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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
The following office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on 12/29/25.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 is acknowledged.
Claims 6 and 7 are cancelled.
Claims 1-5 and 8-10 are pending and subject to examination at this time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In Iruvanti’s fig. 5c, the bottom edge of supporting leg 510 is in direct contact with the bonding layer 512. The side edge of supporting leg 510 is in contact with the bonding layer 512 through intervening layers. Direct contact of the side edge of the supporting leg 510 with the bonding layer 512 is not being claimed. Because claim 1 is a “comprising” claim, it does not preclude the presence of intervening layers.
In Lu’s fig. 1, the bottom edge of supporting leg (26, 28) is in direct contact with the bonding layer (30, 32). The side edge of supporting leg (26, 28) is in contact with the bonding layer (30, 32) through intervening layers. Direct contact of the side edge of the supporting leg (26, 28) with the bonding layer (30, 32) is not being claimed. Because claim 1 is a “comprising” claim, it does not preclude the presence of intervening layers.
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) 1, 2, 4, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iruvanti et al., US Publication No. 2017/0170030 A (of record).
Regarding claim 1:
In the embodiment shown in fig. 5, Iruvanti teaches one heating operation (-i.e. “first heating operation”).
In the embodiment shown in fig. 5, Iruvanti teaches does not expressly teach two heating operations, -i.e. a “second heating operation”.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply two heating operations because Iruvanti’s fig. 6 and disclosure at para. [0062] teaches “a first heating operation” and “second heating operation”, as recited in the claim.
Thus, Iruvanti teaches:
1. A method of manufacturing an electronic package, comprising (see fig. 5D-5E, and method steps in figs. 6 and fig. 9):
disposing an electronic element (202) on a side of a carrier structure (208);
forming a heat dissipation material (212) on the electronic element;
bonding a heat dissipation structure (530) on the heat dissipation material to cover the electronic element, wherein the heat dissipation structure comprises a heat dissipation body (216) and a plurality of supporting legs (510) erected on the heat dissipation body, wherein the heat dissipation body (216) is in contact with and bonded with the heat dissipation material (212), and the plurality of supporting legs (510) are suspended on the carrier structure (208) (e.g. See para. [0052] disclosing “The lid-frame assembly 530 is initially placed on the chip 202 with the thermal interface material 212 between the chip 202 and the lid 216, allowing a minimum thermal interface gap.”);
performing a first heating operation to cure the heat dissipation material (e.g. See para. [0062] disclosing “Method 250 may continue with dispensing thermal interface material 212 upon the top surface of chip 202. Method 250 may continue with aligning lid 216 with the chip 202 and thermally attaching the lid 216 with the thermal interface material 212 upon the top surface of chip 202.”);
forming a bonding layer (512) on the side of the carrier structure and on the heat dissipation structure after completing the first heating operation (e.g. See para. [0052] disclosing “The seal band material 512 is subsequently dispensed on the carrier 208 about the perimeter of the chip 202 and the lid-frame assembly 530 is placed upon the seal band material 512 to connect the lid-frame assembly 530 to the carrier 208.” Also see para. [0062] disclosing “Method 250 may continue with filling the gap between carrier 208 and the perimeter of the lid 216 subsequent to the thermal joining of the lid and chip with seal band 203 (block 262).”); and
performing a heating operation to cure the bonding layer (e.g. See para. [0052] disclosing “Subsequently, the lid-frame assembly 530 may be heated…” Also see para. [0062], disclosing “In this manner, lid 216 may be mechanically bonded and thermally connected to carrier 208 by seal band 203.”), wherein the plurality of supporting legs (510) of the heat dissipation structure is-are fixed on the carrier structure (208) via the bonding layer (512), and a bottom edge and side edge adjacent to the bottom edge of each of the supporting legs (510) are in contact with the bonding layer (512) (e.g. See Remarks below.) See Iruvanti at para. [0001] – [0083], figs. 1-9.
In a first interpretation-
In fig. 5c, the bottom edge of supporting leg 510 is in direct contact with the bonding layer 512. The side edge of supporting leg 510 is in contact with the bonding layer 512 through intervening layers.
In a second interpretation=
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a side edge adjacent to the bottom edge of each of the supporting legs (510) are in contact with the bonding layer (512) because Iruvanti teaches:
The thickness of the bonding layer is taken into consideration to “achieve optimal heat transfer” at para. [0031]; and
In fig. 2, the bonding layer (512) can be formed to wrap around the side edge of shim (211, e.g. analogous to position of supporting legs 510).
Iruvanti further teaches:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the heat dissipation material is a thermal interface material, para. [0052].
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the heat dissipation material is a silicone material, para. [0038].
9. The method of claim 1, wherein a material for forming the bonding layer is different from that of the heat dissipation material, para. [0038], [0040], [0053].
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising forming a plurality of conductive elements (114 in fig. 1) on another side of the carrier structure (108 in fig. 1 corresponding to 208 in fig. 5).
Claim(s) 1-3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al., US Publication No. 2008/0157345 A1 (of record).
Lu teaches:
1. A method of manufacturing an electronic package, comprising (see fig. 1):
disposing an electronic element (10) on a side of a carrier structure 912);
forming a heat dissipation material (22) on the electronic element;
bonding a heat dissipation structure (20) on the heat dissipation material to cover the electronic element, wherein the heat dissipation structure (20) comprises a heat dissipation body (20 above 24) and a plurality of supporting legs (26, 28) erected on the heat dissipation body, wherein the heat dissipation body (20 above 24) is in contact with and bonded with the heat dissipation material (22), and (see fig. 1C) the plurality of supporting legs (26, 28) are suspended on the carrier structure (12);
…
forming a bonding layer (30, 32) on the side of the carrier structure (12) and on the heat dissipation structure (20)…; and
performing a heating operation (e.g. heating process at para. [0015]) to cure the bonding layer, wherein the plurality of supporting legs (26, 28) of the heat dissipation structure is-are fixed on the carrier structure (12) via the bonding layer (30, 32), and a bottom edge and side edge adjacent to the bottom edge of each of the supporting legs (26, 28) are in contact with the bonding layer (30, 32) (e.g. See Remarks below.) See Lu at para. [0001] – [0027], figs. 1-6.
Regarding claim 1:
Lu teaches a single heating operation rather than two separate heating operations or specifically:
performing a first heating operation to cure the heat dissipation material;
forming a bonding layer…after completing the first heating operation; and
performing a second heating operation…
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to separate the single heating operation into two separate heating operations to accomplish “performing a first heating operation to cure the heat dissipation material; forming a bonding layer…after completing the first heating operation; and performing a second heating operation…”, since constructing a formerly integral structure (e.g. integral process) in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale, V. Making Portable, Integral, Separable, Adjustable or Continuous.
Further regarding claim 1:
In fig. 1, the bottom edge of supporting leg (26, 28) is in direct contact with the bonding layer (30, 32). The side edge of supporting leg (26, 28) is in contact with the bonding layer (30, 32) through intervening layers.
Liu further teaches:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the heat dissipation material is a thermal interface material, para. [0015].
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the heat dissipation material is a solder material, para. [0015].
9. The method of claim 1, wherein a material for forming the bonding layer (30, 32) is different from that of the heat dissipation material (22), para. [0013], [0015], [0016].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iruvanti, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Eid et al., US Publication No. 2021/0249375 A1 (of record).
Regarding claim 3:
Iruvanti teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly teach
the heat dissipation material is a solder material.
In an analogous art, Eid teaches a heat dissipation material such as a thermal interface material may comprise any number of suitable materials such as solder or metal/graphite particles embedded in silicone polymer. See Eid at para. [0097].
It is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended purpose as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Iruvanti with the teachings of Eid because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look for alternative heat dissipation materials and Eid teaches solder and silicone are known materials suitable as heat dissipation materials. Also see MPEP § 2144.07, Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Eid et al., US Publication No. 2021/0249375 A1 (of record).
Regarding claim 4:
Lu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly teach
the heat dissipation material is a silicone material.
In an analogous art, Eid teaches a heat dissipation material such as a thermal interface material may comprise any number of suitable materials such as solder or metal/graphite particles embedded in silicone polymer. See Eid at para. [0097].
It is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended purpose as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lu with the teachings of Eid because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look for alternative heat dissipation materials and Eid teaches solder and silicone are known materials suitable as heat dissipation materials. Also see MPEP § 2144.07, Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iruvanti, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Qin, US Publication No. 2021/0257587 A1 (of record).
Regarding claims 5:
Iruvanti teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly teach
the heat dissipation material is an ultraviolet glue material.
In an analogous art, Qin teaches a heat dissipation material is an ultraviolet glue material, para. [0022], para. [0053] – [0056], fig. 4.
It is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended purpose as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Iruvanti with the teachings of Qin because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look for alternative heat dissipation materials and Qin teaches ultraviolet glue material has the advantage of preventing moisture, improved heat absorptions and dissipations for increased lifetime of the device. See Qin at para. [0057].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Qin, US Publication No. 2021/0257587 A1 (of record).
Regarding claims 5:
Lu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly teach
the heat dissipation material is an ultraviolet glue material.
In an analogous art, Qin teaches a heat dissipation material is an ultraviolet glue material, para. [0022], para. [0053] – [0056], fig. 4.
It is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended purpose as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lu with the teachings of Qin because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look for alternative heat dissipation materials and Qin teaches ultraviolet glue material has the advantage of preventing moisture, improved heat absorptions and dissipations for increased lifetime of the device. See Qin at para. [0057].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iruvanti, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Warn, US Publication No. 2003/0019562 A1 (of record).
Regarding claim 8:
Iruvanti does not expressly teach the bonding layer is made from a thermosetting glue material.
In an analogous art, Warn teaches a bonding layer (28) is made from a thermosetting glue material can help fill voids between a heat sink and circuit board substrate. See Warn at Abstract, para. [0023] – [0029], figs. 1-3
It is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended purpose as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Iruvanti with the teachings of Warn because (i) One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look for alternative bonding layer materials and Warn teaches a thermosetting adhesive layer is a known material suitable for bonding a heat dissipation structure to a carrier structure. Also see MPEP § 2144.07, Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose; and (ii) A thermosetting adhesive layer provides for greater thermal conductivity and enables heat rejection at a more rapid rate. See Warn at Abstract and para. [0038].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Warn, US Publication No. 2003/0019562 A1 (of record).
Regarding claim 8:
Lu does not expressly teach the bonding layer is made from a thermosetting glue material.
In an analogous art, Warn teaches a bonding layer (28) is made from a thermosetting glue material can help fill voids between a heat sink and circuit board substrate. See Warn at Abstract, para. [0023] – [0029], figs. 1-3
It is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended purpose as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lu with the teachings of Warn because (i) One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look for alternative bonding layer materials and Warn teaches a thermosetting adhesive layer is a known material suitable for bonding a heat dissipation structure to a carrier structure. Also see MPEP § 2144.07, Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose; and (ii) A thermosetting adhesive layer provides for greater thermal conductivity and enables heat rejection at a more rapid rate. See Warn at Abstract and para. [0038].
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 Michele Fan whose telephone number is 571-270-7401. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 7:30 am to 4 pm.
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, Jeff Natalini, can be reached on (571) 272-2266. 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.
/Michele Fan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
9 March 2026