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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/067,668 filed on October 22, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS has been considered.
Status of Claims
It has been acknowledged that the applicant has amended claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 14, 16-17, 19-20, and cancelled claim 18, per the response dated on 10/22/2025. Currently, claims 1-47, 19-20 are present for examination.
Claim Objections
5. The objections of claims 1, 3, 9, 17-20 have been withdrawn per the response dated on 10/22/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 1-6, 9-12, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/ (a)(2) as¶ being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2017/0012194 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Wang et al. teaches a microelectronic device (200) comprising (Fig. 2A):
a substrate (201, para [0039]) having a thickness in a vertical direction (vertical direction);
at least one thermoelectric unit (104A: TE1, para [0039]) disposed in or on the substrate (201); and
an active die (102, para [0025] operating circuit) disposed vertically adjacent the substrate (201) and the at least one thermoelectric unit (104A), wherein the at least one thermoelectric unit (104A) is configured to transfer heat from the active die (102) along a second lateral direction orthogonal to the vertical direction (this is a functional limitation and/or an intended use).
PNG
media_image1.png
421
701
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Wang et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 2A), the substrate (201) is directly bonded to a semiconductor element (102, para [0039]).
Regarding claim 3, Wang et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 2A), the substrate (201) is direct hybrid bonded to the semiconductor element (102).
Regarding claim 4, Wang et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 2A), the substrate (201) comprises a surface (top surface of the substrate 201) configured for direct hybrid bonding (this is a functional limitation and/or an intended use).
Regarding claim 5, Wang et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 2A), the substrate (201) further comprises an opposite surface (bottom surface of the substrate 201) configured for direct hybrid bonding (this is a functional limitation and/or an intended use).
Regarding claim 6, Wang et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 2A), further comprising at least one additional thermoelectric unit (TE1) disposed in the substrate (201), the at least one additional thermoelectric unit (TE1) configured to transfer heat along the second lateral direction (this is a functional limitation and/or an intended use).
Regarding independent claim 9, Wang et al. teaches a microelectronic device comprising (Fig. 2A):
a substrate (201, para [0039]) having a thickness in a vertical direction (vertical direction);
at least one thermoelectric unit (104A: TE1, see the annotated figure in claim 1) disposed in or on the substrate (201); and
an active die (102, para [0025] operating circuit) disposed vertically adjacent the substrate (201) and the at least one thermoelectric unit (104A), wherein the at least one thermoelectric unit (104A: TE1) is configured to transfer heat from the active die (102) radially in a plane orthogonal to the vertical direction (this is a functional limitation and/or an intended use).
Regarding claim 10, Wang et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 2A), the substrate (201) is directly bonded to a semiconductor element (102, para [0039]).
Regarding claim 11, Wang et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 2A), the substrate (201) comprises a surface (top surface of the substrate 201) configured for direct hybrid bonding (this is a functional limitation and/or an intended use).
Regarding claim 12, Wang et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 2A), the substrate (201) further comprises an opposite surface (bottom surface of the substrate 201) configured for direct hybrid bonding (this is a functional limitation and/or an intended use).
Regarding claim 14, Wang et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 2A: see the annotated figure below), further comprising at least one additional thermoelectric unit (TE2) disposed in the substrate (201), the at least one additional thermoelectric unit (TE2) configured to transfer heat along the vertical direction, along a second direction orthogonal to the vertical direction, or along a third direction non-parallel to the second direction and the vertical direction.
PNG
media_image2.png
421
701
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Wang et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 2A: see the annotated figure in claim 14), further comprising a thermally conductive structure (108, para [0041]) disposed between the at least one thermoelectric unit (TE1) and the at least one additional thermoelectric unit (TE2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
13. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2017/0012194 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Wang et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 from which this claim depends.
Wang et al. shows (Fig. 2A) a vertical height (thickness) of the substrate (201) as annotated in the following figure.
PNG
media_image3.png
357
701
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Wang et al. is explicitly silent of disclosing wherein the thickness is no more than 100 microns.
It would have been obvious to select intended ‘thickness of the substrate’ so that the thickness to be within the quoted range of no more than 100 microns, to optimize miniature/size of the device. In addition, to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen thickness or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen thickness is critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claims 16-17, 19-20 are allowed.
15. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 16: the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious a microelectronic device comprising:
.…further comprising a plurality of temperature sensors disposed in the semiconductor element or the substrate, wherein each temperature sensor of the plurality of temperature sensors is associated with electrical contacts for actuating a portion of the plurality of thermoelectric units.
The cited prior arts, Wang et al. (US 2017/0012194 A1) and Venkatasubramanian et al. (US 2006/0086118 A1) do not explicitly disclose temperature sensors in the semiconductor element or in the substrate.
Response to Arguments
16. It has been acknowledged that the applicant amended independent claims 1, 9, per the response dated on 10/16/2025. Applicant’s arguments w.r.t. the amended claims 1 and 9 have been reviewed, but, the amended limitation(s) is still disclosed by the prior art, Wang et al. (US 2017/0012194 A1) and rejected under new grounds/interpretations in the current office action above. It is suggested to amend the claim (s) languages according to the structure of the invention rather than the functional limitation (s).
Conclusion
17. 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.
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIDARUL MAZUMDER whose telephone number is (571)272-8823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
19. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Partridge can be reached at 571-270-1402. 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.
/DIDARUL A MAZUMDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812