrasive at least partially embedded in the matrix (corresponding to the claimed inclusions) (¶ 11). The first layer is a strike layer formed by electroplating (¶ 23), as serves as “bond layer” (¶ 54).
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martel et al. (US 2021/0285110), as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Martel teaches the abrasive grit has a size between ASTM mesh 270 and 80 (¶ 57), which corresponds to a maximum size of about 165 microns. The average diameter of the grit is necessary smaller than 165 microns, which overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldridge et al. (US 2001/0020545).
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 6, Eldridge discloses a gold wire (¶ 480) on which is formed a nickel layer comprising particles such as diamond (¶ 481). Eldridge also teaches it is conventional in the art to use a strike layer to enhance the plating ability of nickel onto gold (¶ 466). Eldridge teaches the nickel layer is produced by electroplating (¶ 500). The wire is made of gold and is therefore a good heat conductor and can be considered a “thermally dissipative substrate”. As diamond is the same material as that claimed for the inclusion, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect it to impart an increased heat transfer rate and reduced coefficient of thermal expansion, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 2, as the matrix of Martel is applied by electroplating, electrical current is necessarily passed through the strike layer to cause electrochemical deposition.
Regarding claim 18, Eldridge discloses a gold wire (¶ 480) on which is formed a nickel layer comprising particles such as diamond (¶ 481). Eldridge also teaches it is conventional in the art to use a strike layer to enhance the plating ability of nickel onto gold (466). Eldridge teaches the nickel layer is produced by electroplating (¶ 500).
Claims 1-6, 10, 12-14, 16, 18-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sylvestre et al. (US 2025/0233049) in view of Wei et al. (US 2022/0162764).
Regarding claim 1, Sylvestre discloses a coated applied to the surface of a data processor for heat transport (¶ 7). The coating is electroplated (¶ 28). Sylvestre discloses an intermediate layer between the surface and the coating (¶ 23), which corresponds to the claimed strike layer.
Sylvestre does not expressly disclose inclusions in the coating. Wei teaches a copper-based graphene composite layer produced by electrodeposition (¶ 6). Since the copper and graphene are electrodeposited together (¶ 37), the graphene is dispersed throughout the composite layer. It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to include graphene in the coating of Sylvestre because doing so improves the heat dissipation efficiency of the material (¶ 19).
Regarding claim 2, as the matrix of modified Sylvestre is applied by electroplating, electrical current is necessarily passed through the strike layer to cause electrochemical deposition.
Regarding claim 3, the coating of Sylvestre is characterized as having porosity (corresponding to the claimed spatial gaps), the coating of Sylvestre is formed from numerous distinct electroplating steps (¶ 79) and therefore can be considered to comprise superposed layers.
Regarding claims 4 and 6, the graphene in Sylvestre in view of Wei is the same material as that claimed. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect it to impart an increased heat transfer rate and reduced coefficient of thermal expansion, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 5, the substrate of Sylvestre is an integrated semiconductor circuit (¶ 20). An integrated circuit is inherently patterned.
Regarding claim 10, the porosity in the coating of Sylvestre is interconnected (see Fig. 19).
Regarding claim 12, Sylvestre discloses two intermediate layers (23), which is copper (¶ 110), a ductile metal.
Regarding claim 13, Sylvestre discloses the first intermediate layer is titanium (¶ 110).
Regarding claim 14, Sylvestre teaches the coating is formed of dendrite structures, which form predictably from metal grains (¶ 14). Thus, the structure can be considered to be “spatially-selective”. The pores of the coating are expected to be stress reducing gaps since they intrinsically lower stress during expansion due to heat, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 16, Sylvestre teaches the porosity of the coating is obtained due to formation of dendrites (¶ 14). This forms an artery-capillary structure.
Regarding claim 18-19, Sylvestre discloses a coated applied to the surface of a data processor for heat transport (¶ 7). The coating is electroplated (¶ 28). Sylvestre discloses an intermediate layer between the surface and the coating (¶ 23), which corresponds to the claimed strike layer. Sylvestre teaches the coating is formed of dendrite structures, which form predictably from metal grains (¶ 14). Thus, the structure can be considered to be “spatially-selective”. The pores of the coating are expected to be stress reducing gaps since they intrinsically lower stress during expansion due to heat, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Sylvestre does not expressly disclose inclusions in the coating. Wei teaches a copper-based graphene composite layer produced by electrodeposition (¶ 6). Since the copper and graphene are electrodeposited together (¶ 37), the graphene is dispersed throughout the composite layer. It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to include graphene in the coating of Sylvestre because doing so improves the heat dissipation efficiency of the material (¶ 19). The inclusion of graphene increases heat transfer rate and is expected to reduce a coefficient of thermal expansion of the coating, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 21, the coating of Sylvestre is formed from numerous distinct electroplating steps (¶ 79) and therefore can be considered to comprise a series of layers. Based on the teachings of Wei, graphene would be present throughout the layers.
Claims 6 and 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sylvestre et al. (US 2025/0233049) in view of Wei et al. (US 2022/0162764), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Glezen et al. (US 5,873,992).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Wei teaches the electroplated composite layer is metallic copper. Sylvestre in view of Wei does not teach the composite includes metallized diamond particles. Glezen teaches metallizing diamond particles (col. 3, lines 43-46), and that such composites can be used in heat sinks due to diamond’s very high thermal conductivity and diffusivity (col. 1, lines 43-67). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to include metallized diamond in the heat sink of Sylvestre in view of Wei because metallized diamond particles would improve heat transfer properties, as suggested by Glezen.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sylvestre et al. (US 2025/0233049) in view of Wei et al. (US 2022/0162764) and Glezen et al. (US 5,873,992), as applied to claims 6 and 1, respectively, further in view of Cho et al. (US 2022/0394882).
Regarding claim 7, the limitations of claim 6 have been addressed above. Modified Sylvestre does not teach a carbide interlayer between the inclusion and the coating metal. Cho teaches forming a titanium carbide layer at the interface between diamond particles and a metal matrix to improve the adhesion between them and reduce the presence of pores and cracks at the interface (¶¶ 71-72). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the metallizing layer of Glezen for a metal carbide layer as taught by Cho in order to achieve a better adhesion between the diamond and the material for the coating.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Modified Sylvestre does not teach an interlayer having an intermediate Debye temperature with respect to the metal and the non-metallic particles. Cho teaches forming a titanium carbide layer at the interface between diamond particles and a metal matrix to improve the adhesion between them and reduce the presence of pores and cracks at the interface (¶¶ 71-72). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the metallizing layer of Glezen for a metal carbide layer as taught by Cho in order to achieve a better adhesion between the diamond and the material for the coating. The present specification gives examples of materials having an intermediate Debye temperature with respect to the metal and the non-metallic particles as metal carbides or intermetallics (see Spec., ¶ 93). Since the interlayer of Modified Sylvestre in view of Cho is a metal carbide, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the interfacial metal carbide layer of Cho to have an intermediate Debye temperature as claimed, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sylvestre et al. (US 2025/0233049) in view of Wei et al. (US 2022/0162764), as applied to claim 18, further in view of Cho et al. (US 2022/0394882).
Regarding claim 20, the limitations of claim 18 have been addressed above. Modified Sylvestre does not teach a coating on the inclusions comprising a stoichiometric carbide compound. Cho teaches forming a titanium carbide layer at the interface between carbon and a metal matrix to improve the adhesion between them and reduce the presence of pores and cracks at the interface (¶¶ 71-72). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a titanium carbide layer as taught by Cho in order to achieve a better adhesion between carbon and the material for the coating. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect this titanium carbide to be stoichiometric absent any indication in Cho to the contrary.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shedd et al. (US 2016/0116222) in view of Tomantschger et al. (US 2010/0304065).
Regarding claim 22, Shedd teaches a heat exchanger comprising an array of interconnected fluid transfer members (¶ 6). The heat exchanger is connectable to a sealed fluid distribution system (¶ 82), and is formed of a polymer substrate (¶ 28). Shedd teaches the polymer may be a polymer-metal composite, but does not expressly teach an electrochemically or electroless formed metal film on the polymer.
Tomantschger teaches a metal-clad polymer article useful for heat dissipation (¶ 24). The metal layer is applied via electroless deposition or electrodeposition (¶ 21). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a metal film, as taught by Tomantschger, on the polymer heat exchanger of Shedd because the metal layers improve thermal conductivity and heat dissipation properties, as well as improving the mechanical properties and providing other advantages such as antimicrobial properties (¶ 24).
Regarding claim 23, Tomantschger teaches forming a metallizing intermediate layer between the polymeric substrate and the metal layer to improve adhesion (¶ 104), which is inherently an electrically conductive strike layer.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 12-13, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shedd et al. (US 2016/0116222) in view of Tomantschger et al. (US 2010/0304065) and Wei et al. (US 2022/0162764).
Regarding claims 1-2, Shedd teaches a heat exchanger comprising an array of interconnected fluid transfer members (¶ 6). The heat exchanger is connectable to a sealed fluid distribution system (¶ 82), and is formed of a polymer substrate (¶ 28). Shedd teaches the polymer may be a polymer-metal composite, but does not expressly teach an electrochemically or electroless formed metal film on the polymer.
Tomantschger teaches a metal-clad polymer article useful for heat dissipation (¶ 24). The metal layer is applied via electroless deposition or electrodeposition (¶ 21), and there is a metallizing intermediate layer between the polymeric substrate and the metal layer to improve adhesion (¶ 104) (corresponding to the strike layer). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a metal film, as taught by Tomantschger, on the polymer heat exchanger of Shedd because the metal layers improve thermal conductivity and heat dissipation properties, as well as improving the mechanical properties and providing other advantages such as antimicrobial properties (¶ 24).
