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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to "Claims filed on 4/22/2026". Applicant's amendments of claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 21; cancellation of claims 26-30 with the same reply have been entered by the Examiner. Upon entry of the amendments, claims 1-25 are pending wherein claims 1, 9 and 21 are independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/15/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Note applicable to all claims being rejected in this Office action: Examiner notes that the limitations "overlap", "layer", "portion" “width” “approximately” “adjacent” are being interpreted broadly in accordance with MPEP. Per MPEP 2111 and 2111.01, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation and the words of the claims are given their plain meaning consistent with the specification without importing claim limitations from the specification. The claim presently discloses a structural limitation (i.e. overlap, layer, portion, contact) that is taught by prior art of record, therefore, the limitation is considered met by the prior art of record. Additionally, Merriam Webster dictionary defines the above limitations as “to occupy the same area in part”, “one thickness lying over or under another”, “an often limited part of a whole” “the distance across something from one side to the other” “reasonably close to” “nearby” respectively. Further note the limitation “contact” is being interpreted to include "direct contact" (no intermediate materials, elements or space disposed there between) and "indirect contact" (intermediate materials, elements or space disposed there between).
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-11, 21, 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meile et al (US 2021/0193558 A1 hereinafter Meile).
Regarding Claim 1, Miele discloses in Fig 1-2: An apparatus comprising:
a heatsink (102), a base (104) of the heatsink to be thermally coupled to an integrated circuit (IC) package (118) [0035; 118 is a MCP or a multi-chip package); and
a rigid plate (108) to be coupled to the IC package and the base of the heatsink (104), the rigid plate to be adjacent to the base of the heatsink when coupled thereto, the rigid plate (108) to be spaced apart from the IC package [0040-0041] (Meile notes that the plate 108 may not contact the substrate 204 of the IC package 118) based on an indirect coupling with the IC package, the rigid plate stiffer than the base (copper: Same materials as disclosed by applicant in [0114]), the rigid plate distinct from a bolster plate (110) to which the heatsink is to be coupled [0022-0024, 0034].
Regarding Claim 2, Miele discloses in Fig 1-2: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the rigid plate is metal [0045].
Regarding Claim 3, Miele discloses in Fig 1-2: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the rigid plate (108) is to be removably coupled to the base of the heatsink using at least one of screws or bolts (116/114).
Regarding Claim 4, Miele discloses in Fig 1-2: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the rigid plate (108) includes an aperture centrally positioned in the rigid plate (108), the IC package to be disposed in the aperture [0034].
Regarding Claim 7, Miele discloses in Fig 1-2: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the rigid plate (108) is to be coupled to the base of the heatsink (104) without solder [0022].
Regarding Claim 8, Miele discloses in Fig 1-2: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the rigid plate (108) is to distribute a load from the IC package to the base of the heatsink (102) when the IC package is pressed into a corresponding socket (206) [0022, 0024, 0047].
Regarding Claim 21, Miele discloses in Fig 1-2: An apparatus (108) comprising:
a first surface to interface with a base (104) of a heatsink (102);
a second surface opposite the first surface;
an outer perimeter (See Fig 2);
an inner perimeter defining an aperture extending between the first and second surfaces, the aperture dimensioned to surround an integrated circuit (IC) package (118), the inner perimeter to be beyond outer edges of the IC package when the IC package is disposed in the aperture [0041] (Meile notes that the plate 108 may not contact the substrate 204 of the IC package 118); and
one or more holes (See Fig 2) extending between the first and second surfaces, the one or more holes dimensioned to enable threaded fasteners (116/114) to secure the apparatus to the base of the heatsink, the apparatus composed of metal [0023, 0022, 0045].
Regarding Claim 23, Miele discloses in Fig 1-2: The apparatus of claim 21, wherein the apparatus is U-shaped with a closed end and an open end [0034].
Regarding Claim 24, Miele discloses in Fig 1-2: The apparatus of claim 23, wherein the aperture has a first width and an opening at the open end has a second width that is less than the first width [0034].
Regarding Claim 25, Miele discloses in Fig 1-2: The apparatus of claim 23, wherein the aperture has a first width and an opening at the open end has a second width, the second width corresponding to the first width [0034].
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, 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) 5, 6, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meile et al (US 2021/0193558 A1 hereinafter Meile) in view of Villani, Angelo (US5,329,426 hereinafter Villani).
Regarding Claim 5, Meile discloses in Fig 1-2: The apparatus of claim 4.
Meile does not disclose: further including carrier snaps spaced about the aperture, the carrier snaps to hold the IC package in the aperture.
However, Villani in a similar device teaches in Fig 1-2: further including carrier snaps (32) spaced about the semiconductor device (10), the carrier snaps to hold the IC package in contact with the PCB (12).
References Meile and Villani are analogous art because they both are directed to thermal management of semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify device of Meile with the specified features of Villani because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to combine teachings of Meile and Villani so that further including carrier snaps spaced about the aperture, the carrier snaps to hold the IC package in the aperture as taught by Villani in Miele’s device since, spring holds the heat sink in place and forces the heat sink and the chip carrier package together in order to maintain good thermal contact (abstract).
Regarding Claim 6, Meile and Villani disclose: The apparatus of claim 5.
Meile does not disclose: wherein the carrier snaps are integrally formed with the rigid plate.
However, Villani in a similar device teaches in Fig 1-2: wherein the carrier snaps (32) are integrally formed with the frame (42).
References Meile and Villani are analogous art because they both are directed to thermal management of semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify device of Meile with the specified features of Villani because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to combine teachings of Meile and Villani so that the carrier snaps are integrally formed with the rigid plate as taught by Villani in Miele’s device since, spring holds the heat sink in place and forces the heat sink and the chip carrier package together in order to maintain good thermal contact (abstract).
Regarding Claim 22, Meile discloses in Fig 1-2: The apparatus of claim 21.
Meile does not disclose: further including one or more carrier snaps spaced around the aperture and couplable to the IC package.
However, Villani in a similar device teaches in Fig 1-2: further including one or more carrier snaps (32) spaced around and couplable to the IC package (10).
References Meile and Villani are analogous art because they both are directed to thermal management of semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify device of Meile with the specified features of Villani because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to combine teachings of Meile and Villani so that further including one or more carrier snaps spaced around the aperture and couplable to the IC package as taught by Villani in Miele’s device since, spring holds the heat sink in place and forces the heat sink and the chip carrier package together in order to maintain good thermal contact (abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to Claims 1 and 21, the prior art of Miele discloses in alternate embodiments as disclosed in [0035, 0041-0042] that the IC package as claimed (118 as disclosed by Miele) is a multi-chip package (MCP). Additionally, in [0042], Miele discloses that the substrate 204 of the IC package 118 are not in contact thus reading on the amendments in Clams 1 and 21. Hence claims 1 and 21 and their dependent claims stand rejected as anticipated by Miele.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: With respect to claim 9, the primary reason for allowance is that the prior art of record either singularly or in combination fails to teach or suggest the limitation “a plate to be coupled to and abutting a base of a heatsink, the plate to be stiffer than the base; and an integrated circuit (IC) package to be disposed in an aperture of the plate and thermally coupled to the base of the heatsink, the plate to be spaced apart from the IC package when the IC package is thermally coupled to the base of the heatsink” as recited in claim 9 in combination with the remaining features.
Dependent claims 10-20 are allowed based on virtue of their dependencies
The most relevant prior art references, Meile et al (US 2021/0193558 A1) in Figs 1-3, substantially teaches the limitations of the claim 9, with the exception of the limitations described in the preceding paragraph. Meile does not disclose that the plate abuts the base of the heat sink.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 NISHATH YASMEEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7564. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at 571-272-1670. 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.
/NISHATH YASMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights