www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/050,429
`
`10/23/2020
`
`AKTHITO KONISHI
`
`083710-3191
`
`1855
`
`McDermott Will and Emery LLP
`The McDermott Building
`500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`HOFFBERG, ROBERT JOSEPH
`
`2835
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`12/06/2022
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`Thetime period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`mweipdocket@mwe.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-6,8 and 15 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`C) Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-6,8 and 15 is/are rejected.
`1) Claim(s)__is/are objectedto.
`Cj} Claim(s)
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)(] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11) The drawing(s) filed on 10/23/20 is/are: a)¥) accepted or b)( objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`_—_c)L) None ofthe:
`b)L) Some**
`a)¥) All
`1.2) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.2 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.4 Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) (J Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20221201
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`47/050,429
`KONISHI et al.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`ROBERT J HOFFBERG
`2835
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 11/18/22.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)[¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)\0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/050,429
`Art Unit: 2835
`
`Page 2
`
`Detailed Action
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`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 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.
`
`Responseto Arguments
`
`2.
`
`Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 8 and 15 have been considered
`
`but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the primary reference, Taira being
`
`used in the current rejection based upon Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`3.
`
`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 madein this Office action:
`
`A personshall 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 otherwiseavailable to the public before the effectivefiling date of the claimed
`invention.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
`
`Taira (Yoichi Taira, Sayuri Kohara and Kuniaki suecka, “Performance improvement of
`
`stacked graphite sheets for cocling applications,” 2008 58th Electronic Components and
`
`Technology Conference, 2008, pp. 760-764, doi: 10.1109/ECTC.2008.4550059).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/050,429
`Art Unit: 2835
`
`Page 3
`
`With respect to Claim 1, Taira teaches an electronic device (fig. 2) comprising: a
`
`mount board (fig. 2, “Packaging substrate”); a heat generating component(fig. 2, “Chip”)
`
`provided on the mount board; a pressing component(fig. 2, “Cap / Heat spreader’)
`
`provided above the heat generating component; a graphite-based carbon (see title) film
`
`(fig. 2, “Internal TIM (TIM1”)) provided between the heat generating component and the
`
`pressing component, the graphite-based carbon film havingafirst surface (fig. 2, bottom
`
`of “Internal TIM (TIM1”)) facing the heat generating component and a second surface
`
`(fig. 2, top of “Internal TIM (TIM1”)) facing the pressing component; and a liquid heat
`
`conductive material (Perfluoropolyether, p. 763, 2" col., 1% line [examiner's note: same
`
`liquid as Applicant discloses]) provided between the heat generating component and the
`
`graphite-based carbon film and between the pressing component and the graphite-
`
`based carbon film (“dipping” will coat all over including the top and bottom surfaces of
`
`TIM1 offig. 2, p. 763, 2" col. 6" line), wherein: the heat generating componentis
`
`provided between (see fig. 2) the mount board and the pressing component, the heat
`
`generating component and the graphite-based carbon film are sealed (seefig. 2) with
`
`the mount board and the pressing component by connecting (see fig. 2) the mount
`
`board and the pressing component, the graphite-based carbon film is compressed (see
`
`fig. 2 and fig. 16, “Applied Pressure: 35 PSI”) by connecting the mount board and the
`
`pressing component and heat generating component, and side surfaces (fig. 2, left and
`
`rights sides of “Internal TIM (TIM1”)) of the graphite-based carbon film, which are
`
`disposed between the first surface and the second surface, are covered (“dipping”will
`
`coat all over including the side surfaces of TIM1 offig. 2, p. 763, 2col., 6! line) with
`
`the liquid heat conductive material.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/050,429
`Art Unit: 2835
`
`Page 4
`
`With respect to Claim 8, Tiara further teaches the liquid heat conductive material
`
`contains perfluoropolyether (Perfluoropolyether, p. 763, 2" col., 15line).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`5.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousnessrejections setforth 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 of thistitle, if the differences
`between the claimed invention andthe prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole
`would have been obvious before the effectivefiling 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 whichthe invention was made.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Taira (Yoichi Taira, Sayuri Kohara and Kuniaki Sueoka, “Performance
`
`improvement of stacked graphite sheets for cooling applications,” 2008 58th Electronic
`
`Components and Technology Conference, 2008, pp. 760-764, doi:
`
`10.1109/ECTC.2008.4550059) and Fukui (US 2016/0336253).
`
`With respect to Claim 2, Taira further teaches one or morefirst voids (fig. 13, and
`
`“small air gap”, p. 763, 1% col., last para., 4" line on fig. 2, bottom of “Internal TIM
`
`(TIM1”)) are formedat the first surface of the graphite-based carbon film facing the heat
`
`generating component, and one or more second voids (fig. 13, and “small air gap”, p.
`
`763, 1% col., last para., 4" line on fig. 2, bottom of “Internal TIM (TIM1”)) are formed at
`
`the second surface of the graphite-based carbon film facing the pressing component,
`
`the one or morefirst voids and the one or more secondvoids arefilled (“coat the
`
`surface of the stacked pyrolytic graphite sheet TIM bythin layer of fluorine based
`
`polymer, perfluoropolyether (PFPE)’, p. 763, 1% col., last para., starting at 9" line) with
`
`the liquid heat conductive material. Taira fails to disclose a first porosity is a ratio of a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/050,429
`Art Unit: 2835
`
`Page 5
`
`total area of the one or morefirst voids projected onto the first surface to an entire area
`
`of the first surface, the first porosity is less than or equal to 5%, and when a second
`
`porosity is a ratio of a total area of the one or more second voids projected onto the
`
`second surface to an entire area of the second surface, the second porosity is less than
`
`or equal to 5%. Fukui teaches one or morefirst voids ({[0089, |. 14) are formed ata
`
`first surface (surface of solder facing silicon device) of the film ({[0089], |. 8, solder)
`
`facing the heat generating component ( [0089], Il. 5-6, silicon device), and one or more
`
`second voids (¥[0089, |. 14) are formed at a second surface (surface of solder facing
`
`heat dissipation substrate) of the film (F{[0089], |. 8, solder) facing the pressing
`
`component (4[0089], |. 5, heat dissipation substrate), the one or morefirst voids and the
`
`one or more second voids arefilled with the heat conductive material ({[0089], |. 8,
`
`solder), whenafirst porosity is a ratio of a total area of the one or morefirst voids
`
`projected ontofirst surface to an entire area of the first surface, the first porosity is less
`
`than or equal to 5%(4[0089], Il. 9-10), and when a second porosity is a ratio of a total
`
`area of the one or more second voids projected onto second surface to an entire area of
`
`the second surface, the second porosity is less than or equal to 5%(4[0089], Il. 9-10).
`
`It
`
`would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effectivefiling
`
`date of the claimed invention was made thatit is commonly knownthat there is no
`
`problem related to quality of the interface if the void percentage determined bythis
`
`measurement is 5%or lower (4[0089], Il. 12-16), since it has been held that discovering
`
`an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. /n re
`
`Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Fukui fails to disclose a porosity
`
`of the one or morefirst voids is less than or equal to 5%, and a porosity of the one or
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/050,429
`Art Unit: 2835
`
`Page 6
`
`more secondvoids is less than or equal to 5%. It would have been obvious to one
`
`having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
`
`was made to for the voids of Fukui to be first and second voids on opposing sides of
`
`Fukui’s substrate for the purpose of an acceptable surface defect level to insure
`
`required heat transfer between the film and mating surfaces are met, since it has been
`
`held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only
`
`routine skill in the art. St: Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
`
`Examiner Note: If a porosity of a void being less than or equal to 5% is a
`
`critical characteristic of the invention (rather than just a desirable
`
`characteristic), can Applicant submit actual test data to show the criticality
`
`of this specific limitation that the invention functions at 5% and below and
`
`does not function above 5%.
`
`With respect to Claim 5, Taira teaches a method for manufacturing an electronic
`
`device (fig. 2), the method comprising: preparing a mount board (fig. 2, “Packaging
`
`substrate”), on which a heat generating component(fig. 2, “Chip”) is mounted, and a
`
`pressing component(fig. 2, “Cap / Heat spreader”): arranging a graphite-based carbon
`
`film on the heat generating component, wherein the graphite-based carbon (see title)
`
`film (fig. 2, “Internal TIM (TIM1”)) is coated with a liquid heat conductive material
`
`(Perfluoropolyether, p. 763, 2"? col., 18 line [examiner's note: same liquid as Applicant
`
`discloses]) and hasa first surface (fig. 2, bottom of “Internal TIM (TIM1”)), a second
`
`surface (fig. 2, top of “Internal TIM (TIM1”)) opposite to the first surface and side
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/050,429
`Art Unit: 2835
`
`Page 7
`
`surfaces disposed between the first surface and the second surface, the side surfaces
`
`(fig. 2, left and rights sides of “Internal TIM (TIM1”)) of the graphite-based carbon film
`
`being covered (“dipping” will coat all over including the top, bottom left and right
`
`surfaces of TIM1 offig. 2, p. 763, 2"? col. 6"line) with the liquid heat conductive
`
`material; arranging the pressing component on (see fig. 2) the graphite-based carbon
`
`film; connecting (see fig. 2) the mount board and the pressing component; sealing (see
`
`fig. 2) the heat generating component and the graphite-based carbon film with the
`
`mount board and the pressing component; compressing (see fig. 2 and fig. 16, “Applied
`
`Pressure: 35 PSI’) the graphite-based carbon film by the pressing component; forming
`
`one or morefirst voids (fig. 13, and “small air gap”, p. 763, 1%t col., last para., 4" line on
`
`fig. 2, bottom of “Internal TIM (TIM1”)) at the first surface of the graphite-based carbon
`
`film facing the heat generating component, and forming one or more second voids (fig.
`
`13, and “small air gap”, p. 763, 1% col., last para., 4" line on fig. 2, top of “Internal TIM
`
`(TIM1”)) at the second surface of the graphite-based carbon film facing the pressing
`
`component. Tiara fails to disclose by emitting an ultrasonic wave from a side of the
`
`pressing component and detecting a reflected wave of the ultrasonic wave, examining a
`
`first porosity and a second porosity, when the first porosity is a ratio of a total area of the
`
`one or morefirst voids projected onto the first surface to an entire area ofthe first
`
`surface, and the second porosity is a ratio of a total area of the one or more second
`
`voids projected onto the second surface to an entire area of the second surface. Fukui
`
`teaches by emitting (4[0089], |. 9) an ultrasonic wave ({[0089], |. 9) from a side of the
`
`pressing component and detecting a reflected wave (4[0089], I. 9) of the
`
`ultrasonic wave, examiningafirst porosity ({[0089, |. 14, on surface of solder facing
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/050,429
`Art Unit: 2835
`
`Page 8
`
`silicon device) and a second porosity ([0089], |. 14, on surface of solder facing heat
`
`dissipation substrate), when the first porosity is a ratio of a total area of the one or more
`
`first voids projected onto the first surface to an entire area of the first surface, and the
`
`second porosity is a ratio of a total area of the one or more second voids projected onto
`
`the second surface to an entire area of the second surface. It would have been obvious
`
`to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effectivefiling date of the claimed
`
`invention was made thatit is commonly knownthat no problem related to quality of the
`
`interface if the void percentage determined by this measurement is 5%or lower
`
`(¥[0089], Il. 12-16), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result
`
`effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205
`
`USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
`
`art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the
`
`device of Hu and Murakami with the ultrasonic waves of Fukui to provide as
`
`nondestructive means to insure the void percentage is small enough that the operation
`
`of the electronic device is not affected by the size of the voids. Fukui fails to disclose
`
`emitting an ultrasonic wave from a side of the pressing component and examining
`
`whether the one or morefirst voids and the one or more second voids arefully filled with
`
`the liquid heat conductive material. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the
`
`time of the invention, given the limited number of permutations of the sides that the
`
`ultrasonic wave can be emitted from (i.e., side of the pressing component, or side of
`
`heat generating component). The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would
`
`have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the
`
`knownoptions within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/050,429
`Art Unit: 2835
`
`Page 9
`
`it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In
`
`that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might showthat it was
`
`obvious under § 103." KSA, 550 U.S. _at_, 82 USPQ2d 1385, at 1397 (2007). It would
`
`have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
`
`of the claimed invention was made to for the voids of Fukui to be first and second voids
`
`on opposing sides of Fukui’s substrate for the purpose of an acceptable surface defect
`
`level to insure required heat transfer between the film and mating surfaces are met,
`
`since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device
`
`involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
`
`With respectto claim 6, Tiara discloses the claimed invention except for when
`
`the first porosity is greater, or the second porosity is greater than or equal to 5%, the
`
`electronic device is determined as a defective product. Fukui teaches when the first
`
`porosity is greater, or the second porosity is greater than or equal to 5%, the electronic
`
`device is determined as a defective product (4[0089], Il. 10-11).
`
`It would have been
`
`obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
`
`claimed invention was made to for the voids of Fukui to be first and second voids on
`
`opposing sides of Fukui’s substrate for the purpose of an acceptable surface defect
`
`level to insure required heat transfer between the film and mating surfaces are met,
`
`since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device
`
`involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
`
`7.
`
`Claim 3 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taira
`
`(Yoichi Taira, Sayuri Kohara and Kuniaki Suecka, "Performance impravement of
`
`stacked graphite sheets for cooling applications,” 2008 58th Electronic Components and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/050,429
`Art Unit: 2835
`
`Page 10
`
`Technology Conference, 2008, pp. 760-764, doi: 10.1109/ECTC.2008.4550059) and
`
`Tachibana (JP 2014-133669).
`
`Taira discloses the claimed invention including a pressure of 35 PSI (241 KPa,
`
`see fig. 16). Taira fails to disclose a compressibility of the graphite-based carbon film is
`
`more than or equal to 30%at a pressure of 100 kPa. Tachibana teaches
`
`a compressibility of the graphite-based carbon film (abs. |. 1) is more than or equalto
`
`30%(density of 1.2 g/cm equals 53% density which allows for compressibility of at least
`
`30% when air is removed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`before the effectivefiling date of the claimed invention to substitute the graphite-based
`
`carbon film of Tachibana for that of Tiara for the purposeofthe film exerting a force on
`
`mating parts to insure good thermal connection with the mating parts. Tachibana fails
`
`to specifically disclose compressibility is more than or equal to 30%at a pressure of
`
`100 kPa. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before
`
`the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to for the pressure to be
`
`any pressure including that of 100 kPa that defines the amount of force applied to
`
`obtain the required compressibility value, since it has been held that discovering an
`
`optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. /n re
`
`Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
`
`8.
`
`Claim 4 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taira
`
`(Yoichi! Taira, Sayuri Kohara and Kuriaki Sueoka, "Performance imoravernernt of
`
`stacked graphite sheeis for coaling applicatians,” 2008 58th Electronic Components and
`
`Technology Conference, 2008, pp. 760-764, doi: 10.1109/ECTC.2008.4550059) and
`
`Greinke (US 6,746,768).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/050,429
`Art Unit: 2835
`
`Page 11
`
`Taira discloses the claimed invention except for the liquid heat conductive
`
`material has a kinematic viscosity at 25°C ranging from 2 cSt to 15 cSt
`
`inclusive. Greinke teaches the heat conductive material has a kinematic viscosity at
`
`37.8° C. ranging from 1 cSt to 15 cSt inclusive (col. 10, Il. 35-38). It would have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectivefiling date of the claimed
`
`invention to substitute the liquid heat conductive material of Greinke for that of Tiara for
`
`the purposeof “the oil makes the graphite sheet "softer and more amenable to surface
`
`deformations and irregularities of the heat source/cooling module”(col. 9,
`
`Il. 57- 59) to
`
`reduce “air gaps (which act as thermal insulators between the surfacesof the thermal
`
`interface and the heat sink and/or the heat source”(col. 9, Il. 36- 39). Greinke fails to
`
`specifically disclose the liquid heat conductive material has a kinematic viscosity at 25°
`
`C. ranging from 2 cSt to 15 cSt inclusive. As temperature decreases from 37.8° C to 25°
`
`C, the kinematic viscosity increases, Greinke’s 1 cSt to 15 cSt kinematic viscosity will
`
`still be in the required range of 2 cSt to 15cSt at 25° C.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 15 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taira
`
`(Yoich Taira, Sayuri Rohara and Kuniaki Suecka, “Performance imorovement af
`
`stacked graphite sheets for cooling applications,” 2008 58th Electronic Components and
`
`Technology Conference, 2008, pp. 760-764, doi: 10.1109/ECTC.2008.4550059) and Hu
`
`(US 8,896,110).
`
`Taira discloses the claimed invention except for the pressing component is fixed
`
`to the mount board by an adhesive. Hu teaches the pressing component (fig. 1, 114)
`
`is fixed to the mount board (104) by an adhesive (112 and col. 4, |. 42).
`
`It would have
`
`been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectivefiling date of the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/050,429
`Art Unit: 2835
`
`Page 12
`
`claimed invention to modify the electronic device of Taira with the adhesive of Hu for the
`
`purpose of sealing the pressing component to the mounting in order to protect the heat
`
`generating component from the exterior environment.
`
`Conclusion
`
`10.+‘The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
`
`applicant's disclosure. US 9,179,579 discloses a thermal interface material of a
`
`graphite-based carbon film (5 and col. 3, |. 6) coated on opposing sides with a liquid (3
`
`and col. 3, I. 3). KR 10-2017-069563 discloses a thermal interface material of a carbon
`
`fiber based film coated on opposing sides with a liquid.
`
`11.
`
`Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in
`
`this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP
`
`§ 706.07(a). Applicant is remindedof the extension of time policy as set forth in 37
`
`CFR 1.136(a).
`
`A shortenedstatutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`
`
`MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the eventafirst reply is filed within
`
`TWO MONTHS ofthe mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not
`
`mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortenedstatutory period, then the
`
`shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any
`
`extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of
`
`the advisory action.
`
`In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later
`
`than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/050,429
`Art Unit: 2835
`
`Page 13
`
`12.—Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to ROBERT J HOFFBERGwhosetelephone number is
`
`(571) 272-2761. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
`
`supervisor, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached on (571) 272-3740. The fax phone
`
`number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-
`
`273-8300.
`
`Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video
`
`conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-basedcollaboration tool. To schedule an
`
`interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO AutomatedInterview Request
`
`(AIR) at http:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on accessto the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197(toll-free).
`
`RJH 12/1/2022
`
`/ROBERT J HOFFBERG/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835
`
`