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 § 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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al., U.S. Pre Grant Publication 2024/0149550.
Regarding claim 1, 3, 6, 8-11, Suzuki discloses a sandwich structure that includes a core material of fiber reinforced materials and a sheet shaped heat conduction material having an in-plane heat conductivity ratio of 300 W/m K [abstract, 0014 and 0025]. Figure 1 shows the conduction member 4 laminated with the fiber reinforced member 3. Paragraph 0046 of Suzuki discloses that the core can include polypropylene resin. Paragraph 0047 discloses that the resin can include phosphorus flame retardants such as ammonium polyphosphate and melamine phosphate. Paragraph 0050 discloses that the core can include glass fibers [inorganic fibers] wherein the fibers can be in the form of mat [0070].
Suzuki teaches the claimed invention but fails to teach that layer (B) has a higher thermal conductivity in a thickness direction than layer (A). It is reasonable to presume that layer (B) has a higher thermal conductivity in a thickness direction than layer (A) is inherent to Suzuki. Said presumption is based on Suzuki’s disclosure of a sandwich structure that includes a core material of fiber reinforced materials and a sheet shaped heat conduction material having an in-plane heat conductivity ratio of 300 W/m K [abstract, 0014 and 0025]. Figure 1 shows the conduction member 4 laminated with the fiber reinforced member 3. Paragraph 0046 of Suzuki discloses that the core can include polypropylene resin. Paragraph 0047 discloses that the resin can include phosphorus flame retardants such as ammonium polyphosphate and melamine phosphate. Paragraph 0050 discloses that the core can include glass fibers [inorganic fibers] wherein the fibers can be in the form of mat [0070]. Burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. Fitzgerald, In re, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980)
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki teaches the claimed invention but fails to teach a thermal conductivity measured in the thickness direction of the laminate is 0.32 W/m K or more. It is reasonable to presume that a thermal conductivity measured in the thickness direction of the laminate is 0.32 W/m K or more is inherent to Suzuki. Said presumption is based on Suzuki’s disclosure of a sandwich structure that includes a core material of fiber reinforced materials and a sheet shaped heat conduction material having an in-plane heat conductivity ratio of 300 W/m K [abstract, 0014 and 0025]. Figure 1 shows the conduction member 4 laminated with the fiber reinforced member 3. Paragraph 0046 of Suzuki discloses that the core can include polypropylene resin. Paragraph 0047 discloses that the resin can include phosphorus flame retardants such as ammonium polyphosphate and melamine phosphate. Paragraph 0050 discloses that the core can include glass fibers [inorganic fibers] wherein the fibers can be in the form of mat [0070]. Burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. Fitzgerald, In re, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980)
Regarding claims 4-5, Suzuki discloses in paragraphs 0037 and 0042 that the heat conduction member can include metals such as titanium or magnesium, aluminum, iron, silver gold platinum, copper and nickel with a layer thickness of 0.01 µm to 2.0 mm.
Regarding claim 12, paragraph 0047 of Suzuki discloses that resin can include an additive such as zinc oxide.
Regarding claims 13-16, paragraph 0064 discloses a method of heat-pressing the structure.
Regarding claim 17, paragraph 0001 of Suzuki discloses a housing.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al., U.S. Pre Grant Publication 2024/0149550 in view of Katayama et al., U.S. Pre Grant Publication 2021/0340356.
Suzuki, above, remains relied upon for claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki is silent to the thermoplastic resin further including a co-polymer of an α-olefin and an unsaturated carboxylic acid. Katayama discloses a resin composition including a polyolefin resin, a phosphorus-based flame retardant and glass fiber [abstract]. Paragraph 0001 discloses that the composition is used in a battery module enclosure part of a battery in an electric vehicle. Paragraph 0021 discloses that the polyolefin resin can include polypropylene resin. Paragraph 0051 discloses a battery powered electric transportation device [automotive]. Paragraph 0020 discloses that the polypropylene resin can include copolymers of α-olefin and unsaturated carboxylic acid. Paragraph 0006 discloses that the composition has a high degree of flame retardancy and good mechanical strength. Suzuki and Katayama are analogous art in that both references utilize a polypropylene resin composition including a phosphorus flame retardant and glass fiber in an automotive part. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to utilize the polypropylene resin of Katayama in Suzuki for the benefit of obtaining a composition in a housing for automotive parts that has enhanced flame retardancy and mechanical strength.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMIE S THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1530. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Jennifer Boyd, can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/CAMIE S THOMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights