`
`Introduction
`
`REMARKS
`
`Claims 1-6, 8 and 15 are pending, of which claims 1 and 5 are independent.
`
`Claims 1-3 and 5 have been amendedto correct informalities in the claim language.
`
`Claims 7 and 9-14 have been canceled without prejudice. No new matter has been added.
`
`Substance of Interview
`
`Applicant thanks the Examinerfor his time and courtesy during an interview conducted
`
`with the Applicant’s representative, Takashi Saito, on November3, 2022. During the interview,
`
`the differences between the claims and the prior art were discussed. No agreement was reached.
`
`This responsereflects the substance of the interview.
`
`Objection
`
`Claims 2 and 5 were objected to. Applicant submits that the amendments madeto the
`
`claims overcomethe objection.
`
`Patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims 1 and 15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US
`
`8,896,110) in view of Murakami (US 2020/0024496). Claims 2, 5 and 6 were rejected under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Murakamiand further in view of Fukui
`
`(US 2016/0336253). Claim 3 wasrejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hu
`
`in view of Murakami and further in view of Tachibana (JP 2014-133669). Claim 4 wasrejected
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Murakamiand further in view
`
`
`
`Application No.: 17/050,429
`
`of Greinke (US 6,746,768). Claim 7 wasrejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Hu in view of Murakami and further in view of Fisher (US 7,700,162). Claim 8 was
`
`rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Murakami and further
`
`in view of Sayir (US 2007/0053168). Without conceding any correctness of the rejections,
`
`Applicanttraverses the rejections for at least the following reasons.
`
`At a minimum,noneof the cited references disclose or suggest that side surfaces of the
`
`graphite-based carbon film, which are disposed between the first surface and the second surface,
`
`are covered with the liquid heat conductive material, as recited by claim 1.
`
`In the rejection of original claim 7, the Office Action asserted that Fisher discloses side
`
`surfaces being covered. However, the material covering the side surfaces in Fisheris not a liquid
`
`but a solid. Thus, claim 1 would not have been obvious overthe cited references.
`
`Assuch, claim | and all claims dependent thereon are patentable overthe cited references.
`
`Since claim 5 recites “the side surfaces of the graphite-based carbon film being covered
`
`with the liquid heat conductive material,” claims 5 and 6 are patentable overthe cited references.
`
`
`
`Application No.: 17/050,429
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Having fully respondedto all matters raised in the Office Action, Applicant submits that
`
`all claims are in condition for allowance, an indication for whichis respectfully solicited. If
`
`there are any outstanding issues that might be resolved by an interview or an Examiner’s
`
`amendment, the Examineris requested to call Applicant’s attorney at the telephone number
`
`shownbelow.
`
`To the extent necessary, a petition for an extension of time under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 is
`
`hereby made. Please charge any shortage in fees due in connection with the filing of this paper,
`
`including extension of time fees, to Deposit Account 500417 and please credit any excess fees to
`
`such deposit account.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`
`/Takashi Saito/
`
`Takashi Saito
`Registration No. 69,536
`
`Please recognize our Customer No. 53080
`as our correspondenceaddress.
`
`500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001-1531
`Phone: 202.756.8000 MEF:TS:
`Facsimile: 202.756.8087
`Date: November 18, 2022
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
