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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/10/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9, 11, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suganuma (US PGPub 2011/0012255, hereinafter referred to as “Suganuma”) in view of Belady et al. (US PGPub 2006/0238984, hereinafter referred to as “Belady”).
Suganuma discloses the semiconductor device substantially as claimed. See figures 1-13 and corresponding text, where Suganuma shows, in claim 1, an IC heat sink assembly, comprising: (figure 10; [0088-0091])
a heat sink (72) comprising a contact surface and a groove (P2) provided in the contact surface;
an IC component (20) comprising an upper surface, the upper surface of the IC component comprising
a heat dissipation portion surface (P1) and a packaging housing portion (P3) adjacent to and surrounding the heat dissipation portion surface (P1); and
a thermally conductive interface material (26) provided between the heat sink (72) and the IC component (20), wherein the upper surface of the IC component (20) is opposing the contact surface of the heat sink (72), with the heat dissipation portion surface (P1) of the IC component (20) being directly and thermally connected to the contact surface of the heat sink (72) through the thermally conductive interface material (26), wherein the groove (P2) is provided at a position corresponding to the packaging housing portion (P3) of the upper surface IC component (20),
Suganuma fails to explicitly show, in claim 1, wherein the groove is formed as a recess in the contact surface and is configured to receive excessive thermally conductive interface material therein.
Belady teaches, in claim 1, teaches a similar device that includes wherein the groove is formed as a recess in the contact surface and is configured to receive excessive thermally conductive interface material therein (figures 4 and 5; [0021-0023]). In addition, provides the advantages of improving thermal conductivity between devices ([0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the groove is formed as a recess in the contact surface and is configured to receive excessive thermally conductive interface material therein, in the device of Suganuma, according to the teachings of Belady, with the motivation of improving thermal conductivity between devices.
PNG
media_image1.png
499
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Suganuma in view of Belady shows, in claim 3, wherein the groove is a closed annular groove adjacent to an edge of the contact surface (figure 10; [0088-0091]).
Suganuma in view of Belady shows, in claim 4, wherein a cross section of the groove is square, rectangular, or semicircular (figure 10; [0088-0091]).
Suganuma in view of Belady shows, in claim 5, wherein the contact surface is flat (figure 10; [0088-0091]).
Suganuma in view of Belady shows, in claim 6, further comprising a heat dissipation fin thermally connected to the contact surface (figure 10; [0088-0091]).
Suganuma in view of Belady shows, in claim 7, wherein the groove comprises two elongated grooves respectively adjacent to both sides of the contact surface (figure 10; [0088-0091]).
Suganuma in view of Belady shows, in claim 9, wherein the IC component is an IC chip (figure 10; [0088-0091]).
Suganuma in view of Belady shows, in claim 11, wherein the thermally conductive interface material is thermally conductive silicone grease ([0077]).
Suganuma in view of Belady shows, in claim 13, wherein a part of the thermally conductive interface material is received in the groove of the heat sink (figure 10; [0088-0091]).
Suganuma in view of Belady shows, in claim 14, wherein the groove of the heat sink is positioned to be opposite to the packaging housing portion of the IC component (figure 10; [0088-0091]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STANETTA D ISAAC whose telephone number is (571)272-1671. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Leonard Chang can be reached at 571-270-3691. 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.
/STANETTA D ISAAC/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 March 7, 2026