Shedd in view of Tomantschger does not teach the presence of inclusions in the metal layer. Wei teaches a copper-based graphene composite layer produced by electrodeposition (¶ 6). Since the copper and graphene are electrodeposited together (¶ 37), the graphene is dispersed throughout the composite layer. It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to include graphene in the coating of Shedd in view of Tomantschger because doing so improves the heat dissipation efficiency of the material (¶ 19).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, the graphene in Modified Shedd is the same material as that claimed. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect it to impart an increased heat transfer rate and reduced coefficient of thermal expansion, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 12, Tomantschger teaches there may be at least one such intermediate layer (¶ 84).
Regarding claim 13, Tomantschger teaches the intermediate layer may be a metal such as Ni (¶ 122).
Regarding claim 17, the polymer heat exchanger of Shedd is a polymer manifold system for containing flow of a heat transfer fluid (¶ 6).
Regarding claims 18-19, Shedd teaches a heat exchanger comprising an array of interconnected fluid transfer members (¶ 6). The heat exchanger is connectable to a sealed fluid distribution system (¶ 82), and is formed of a polymer substrate (¶ 28). Shedd teaches the polymer may be a polymer-metal composite, but does not expressly teach an electrochemically or electroless formed metal film on the polymer.
Tomantschger teaches a metal-clad polymer article useful for heat dissipation (¶ 24). The metal layer is applied via electroless deposition or electrodeposition (¶ 21), and there is a metallizing intermediate layer between the polymeric substrate and the metal layer to improve adhesion (¶ 104) (corresponding to the strike layer). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a metal film, as taught by Tomantschger, on the polymer heat exchanger of Shedd because the metal layers improve thermal conductivity and heat dissipation properties, as well as improving the mechanical properties and providing other advantages such as antimicrobial properties (¶ 24).
Shedd in view of Tomantschger does not teach the presence of inclusions in the metal layer. Wei teaches a copper-based graphene composite layer produced by electrodeposition (¶ 6). Since the copper and graphene are electrodeposited together (¶ 37), the graphene is dispersed throughout the composite layer. It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to include graphene in the coating of Shedd in view of Tomantschger because doing so improves the heat dissipation efficiency of the material (¶ 19). The graphene in Modified Shedd is the same material as that claimed. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect it to impart an increased heat transfer rate and reduced coefficient of thermal expansion, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Claims 6 and 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shedd et al. (US 2016/0116222) in view of Tomantschger et al. (US 2010/0304065) and Wei et al. (US 2022/0162764), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Glezen et al. (US 5,873,992).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Wei teaches the electroplated composite layer is metallic copper. Modified Shedd does not teach the composite includes metallized diamond particles. Glezen teaches metallizing diamond particles (col. 3, lines 43-46), and that such composites can be used in heat sinks due to diamond’s very high thermal conductivity and diffusivity (col. 1, lines 43-67). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to include metallized diamond in the heat sink of Modified Shedd because metallized diamond particles would improve heat transfer properties, as suggested by Glezen.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shedd et al. (US 2016/0116222) in view of Tomantschger et al. (US 2010/0304065) and Wei et al. (US 2022/0162764) and Glezen et al. (US 5,873,992), as applied to claims 6 and 1, respectively, further in view of Cho et al. (US 2022/0394882).
Regarding claim 7, the limitations of claim 6 have been addressed above. Modified Shedd does not teach a carbide interlayer between the inclusion and the coating metal. Cho teaches forming a titanium carbide layer at the interface between diamond particles and a metal matrix to improve the adhesion between them and reduce the presence of pores and cracks at the interface (¶¶ 71-72). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the metallizing layer of Glezen for a metal carbide layer as taught by Cho in order to achieve a better adhesion between the diamond and the material for the coating.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Modified Shedd does not teach an interlayer having an intermediate Debye temperature with respect to the metal and the non-metallic particles. Cho teaches forming a titanium carbide layer at the interface between diamond particles and a metal matrix to improve the adhesion between them and reduce the presence of pores and cracks at the interface (¶¶ 71-72). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the metallizing layer of Glezen for a metal carbide layer as taught by Cho in order to achieve a better adhesion between the diamond and the material for the coating. The present specification gives examples of materials having an intermediate Debye temperature with respect to the metal and the non-metallic particles as metal carbides or intermetallics (see Spec., ¶ 93). Since the interlayer of Modified Shedd in view of Cho is a metal carbide, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the interfacial metal carbide layer of Cho to have an intermediate Debye temperature as claimed, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOBEI WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5705. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
/XIAOBEI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights