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 .
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment, the previously set forth drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed with respect to the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the Amendment. Accordingly, the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn. Please see below for new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), necessitated by Amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument in Pages 5 and 6 of the remarks, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, HRASAWA’s blocks 7 and 8 are in direct contact with the exterior surface of heat pipe 3. Moreover, HRASAWA’s blocks 7 and 8 extend over a majority of the second surface of the integrated circuit device, see Figure 1, and such makes HRASAWA’s blocks 7 and 8 a unitary body of base plate material extending over a majority of the second surface of the integrated circuit device.
Therefore, the previous rejection is maintained, modified as necessitated by Amendment.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“in direct contact with between 60 and 90” in claims 11 and 29, appears to be an error for “in direct contact with 60 to 90”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 24 is 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.
Regarding claim 24, the recitation of “wherein the base plate material is between the second surface of the integrated circuit device and comprises thermally conductive material particles in a lamellar structure” is unclear. It’s unclear as to what Applicant is referring to by “the base plate material is between the second surface of the integrated circuit device and comprises”, between the second surface of the integrated circuit device and what? Further clarification is needed.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9-14 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HRASAWA (US 20160282054 A1: Previously cited) in view of Fried (US 20110277967 A1: Previously cited).
Regarding claim 9, HRASAWA teaches an apparatus (see Figures 4, 7, and/or 17), comprising: a heating element (13) having a first surface (lower surface of 13) and an opposing second surface (upper surface of 13) and a heat dissipation device (heat pipes: see Figure 7) thermally attached to the second surface (upper surface of 13) of the the heating element (13), wherein the heat dissipation device comprises at least one heat pipe (3), and a base plate (7, 8, and 12) comprising a unitary body of base plate material (material of 7, 8, 12, and 19) extending over a majority of the second surface of the heating element (see Figures 1, 4, and/or 7 where 7, 8, and 12 extending over a majority of the upper surface of 13) , wherein the base plate material is between the at least one heat pipe and the second surface of the heating element and at least partially encapsulates the at least one heat pipe (see Figure 7 where the material of 7, 8, and 12 is between 3 and upper surface of 13 and at least partially encapsulates 3) and wherein the base plate material is in direct contact with an encapsulated portion of an exterior surface of the at least one heat pipe (see Figure 7 where the material of 7, 8, and 12 is in direct contact the exterior surface of 3).
Although it’s highly likely that HRASAWA’s heating element (13) is an integrated circuit device which inherently is electrically attached to an electronic substrate, HRASAWA is silent regarding the details of the heating element (13). Therefore, HRASAWA does not teach an electronic substrate having a first surface; an integrated circuit device wherein the first surface of the integrated circuit device is electrically attached to the first surface of the electronic substrate.
However, it’s old and well known in the art to place heat dissipation devices on top of an integrated circuit device that is electrically attached to an electronic substrate, as evidenced by Fried, see Fried’s Figures 1 and 3 where the heat dissipation device (101-104) is placed on top of an integrated circuit device (110) that is inherently is electrically attached to an electronic substrate (107).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the apparatus of HRASAWA with an electronic substrate having a first surface; an integrated circuit device having a first surface and an opposing second surface, wherein the first surface of the integrated circuit device is electrically attached to the first surface of the electronic substrate, since as evidenced by Fried, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of cooling the integrated circuit device.
Regarding claim 10, HRASAWA further teaches further comprising a foundation substrate (15) in direct contact with the at least one heat pipe (3) and in direct contact with the base plate (7, 8, and 12: see Figure 17).
Regarding claim 11, HRASAWA further teaches wherein the exterior surface (exterior surface of 3) has a circumference (see Figure 7), and wherein the base plate material (material of 7, 8, and 12) is in direct contact with between 60 and 90 percent of the circumference of the exterior surface of the at least one heat pipe (see in Figure 7 where material of 7, 8, and 12 contacts, based on the geometry of the heat pipe 3 and the base plate 7, 8, and 12, is in direct contact with 60 and 90 percent of the circumference of the exterior surface of 3).
Regarding claim 12, HRASAWA further teaches wherein the base plate (7, 8, and 12: see Figure 7) includes an outer surface (inner side surface of 7, 8, and 12) on a side of the heat dissipation device opposite the integrated circuit device (see Figure 4) and wherein at least a portion of the exterior surface of the at least one heat pipe (3) is planar with the outer surface of the base plate (see in Figure 4 where the upper surface of 7, 8, and 12 is planar with the upper surface of 3) and further comprising a foundation substrate (15) in direct contact with planar portions of both the exterior surface of the at least one heat pipe and the outer surface of the base plate (see in Figures 7 and 17 where 15 in direct contact with planar portions of planar portions inner side surface of 7, 8, and 12 and the exterior surface of 3).
Regarding claim 13, HRASAWA further teaches wherein the base plate material is a thermally conductive material (see ¶¶ [0050 and 0103]).
Regarding claim 14, HRASAWA does not teach further comprising a thermal interface material between the second surface of the integrated circuit device and the base plate of the heat dissipation device.
However, it’s old and well known in the art to use a thermal interface material in heat dissipation devices, as evidenced by Fried, see Fried’s ¶ [0120] i.e. “a thermal interface material that helps make good thermal contact between the cold plate and spreader, for the apparatus to work”.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the apparatus of HRASAWA in view of Fried with a thermal interface material between the second surface of the integrated circuit device and the base plate of the heat dissipation device, since as evidenced by Fried, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of increasing the thermal contact between the second surface of the integrated circuit device and the base plate of the heat dissipation device.
Regarding claim 21, HRASAWA does not teach wherein the foundation substrate has a total thickness of less than 50 microns.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the angle of the thickness of the foundation substrate would result in a difference in function of the HRASAWA device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the foundation substrate of HRASAWA, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed thickness. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed thickness solves any stated problem, indicating that “the foundation substrate 290 may have a thickness of less than 50 microns” while stating that “Optionally, the foundation substrate may be removed from the base plate and the at least one heat pipe, as set forth in block 340.” (see specification para. [0049 and 0055]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the thickness as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the foundation substrate of HRASAWA to have a total thickness of less than 50 microns as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 22, HRASAWA further teaches wherein the foundation substrate comprises copper, nickel, or titanium (see ¶¶ [0050 and 0087]).
Regarding claim 23, HRASAWA does not teach wherein the base plate material has a void area ranging from 0.1% to 0.5%.
However, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the void area of the base plate material would result in a difference in function of the HRASAWA device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the base plate material of HRASAWA, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed range. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the void area is a result of manufacturing process, which likely could make the above limitation considered as “A product-by-process limitation”: (see MPEP 2113), while stating that “Voiding area percentage is a quality control parameter that can be monitored in spray deposition processes. While bulk material, and thin film materials deposited by other means (e.g., atomic techniques), typically have void areas of zero, materials deposited by HTAM processes (e.g., cold spray) may have void areas ranging from 0.1%to 0.5%, or more.” (see specification para. [0052]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base plate material of HRASAWA to a void area ranging from 0.1% to 0.5% as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 24, HRASAWA as modified further teaches wherein the base plate material is between the second surface of the integrated circuit device and comprises thermally conductive material particles layered in a lamellar structure (Examiner notes that it’s inherent for copper comprise thermally conductive material particles: Examiner also notes that the recitation of " thermally conductive material particles layered in a lamellar structure" is considered product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113)).
Regarding claim 25, HRASAWA further teaches wherein the foundation substrate (15) has the same footprint as the base plate (see Figure 17 where 15 has the same footprint as (7and 8).
Regarding claim 26, HRASAWA further teaches wherein the at least one heat pipe (3) comprises two coplanar and adjacent heat pipes (see Figure 4), and wherein the base plate material is between the two adjacent heat pipes (see in Figure 4 where 19 is between the two adjacent heat pipes 3).
Claims 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HRASAWA (US 20160282054 A1: Previously cited) in view of Fried (US 20110277967 A1: Previously cited).
Regarding claim 27, HRASAWA teaches an apparatus (see Figures 4, 7, and/or 17), comprising:
a heating element (13) having a first surface (lower surface of 13) and an opposing second surface (upper surface of 13), the second surface having a footprint (see Figure 1); and
a heat dissipation device (heat pipes: see Figure 7) thermally attached to the second surface (upper surface of 13) of the the heating element (13), wherein the heat dissipation device comprises:
a heat pipe (3) extending beyond the footprint of the the heating element (see Figure 1); and
a base plate (7, 8, and 12) comprising a unitary body of base plate material that spans the footprint of the the heating element (see Figures 1, 4, and/or 7 where 7, 8, and 12 spans the footprint of the upper surface of 13), wherein the base plate material is between the heat pipe and the second surface of the integrated circuit device, at least partially encapsulates the heat pipe (see Figure 7 where the material of 7, 8, and 12 is between 3 and upper surface of 13 and at least partially encapsulates 3), and is in direct contact with an exterior surface of an encapsulated portion of the heat pipe (see Figure 7 where the material of 7, 8, and 12 is in direct contact the exterior surface of 3).
Although it’s highly likely that HRASAWA’s heating element (13) is an integrated circuit device which inherently is electrically attached to an electronic substrate, HRASAWA is silent regarding the details of the heating element (13). Therefore, HRASAWA does not teach an electronic substrate having a first surface; an integrated circuit device wherein the first surface of the integrated circuit device is electrically attached to the first surface of the electronic substrate.
However, it’s old and well known in the art to place heat dissipation devices on top of an integrated circuit device that is electrically attached to an electronic substrate, as evidenced by Fried, see Fried’s Figures 1 and 3 where the heat dissipation device (101-104) is placed on top of an integrated circuit device (110) that is inherently is electrically attached to an electronic substrate (107).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the apparatus of HRASAWA with an electronic substrate having a first surface; an integrated circuit device having a first surface and an opposing second surface, wherein the first surface of the integrated circuit device is electrically attached to the first surface of the electronic substrate, since as evidenced by Fried, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of cooling the integrated circuit device.
Regarding claim 28, HRASAWA further teaches further comprising a foundation substrate (15) in direct contact with the heat pipe (3) and in direct contact with the base plate (7, 8, and 12: see Figure 17).
Regarding claim 29, HRASAWA further teaches wherein the exterior surface (exterior surface of 3) has a circumference (see Figure 7), and wherein the base plate material (material of 7, 8, and 12) is in direct contact with between 60 and 90 percent of the circumference of the exterior surface of the heat pipe (see in Figure 7 where material of 7, 8, and 12 contacts, based on the geometry of the heat pipe 3 and the base plate 7, 8, and 12, is in direct contact with 60 and 90 percent of the circumference of the exterior surface of 3).
Regarding claim 30, HRASAWA further teaches wherein the base plate (7, 8, and 12: see Figure 7) includes an outer surface (inner side surface of 7, 8, and 12) on a side of the heat dissipation device opposite the integrated circuit device (see Figure 4) and wherein at least a portion of the exterior surface of the at least one heat pipe (3) is planar with the outer surface of the base plate (see in Figure 4 where the upper surface of 7, 8, and 12 is planar with the upper surface of 3).
Regarding claim 31, HRASAWA further teaches further comprising a foundation substrate (15) in direct contact with planar portions of both the exterior surface of the heat pipe and the outer surface of the base plate (see in Figures 7 and 17 where 15 in direct contact with planar portions of planar portions inner side surface of 7, 8, and 12 and the exterior surface of 3).
Conclusion
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 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALED AL SAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-8685. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM~3:30PM, M-F (E.S.T.).
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at (571) 270-7740. 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.
/KHALED AHMED ALI AL SAMIRI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights