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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/22/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1 & 4-18 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “in the open position, the frame member is tilted with respect to the confronting position so as to be substantially perpendicular to the unit base” renders the scope of the claim indefinite because the term “substantially perpendicular” is a term of degree without an objective boundary or standard for determining the scope of the claim. The claim does not specify what angular deviation from perpendicularity is encompassed by “substantially perpendicular,” nor does the claim provide any measurable tolerance, reference orientation, or structural boundary from which one of ordinary skill in the art could determine with reasonable certainty when the limitation is met. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Further regarding claim 1, the limitation “an end surface of the base opposite the radiating fins confronts the IC package with an interval therebetween” is indefinite because the claim fails to define the required positional relationship associated with the recited “interval.” The claim does not specify the extent, size, or structural condition of the interval, nor does the claim provide sufficient guidance as to when the confronting relationship exists prior to downward movement of the heat sink. Accordingly, the precise boundary of the claimed confronting position remains unclear.
Further regarding claim 1, the limitation “rocking is restricted” is indefinite because the claim fails to positively recite the structure or condition that performs the restriction of rocking. Although the claim recites that rocking becomes restricted when the frame member reaches the confronting position, the claim does not clearly identify the structural stop, engagement surface, or limiting mechanism that defines the restricted state. As a result, the scope of the limitation is unclear under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Further regarding claim 1, the limitation “so as to rotate in association with rocking of the frame member” is indefinite because the phrase “in association with” is functional and relative language that fails to define the required mechanical relationship between the first lever and the frame member. The claim does not specify whether the rotation is direct, indirect, synchronized, proportional, or otherwise mechanically constrained. Accordingly, the scope of the claimed interaction is unclear.
Further regarding claim 1, the limitation “the second lever is disposed between the frame member and the first lever” is indefinite because the claim does not define the positional orientation from which “between” is evaluated. The claim fails to specify whether the recited relationship is measured in a lateral direction, axial direction, thickness direction, or along the support shaft axis. Thus, the spatial relationship between the components is unclear.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “one end side portion of the second lever is pivotally supported at a second pivoting point on the frame member that is separated from the first pivoting point” is indefinite because the term “separated” is a relative term without defined positional boundaries. The claim does not specify the nature or extent of the separation between the first pivoting point and the second pivoting point, thereby rendering the positional relationship unclear.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “a driving mechanism in which a force is generated to lift upward the other end side portion of the second lever and the other end side portion of the first lever” is indefinite because the claim recites the driving mechanism primarily in terms of a result or intended function rather than by sufficiently definite structure. The claim does not clearly define the structure that generates the force or the mechanism by which the upward lifting operation occurs. Accordingly, the scope of the driving mechanism is unclear.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “an elastic restoring force of the first coil spring is released when the first pivoting point passes a position directly above the third pivoting point” is indefinite because the term “directly above” is a relative positional term lacking a clear frame of reference. The claim does not specify the reference orientation, gravitational orientation, or angular reference from which “directly above” is determined. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are uncertain.
Further regarding claim 8, the limitation “with the first pivoting point as a fulcrum” renders the scope of the claim unclear because the claim does not clearly define whether the first pivoting point is a fixed rotational axis, a temporary rotational center, or an effective force-transmission point during operation. The precise mechanical relationship intended by “fulcrum” is therefore uncertain.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “the tip end side portion of the frame member touches against the receiving base portion” is indefinite because the phrase “touches against” lacks clear structural precision. The claim does not specify whether the touching relationship requires direct physical contact, contact under load, contact sufficient to stop movement, or merely positional adjacency. Thus, the scope of the limitation is unclear.
Further regarding claim 10, the limitation “further rocking is restricted” is indefinite for substantially the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1 because the claim fails to positively recite the structure or condition that defines the restriction of rocking.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “to reduce impact when the frame member is closed” is indefinite because the phrase “reduce impact” is a functional result without an objective baseline or measurable standard. The claim does not specify the amount of impact reduction required, the reference condition for comparison, or the manner in which the reduction is achieved. Accordingly, the scope of the claim is unclear.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “rocking a frame member of the heat sink unit from an open position to a confronting position” is indefinite because the terms “open position” and “confronting position” rely on relative positioning without sufficiently definite structural boundaries. Although amended, the claim still fails to clearly define the precise positional limits associated with these states during the manufacturing process.
Further regarding claim 18, the limitation “restricting rocking when the frame member reaches the confronting position” is indefinite because the claim does not specify the structure or condition responsible for the restriction of rocking. The claim therefore recites a functional result without sufficient structural definition.
Further regarding claim 18, the limitation “moving a heat sink of the heat sink unit supported by the frame member downward such that an end surface of the heat sink comes into contact with the semiconductor package” is indefinite because the claim fails to clearly define the mechanism responsible for the downward movement after rocking is restricted. The relationship between the restricted rocking state and the subsequent downward movement is unclear, thereby rendering the operational boundaries of the claim uncertain.
Claims 4, 7, 9, 11-14 & 16-18 variously depending from claims 1 are reject for the same above reasons.
Appropriate amendment is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remark, filed 04/22/2026, with respect to claims 1-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The prior rejection relied on Hsieh et al. as teaching a heat sink module detachably assembled to an IC socket and pivotable between open and closed positions, and relied on Koseki et al. as teaching a lever-actuated heat sink retainer. However, amended claim 1 now recites a more specific linkage structure and a more specific movement sequence that are not taught or suggested by the cited combination.
Amended claim 1 now requires a second lever in which an intermediate portion between one end and the other end of the second lever is pivotally supported at the first pivoting point on the frame member; and a first support shaft extending through the frame member, the second lever, and the first lever at the first pivoting point, wherein the second lever is disposed between the frame member and the first lever. This limitation is not merely a generic lever arrangement. It requires a coaxial stacked linkage in which the frame member, second lever, and first lever are arranged on a common support shaft at the same first pivoting point, with the second lever physically disposed between the frame member and the first lever.
Hsieh et al. do not disclose this structure. Hsieh discloses a heat sink module 300 having a fastening frame 6, a pivotable cover 7, a heat sink 8, a latching member 76, and an operating member 77. The operating member 77 and latching member 76 are mounted between fixing posts 75 and operate to latch the cover 7 to the lid 3 during closure. Hsieh’s latching structure is not a coaxial first-lever and second-lever assembly supported at a shared first pivoting point of a frame member. Hsieh therefore does not teach a first support shaft extending through the frame member, the second lever, and the first lever, nor does Hsieh teach the second lever being disposed between the frame member and the first lever. See Hsieh paragraphs [0029] through [0032].
Koseki et al. also do not cure this deficiency. Koseki discloses one operation lever 14 having an operational body 142, arms 144, urging portions 146, and pivot axles 148 received in pivot openings 129 of fastening frame 12. The operation lever 14 cooperates with cam plates 128 and cutouts 130 to press the heat sink 2. See Koseki paragraphs [0024] and [0028] through [0030]. Koseki’s structure is a single lever cam retainer. Koseki does not disclose a separate second lever pivotally supported at the same first pivoting point as the first lever, does not disclose a first support shaft extending through the frame member, second lever, and first lever, and does not disclose the claimed stacked arrangement in which the second lever is disposed between the frame member and the first lever.
Amended claim 1 also requires that when the frame member reaches the confronting position, rocking is restricted, a tip end portion of the first lever pushes down the heat sink mount, the heat sink mount and the heat sink supported thereon by the frame member move downward, and the end surface of the heat sink comes into contact with the IC package. This limitation defines a two-stage mechanical operation. First, the frame member rocks into the confronting position and rocking is restricted. Second, while the frame member is maintained at the confronting position, the tip end portion of the first lever pushes down the heat sink mount so that the heat sink mount and the heat sink move downward into contact with the IC package.
Hsieh does not disclose this two-stage operation. In Hsieh, the cover 7 rotates downwardly until the bottom of the heat sink body 81 abuts the IC package, and the catch 761 of the latching member 76 then abuts against the top wall 31 of the lid 3 to secure the assembly. See Hsieh paragraph [0036]. Thus, Hsieh achieves heat sink contact by rotation of the cover and heat sink module itself into the closed position. Hsieh does not disclose restricting rocking of a frame member at a confronting position and then separately pushing down a heat sink mount by a tip end portion of a first lever.
Koseki also does not disclose the claimed two-stage operation. In Koseki, the operation lever 14 is rotated so that urging portions 146 pass along came plates 128, snap into cutouts 130, and press the base plate 22 of the heat sink. See Koseki paragraphs [0028] through [0030]. Koseki’s pressing action is generated directly by the rotation of the single operation lever and cam engagement. Koseki does not disclose a rock able frame member first reaching a confronting position where rocking is restricted, followed by a separate downward displacement of a heat sink mount and heat sink caused by a tip end portion of a first lever.
The prior rejection broadly relied on Koseki’s lever and cam arrangement as teaching lever-driven downward pressing. However, the amended claim now requires more than generic lever pressing. The claim requires a specific mechanical sequence in which the frame member is first positioned and stopped, and thereafter the heat sink mount and heat sink move downward relative to the stopped frame member. The cited references do not teach or suggest this particular separation between frame rocking and heat-sink downward displacement.
The amended limitations also materially change the technical operation of the claimed heat sink unit. In the claimed structure, the heat sink is not simply carried into contact by the rotation of the frame or cover. Instead, the frame member first assumes a confronting orientation, and the lever mechanism then applies a controlled downward movement to the heat sink mount. This provides a controlled contact action between the heat sink and the IC package after the frame position has been established. Neither Hsieh’s pivoting cover and latch nor Koseki’s single cam lever teaches this specific architecture.
Accordingly, the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hsieh et al. in view of Koseki et al. is withdrawn.
Claims 4-18 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 or recite use of the heat sink unit according to claim 1. Because the combination of Hsieh et al. and Koseki et al. does not teach or suggest the newly added limitations of amended claim 1, the rejection of claims 4-18 is withdrawn for at least the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 & 4-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record, including Hsieh et al. and Koseki et al., fails to teach or suggest the heat sink unit as presently claimed.
Independent claim 1 is allowable because the prior art does not teach or suggest a heat sink unit including a first lever pivotally supported at a first pivoting point of the frame member so as to rotate in association with rocking of the frame member, a second lever pivotally supported at the same first pivoting point on the frame member, and a first support shaft extending through the frame member, the second lever, and the first lever at the first pivoting point, wherein the second lever is disposed between the frame member and the first lever.
The prior art further fails to teach or suggest the claimed operation in which, when the frame member reaches the confronting position, rocking is restricted, a tip end portion of the first lever pushes down the heat sink mount, the heat sink mount and the heat sink supported thereon by the frame member move downward, and the end surface of the heat sink comes into contact with the IC package.
Hsieh et al. disclose a heat sink module having a pivotable cover and latching structure, but Hsieh et al. do not disclose the claimed first lever, second lever, common first support shaft, and stacked lever arrangement. Hsieh et al. also do not disclose a structure in which rocking is first restricted at a confronting position and a tip end portion of the first lever thereafter pushes down the heat sink mount to move the heat sink downward.
Koseki et al. disclose a single operation lever that cooperates with cam plates to press a heat sink, but Koseki et al. do not disclose the claimed first lever and second lever supported at a common first pivoting point by a first support shaft extending through the frame member, second lever, and first lever. Koseki et al. also do not disclose the claimed staged motion in which the frame member reaches the confronting position, rocking is restricted, and then the heat sink mount and heat sink move downward by action of the first lever.
The newly added limitations define a specific linkage mechanism that separates the rocking movement of the frame member from the downward pressing movement of the heat sink mount. This arrangement allows the frame member to be placed in a confronting position before the heat sink is moved downward into contact with the IC package. The cited prior art does not disclose or render obvious this particular structural and operational relationship. For these reasons, claims 1 and 4-18 are allowed.
Claims 4-18 variously depending from claim 1 are allowable for the same above reasons.
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."
During an extensive search (see PE2E attached), the Examiner reviewed the following additional references relevant to the applicant's disclosure. However, these references do not anticipate the claims, nor do they, in combination, render the previously allowable limitations of claims 1 & 4-18 obvious.
U.S. 2018/0323526 A1 to Ueyama discloses an electrical component socket including a socket base having a frame shape to which a contact module is to be inserted and attached from below, an embodiment has an objective to allow contact pins to be in contact with a circuit board with stability. The electrical component socket is configured such that the upper-side plate is caused to ascend to an uppermost position by elastic force of urging means in a state where the contact module is not attached to the socket base. In a state where the contact module is attached to the socket base and disposed on the circuit board, the upper-side plate moves down toward a lower-side plate side against elastic force of the contact pins to be positioned at a predetermined base position, so that lower-side contact portions of the contact pins are brought into contact with the circuit board at a predetermined contact pressure.
U.S. 8,044,673 B1 to Burgyan discloses a re-configurable test socket system and test socket architecture are described involving a combination of particular micro elements and re-useable macro elements that can be reused and reconfigured for testing a wide variety of different semiconductor and integrated circuit (IC) DUT packages having different shapes, sizes, and terminal configurations.
U.S. 7,355,428 B2 to Kabbani et al. disclose a temperature control system, which includes a miniature liquid-cooled heat sink, is used to provide a controlled temperature surface to an electronic device, such as a semiconductor device, during the testing or burn-in phase. In one embodiment, the system includes a miniature liquid-cooled heat sink device having a monolithic counter-flowing structure. In other embodiments, the system includes a heater, a flow control valve, a controller, and/or sensors.
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 TRUNG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1966. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon- Friday 8AM - 4:00PM Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Phan can be reached on 571-272-7924. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Examiner: /Trung Q. Nguyen/- Art 2858
/GIOVANNI ASTACIO-OQUENDO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 5/28/2026
Prosecution Insights