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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 3/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain
pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 13 have overcome the 112(b) rejections to claims 1 and 12. Thus, Examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejections of these claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant presents two arguments. First, that the TIM 700 in HsiehFig3 within the channel structure has a uniform thickness. Second, that the TIM outside the channel region has a convex shape.
In response the to first argument, Examiner notes that Hsieh discloses multiple geometries that are consistent with the invention. Although Applicant is correct that the geometry presented in Fig. 5A does not show a non-uniform thickness within the channel structure, Fig. 5C does. Since Fig. 5C can be used in place of Fig. 5A, in the view of the Examiner, Hsieh does disclose the contested limitation (see claim rejections below as well).
Regarding the second argument, Applicant is correct that Hsieh does not disclose a concave shape. However, Examiner has found another reference, which, when combined with Hsieh, in the view of the Examiner, renders claim 1 obvious. See Claim Rejections below.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 2 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 2, Applicant argues that, in addition to the reasons regarding claim 1, Claim 2 should be allowable because Hsieh discloses that the TIM completely covers the channel ends. However, in Para. [0056]), Hsieh discloses that based on the amount of TIM applied, the geometry can change. Based on this, in the Examiner’s view, Claim 2 is rendered obvious by simply varying the amount of TIM applied to produce a configuration where the end of the channel is exposed. See Claim Rejections below.
Regarding Claims 3, 4 and 6, Applicant argues that they are allowable for the same reasons as claims 1 and 2. Examiner’s basis for maintaining the rejections of Claims 1 and 2 are discussed above.
Regarding Claim 10, Applicant argues that this claim should be allowable due to the same reasons as claim 1. Since Examiner is maintaining the rejection of claim 1, Examiner is also maintaining the rejection of Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 12, see Claim Rejections below.
Regarding Claim 5, 7-9, 11, and 13-15, Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments to be persuasive. Thus, Examiner is withdrawing the 103 rejection of these claims. See Allowable subject matter below.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim states in part “…the TIM terminates within the individual channels a location…”. This should be replaced with “…the TIM terminates within the individual channels at a location…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim states in part “…at least a portion of the channel floor is laterally outside of the first footprint;”. However, the channel floor defines the first footprint (“…the recessed channel floor defines a first footprint”). Thus, Examiner is assuming Applicant meant “…at least a portion of the channel floor is laterally outside of the second footprint;” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim states in part “…the upper lid wall comprises a thickness between upper lid wall outer surface…”. This should be “…the upper lid wall comprises a thickness between the upper lid wall outer surface…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220406676A1 (HsiehFig3 – This will later be differentiated from HsiehFig6 from the same disclosure) in view of US20220359228A1 (Kuo).
Regarding Claim 1, HsiehFig3 discloses an electronic device (Figs. 3A-E, el. 10, Para. [0040]), comprising a substrate (Fig. 3A-E, el. SUB, Para. [0040]); a cover structure (see annotated Fig. 3D below, el. 800, Para. [0046]) comprising: an upper cover wall (Fig. 3D, el. 800a, Para. [0047]) comprising an upper wall outer surface (see annotated Fig. 3D below) and an upper wall inner surface opposite to the upper wall outer surface (see annotated Fig. 3D below); cover sidewalls (Fig. 3D, el. 800b, Para. [0047]) extending from the upper wall inner surface and coupled to the substrate (Fig. 3D), the upper cover wall and the cover sidewalls defining a cavity (see annotated Fig. 3D below); and a channel structure (see annotated Fig. 4 below, el. TR, Para. [0049]) in the upper cover wall extending inward from the upper wall inner surface (Fig. 3D); a first electronic component (Fig. 3A-E, el. PKG, Para. [0041]) coupled to the substrate within the cavity (Para. [0041]); and a thermal interface material (TIM) (Fig. 3D, el. 700, Para. [0051]) coupled to the upper wall inner surface and the first electronic component (Fig. 3D, Para. [0051]); wherein: the first electronic component comprises a first footprint (see annotated Fig. 4 below), the channel structure comprises a portion that is laterally outside the first footprint (see annotated Fig. 4 below), the portion comprises a length that extends in a direction laterally outward away from the first footprint; the TIM is within the channel structure (Fig. 3D, Para. [0051]); the portion of the TIM within the channel structure comprises a non-uniform thickness that decreases along the length and away from the first footprint (see annotated Fig. 5C below, Para. [0056])); the TIM located within the channel reaches a minimum thickness at a furthest point of extension of the TIM located within the channel structure along the length (see annotated Fig. 5C below), the non-uniform thickness forms a convex shape in a cross-sectional view (see annotated Fig. 5C below).
PNG
media_image1.png
483
1052
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
295
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
HsiehFig3 does not disclose that the non-uniform thickness forms a concave shape in a cross-sectional view.
Kuo discloses a concave shaped TIM structure (Figs. 1H and 1H-1, el. 140, Para. [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to change the convex structure disclosed by Hsieh to the concave structure disclosed by Kuo (by, for example, using the thermal compression bonding head in Kuo to change the shape from convex to concave – Para. [0066]). As disclosed by Kuo, using a concave structure offers a better stress-absorbing capability (Para. [0068]).
Regarding Claim 6, HsiehFig3 discloses the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising, an underfill (Figs. 3A-E, el. UF2, Para. [0042]); wherein: the substrate comprises a top side (Figs. 3A-E, el. S1, Para. [0040]); the first electronic component comprises a first side (Fig. 3A, the top of the el. PKG is the first side), a second side opposite to the first side (Fig. 3A, the bottom side of the el. PKG is the second side), and a lateral side connecting the first side to the second side (Fig. 3A, the side(s) of the el. PKG are the lateral sides); the second side is coupled to the top side of the substrate see Fig. 3A, Para. [0041]); and the underfill contacts the top side of the substrate and the second side of the first electronic component and covers at least a portion of the lateral side of the first electronic component (Para. [0042]).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HsiehFig3 in view of Kuo.
Regarding Claim 2, HsiehFig3 in view of Kuo discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein: the channel structure comprises a plurality of individual channels (Para. [0048] – where the channel TR can be a plurality of strips); the individual channels comprise channel ends that are distal to the first footprint (see annotated Fig. 5C above). HsiehFig3 also disclose that the amount of solder material can be varied to create different configurations of solder (Para. [0056]).
HsiehFig3 in view of Kuo does not disclose that the TIM terminates within the individual channels at a location that is between the channel ends and the first footprint so that the channel ends are devoid of the TIM.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reduce the amount of solder in HsiehFig3 such that the solder does not reach the endpoint of the channel. As disclosed by Hsieh, this can have the advantage of saving TIM material while still having enough TIM for a secure attachment (Para. [0056]).
Regarding Claim 3, HsiehFig3 discloses the electronic device of claim 2, wherein: the upper inner surface comprises a portion that overlies the first electronic component (see annotated Fig. 3D above – element labeled portion, see also el. 800a1, Para. [0049]); and the plurality of individual channels is disposed on at least one side of the portion that overlies the first electronic component (see annotated Fig. 4 above, where TR surrounds sides of 800a1, and the same would hold for the plurality of channels).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HsiehFig3 and US20160233141A1 (Hirobe).
Regarding Claim 4, HsiehFig3 discloses the electronic device of claim 3, wherein: the portion that overlies the first electronic component comprises a second footprint (Fig. 4, el. W1, Para. [0057]); the first electronic component comprises a first footprint (Fig. 4, el. W2, Para. [0057]).
HsiehFig3 does not disclose that the first footprint is less than the second footprint.
Hirobe discloses an electronic device (Fig. 2, el. 100), with a plurality of channels (Fig. 2, el. 24, Para. [0041]) and a protrusion (Fig. 2 – see protrusion between channels), such that the footprint of the protrusion is greater than the footprint of the chip (Fig. 2, el. 30, Para. [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention and extend the protrusion of HsiehFig3 such that it creates a footprint greater than the footprint of the chip, as in Hirobe. This would be an example of a simple substitution of one known element (the protrusion of Hirobe) for another (the protrusion of HsiehFig3) to obtain predictable results (a protrusion with a footprint larger than the footprint of the electronic device).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HsiehFig3 in view of Kuo Hirobe.
Regarding Claim 10, HsiehFig3 in view of Kuo discloses the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising: second electronic components coupled to the substrate within the cavity (Fig. 3D, el. 500, Para. [0051]); wherein the non-uniform thickness is indicative of capillary formation (Para. [0054]).
HsiehFig3 in view of Kuo does not disclose that the channel structure overlaps at least one of the second electronic components.
Hirobe discloses an electronic device (Fig. 2, el. 100, Para. [0035]) where the channel structure extends beyond the footprint of the chip (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to extend the protrusion in HsiehFig3 (as in Hirobe) such that the second electronic components are underneath the channel structure. This would be a simple substitution of one known element (the protrusion of Hirobe) with another (the protrusion in Hsieh) to obtain predictable results (a structure where the channel overlaps at least one of the second electronic components).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HsiehFig6 in view of Kuo.
Regarding Claim 12, HsiehFIG6 discloses an electronic device (Fig. 6, el. 20, Para. [0061]), comprising a substrate (Fig. 6, el. SUB, Para. [0067]) comprising a conductive structure (Fig. 6, el. RP, Para. [0040] – which refers to the same element in Figs. 3A) and a dielectric structure (the remainder of the substrate is inherently a dielectric); a lid structure (Fig. 6, el. 800’, Para. [0061]) comprising: an upper lid wall (Fig. 6, el. 800a’, Para. [0062])) comprising an upper wall outer surface (see annotated Fig. 6 below) and an upper wall inner surface opposite to the upper wall outer surface (see annotated Fig. 6 below); a lid sidewall (Fig. 6, el. 800b’, Para. [0062]) extending from the upper lid wall and coupled to the substrate (see annotated Fig. 6 below); and a channel structure (Fig. 6, el. TR’, Para. [0066]) extending inward from the upper wall inner surface towards the upper wall outer surface (see annotated Fig. 6 below); wherein: the upper lid wall and the lid sidewall define a lid cavity (see annotated Fig. 6 below); the channel structure comprises a single channel comprising a recessed channel floor and a channel sidewall (see annotated Fig. 6 below); and the recessed channel floor defines a first footprint (Fig. 7, TR’, Para. [0067]); a first electronic component (Fig. 6, el. PKG, Para. [0067]) comprising a first side, a second side opposite to the first side, and a lateral side connecting the first side to the second side (see annotated Fig. 6 below); wherein: the lateral side defines a second footprint (Fig. 7, see w2 and PKG for package footprint, Para. [0067]) that is less than the first footprint (Para. [0067]); and the first side is coupled to the conductive structure within the lid cavity (see annotated Fig. 6 below); and a thermal interface material (TIM) (Fig. 6, el. 700, Para. [0066]) interposed between the second side of the first electronic component and the upper lid wall (see annotated Fig. 6 below); wherein: at least a portion of the channel floor is laterally outside of the second footprint (see annotated Fig. 7 below and claim objection above); the TIM is inside the channel structure (Fig. 6, Para. [0066]); the TIM that is located inside the channel structure comprises a tapered profile along the channel floor between the lateral side of the first electronic component and the channel sidewall (Fig. 6 and Fig. 5C, Para. [0066] – note that the geometry illustrated in Fig. 6 can be replaced with the one illustrated in Fig. 5C) and the tapered profile comprises a convex shape in a cross-sectional view (Fig. 5C).
HsiehFig6 does not disclose that the non-uniform thickness forms a concave shape in a cross-sectional view.
Kuo discloses a concave shaped TIM structure (Figs. 1H and 1H-1, el. 140, Para. [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to change the convex structure disclosed by Hsieh to the concave structure disclosed by Kuo. As disclosed by Kuo, using a concave structure offers a better stress-absorbing capability (Para. [0068]).
PNG
media_image3.png
565
705
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
716
870
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7-9, 11, and 13-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding these claims, Examiner is persuaded that the prior art does not adequately disclose coating material that covers the channel structure and floor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROHIT PARTHASARATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-2572. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30a-5p.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 5712707877. 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.
/ROHIT PARTHASARATHY/Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights