DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse to the restriction requirement mailed on 2/10/25, of Group I (device claims 1-17) and species D (Fig. 1B with closed microchannels), in the reply filed on 5/27/25 was acknowledged in a previous office action. Claims 4-5 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 25 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant) regards as the invention.
Claims 25 and 29 recite the limitation “wherein the dielectric material comprises ABF (Ajinomoto build-up film)”. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: “ABF” is an abbreviation that could stand for many things, so it is not defined. Furthermore, the claim appears to equate it with “Ajinomoto build-up film”, which is a trademark/trade name.
Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a particular dielectric material and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102, some of which 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2005/0201060 A1 (“Huang”).
Huang teaches, for example:
PNG
media_image1.png
275
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
296
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Huang teaches:
1. An electronic assembly (see e.g. Figs. 3 and 4), comprising:
an electronic die 61 in a package (e.g. 50 or 60); and
a microchannel (e.g. “heat pipes 30”) integrated onto a package layer (e.g. “metal vessel 10”) to spread heat localized in the package at the electronic die, the microchannel having a hollow heat conducting material (metal vessel 10 may be made from e.g. copper, and is hollow because it has a “cavity 11”, see e.g. para 14 and Figs. 3 and 4) through which a fluid (e.g. “fluid 34”) is to flow to spread the heat,
the microchannel being a closed heat pipe (it is closed, having an “evaporating portion 31” connected in a curve with a “condensing portion”, see e.g. Figs. 3 and 4),
wherein the fluid is to diffuse through the microchannel in response to the heat localized in the package at the electronic die (“condensing” and “evaporating” due to the heat causes fluid flow, equivalent to what the Applicant calls “diffus[ion]”),
wherein an end (e.g. the top end, see e.g. Fig. 4) of the hollow closed heat pipe is sealed (see e.g. Figs. 3 and 4, wherein the heat pipe is closed and made secure against access or leakage by fastening or coating) with a dielectric material (e.g. “epoxy 43”, see e.g. para 15) covering the end and a layer of metal (e.g. “metal cover 20”) covering the dielectric material.
PNG
media_image3.png
778
1065
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Screenshot of one definition of “seal” according to Merriam-Webster.com”)
2. The electronic assembly of claim 1, wherein the package layer comprises an integrated heat spreader (e.g. “heat sink… compris[ing] a metal vessel 10, a metal cover 20 and a plurality of built-in heat pipes 30”, see e.g. para 14) mounted over the electronic die (see e.g. Figs. 3 and 4).
3. The electronic assembly of claim 1, wherein the package layer comprises a substrate on which the electronic die is mounted (the “package layer” is reasonably interpreted as the surroundings of the chip, so in Fig. 3 the “substrate” may be the leads 53 of the leadframe and/or the molding compound 52; in Fig. 4, the “substrate” may reasonably be interpreted as e.g. “substrate 63” and “stiffener 62”).
9. The electronic assembly of claim 1, wherein the heat conducting material comprises copper (see e.g. para 14).
10. A computer system (see e.g. Figs. 3 and 4), comprising:
a processor (e.g. 61) on a substrate (in Fig. 3 the “substrate” may be e.g. the leads 53 of the leadframe and/or the molding compound 52; in Fig. 4 the “substrate” may reasonably be interpreted as e.g. “substrate 63” and “stiffener 62”); and
a microchannel (e.g. “heat pipes 30”) integrated onto a package layer (e.g. “metal vessel 10”) to spread heat localized at the processor,
the microchannel having a hollow heat conducting material through which a fluid is to flow to spread the heat (metal vessel 10 may be made from e.g. copper, and is hollow because it has a “cavity 11”, see e.g. para 14 and Figs. 3 and 4),
the microchannel being a closed heat pipe (it is closed, having an “evaporating portion 31” connected in a curve with a “condensing portion”, see e.g. Figs. 3 and 4),
wherein the fluid is to diffuse through the microchannel in response to the heat localized in the package at the electronic die (“condensing” and “evaporating” due to the heat causes fluid flow, equivalent to what the Applicant calls “diffus[ion]”),
wherein an end (e.g. the top end, see e.g. Fig. 4) of the hollow closed heat pipe is sealed (see e.g. Figs. 3 and 4, wherein the heat pipe is closed and made secure against access or leakage by fastening or coating) with a dielectric material (e.g. “epoxy 43”, see e.g. para 15) covering the end and a layer of metal (e.g. “metal cover 20”) covering the dielectric material.
11. The computer system of claim 10, wherein the package layer comprises an integrated heat spreader (e.g. “heat sink… compris[ing] a metal vessel 10, a metal cover 20 and a plurality of built-in heat pipes 30”, see e.g. para 14) mounted over the processor (see e.g. Figs. 3 and 4).
12. The computer system of claim 10, wherein the package layer comprises the substrate (the “package layer” is reasonably interpreted as the surroundings of the chip, so in Fig. 3 the “substrate” may be the leads 53 of the leadframe and/or the molding compound 52; in Fig. 4, the “substrate” may reasonably be interpreted as e.g. “substrate 63” and “stiffener 62”).
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 of this title, 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(s) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of US 2006/0157221 A1 (“Ebert”).
Huang teaches claims 1 and 10, as discussed above, and further teaches that the fluid comprises water (see e.g. para 14), but does not explicitly teach wherein the fluid comprises de-ionized water.
Ebert teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Huang, wherein the fluid comprises de-ionized water (see e.g. para 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Ebert to the invention of Huang. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of using a cooling medium that has only small chemical interaction with the material of the cooling elements (para 5).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of US 2020/0211927 A1 (“Wan”).
Huang teaches claim 10, as discussed above, but does not teach that the processor comprises a central processing unit (claim 16) or a field programmable gate array (FPGA) (claim 17).
Wan teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Huang that the processor comprises a central processing unit (claim 16) or a field programmable gate array (FPGA) (claim 17) (see e.g. para 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Wan to the invention of Huang. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of providing thermal transfer away from any one of various types of chips known in the art, such as memory, processors, FPGA, etc. (see e.g. para 24), each of which is known to have its own functions in computer systems (e.g. providing storage of data, processing of information, etc.).
Claim(s) 22-24 and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of US 9594803 B1 (“Artis”).
Huang teaches claims 1 and 10, as discussed above but does not teach wherein the closed heat pipe has a rectangular cross-section (claims 22 and 26), wherein the closed heat pipe has a triangular cross-section (claims 23 and 27), or wherein the closed heat pipe has a trapezoidal cross-section (claims 24 and 28).
Artis teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Huang wherein the closed heat pipe has a rectangular, triangular, or trapezoidal cross-section (see e.g. col 1 lines 55-57 and col 6 lines 49-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Artis to the invention of Huang. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of forming the heat pipe channels to have a geometry that is well known in the art and that can be chosen (see e.g. col 1 lines 55-61; col 1 lines 20-23; col 1 lines 31-32; col 5 lines 1-33, col 6 lines 49-54, etc.) according to desired thermal transfer performance.
Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed shape is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical. It has been found that mere changes in the shape of an object, lacking any convincing proof of criticality or unobviousness thereof, is not sufficient for patentability. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B), In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). To overcome a prima facie case of obviousness, Applicant must show factual evidence that the particular range is critical or achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.
Claim(s) 25 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of US 2020/0273771 A1 (“Choi”).
Huang teaches claims 1 and 10, as discussed above, but does not teach wherein the dielectric material comprises ABF (Ajinomoto build-up film).
Choi teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Huang wherein the dielectric material comprises ABF (Ajinomoto build-up film) (see e.g. para 78).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Choi to the invention of Huang. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of choosing a dielectric material for Huang’s epoxy that is well-known in the art to be a curable resin, such as ABF or photosensitive epoxy resin (see e.g. para 78).
Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed material is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical, which are criteria that have been held to be necessary for material limitations to be prima facie unobvious. The claimed material is considered to be a "preferred" or "optimum" material out of a plurality of well known materials that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found obvious to provide to the invention of the cited prior art reference, using routine experimentation and optimization of the invention. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Conclusion / Finality
Applicant's amendment changed the scope of the claims and 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 reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory 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.
Conclusion / Prior Art
The prior art made of record, because it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, but which is not relied upon specifically in the rejections above, is listed on the Notice of References Cited.
Conclusion / Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Parendo who can be contacted by phone at (571) 270-5030 or by direct fax at (571) 270-6030. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9 am to 4 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Billy Kraig, can be reached at (571) 272-8660. The fax 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.
/Kevin Parendo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896