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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 12, 16, 18, 19, 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dory (US 7,550,841 B2) in view of Kim (2019/0008071 A1)
Re. claim 1: Dory discloses:
an apparatus for fluid cooling a microelectronic device, the apparatus comprising:
a semiconductor device (205) having a first side (top side of 205) opposite to a second side (bottom side of 205); (see fig. 2, 6; col. 2)
a thermal exchanger (200) formed on the first side, wherein the thermal exchanger comprises:
a lower portion comprising a plurality of blind thermal vias (trenches 230 used to create vias 250) that extend into the semiconductor device from the first side; and (see fig. 2D-2F; Col. 3)
an upper portion (upper portion of 250) comprising one or more protrusions that extend away from the semiconductor device; and (see fig. 6; col. 6)
a housing (270) coupled to the thermal exchanger;
wherein the thermal exchanger and the housing form a fluid chamber (260) having a chamber volume; and (see fig. 6; col. 4-5)
Dory fails to disclose:
the upper portion of the thermal exchanger including an upper side of the one or more protrusions is exposed to the chamber volume.
However, Kim discloses:
the upper portion of the thermal exchanger (101) including an upper side of the one or more protrusions (11b) is exposed to the chamber volume (204, 205). (see 17A, 17B; para. 0155, 0166-0168)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the upper portion of the thermal exchanger including an upper side of the one or more protrusions of Dory exposed to the chamber volume as taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to provide more surface area contact between the fluid and the thermal exchanger, resulting in greater heat transfer. (Kim para. 0090, 0102)
Re. claim 2: Dory discloses wherein the semiconductor device (205) comprises a bonding layer (618) over the second side (bottom side of 205). (see fig. 6; col. 6)
Re. claim 3: Dory discloses a second device (610, 611) bonded to the semiconductor device via the bonding layer (618). (see fig. 6; col. 6)
Re. claim 4: Dory discloses a redistribution layer (619) bonded to the semiconductor device via the bonding layer (618). (see fig. 6; col. 6)
Re. claim 6: Dory discloses wherein the plurality of blind thermal vias (250) is arranged to correspond to differences in heat generated by different regions (pattern defines heat generation) of the semiconductor device. (see fig. 5; col. 5)
Re. claim 7: Dory discloses wherein the thermal exchanger further comprises a corrosion resistant protective layer (270 diamond, silicon, glass). (see fig. 6; col. 6)
Re. claim 8: Dory discloses wherein the housing is shaped such that air entrapment is suppressed proximate to walls of the housing. (see fig. 5A-5C)
Re. claim 12: Dory discloses wherein the plurality of blind thermal vias comprises blind openings (openings between adjacent 250s) in fluid communication with the chamber volume. (see fig. 5, 6)
Re. claim 16: Dory discloses a diffusion barrier (210) between the plurality of blind thermal vias and the semiconductor device. (see fig. 2, 6; col. 2)
Re. claim 18: Dory discloses:
an apparatus for fluid cooling a microelectronic device, the apparatus comprising:
a device comprising an active side (bottom side of 205) and an opposite back side (top side of 205), the back side having a recessed side (left and right sides 210) that defines a cavity; (see fig. 2, 6; col. 2)
a thermal exchanger (250) at least partially disposed in the cavity, extending into the device toward the recessed side, starting at a first level above a side of the device and stopping at a second level before reaching the recessed side; and (see fig. 2D-2F; Col. 3)
a housing (270) coupled to the thermal exchanger such that the housing and the thermal exchanger form a fluid chamber (260, (see fig. 6; col. 4-5)
wherein at least a first portion of the thermal exchanger (top portion of 250) above the side of the device is exposed to a chamber volume of the fluid chamber; (see fig. 6; col. 4-5)
wherein a second portion (bottom portion of 250) of the thermal exchanger proximate to the recessed side conducts heat away from the device through the thermal exchanger to the first portion of the thermal exchanger above the side of the device. (see fig. 5; col. 5)
Dory fails to disclose:
the upper portion of the thermal exchanger including an upper side of the one or more protrusions is exposed to the chamber volume.
However, Kim discloses:
the upper portion of the thermal exchanger (101) including an upper side of the one or more protrusions (11b) is exposed to the chamber volume (204, 205). (see 17A, 17B; para. 0155, 0166-0168)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the upper portion of the thermal exchanger including an upper side of the one or more protrusions of Dory exposed to the chamber volume as taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to provide more surface area contact between the fluid and the thermal exchanger, resulting in greater heat transfer. (Kim para. 0090, 0102)
Re. claim 19: Dory discloses wherein the housing is configured to fluidly couple the chamber volume to least one fluid inlet line and at least one fluid outlet line (687, 683) of a fluid coolant system. (see fig. 6, 7; col. 6)
Re. claim 21: Dory discloses wherein the first portion of the thermal exchanger comprises protrusions (550) of an ovoid or rectangular shape. (see fig. 5A-5C; col. 5)
Re. claim 22: Dory discloses wherein the first portion of the thermal exchanger (top portion of 250) comprises a thermally conductive material (diamond) having a thermal conductivity greater than copper. (see col. 4-5)
Re. claim 23: Dory discloses wherein the thermally conductive material comprises at least one of diamond, metal-diamond composite, diamond-like carbon, and carbon nanotubes (diamond). (see col. 4-5)
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dory in view of Kim as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Saumweber et al. (US 2010/0038063 A1).
Re. claims 9-10: Dory and Kim fail to disclose:
inwardly facing sides of the housing form obtuse angles; and
wherein a part of the housing is curved.
However, Saumweber discloses:
inwardly facing sides (29, 32, 35) of the housing form obtuse angles; and (see fig. 3-5; para. 0053-0055)
wherein a part of the housing (5) is curved. (see fig. 2; para. 0049)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make inwardly facing sides of the housing of Dory to form obtuse angles and to curve a part of the housing as taught by Saumweber. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to improve durability of the heat exchanger while at the same time improving the manufacturing process. (Saumweber para. 0011-0012)
Claim(s) 11, 13-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dory in view of Kim as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Refai-Ahmed et al. (US 2021/0193620 A1)
Re. claim 11: Dory and Kim fail to disclose:
wherein the plurality of blind thermal vias comprises a first number of thermal vias of a first height and a second number of thermal vias of a second height greater than the first height.
However, Refai-Ahmed discloses:
wherein a plurality of blind thermal vias (110) comprises a first number of thermal vias of a first height (proximal 110) and a second number of thermal vias (distal 110) of a second height greater than the first height. (see fig. 1, 4; para. 0032-0033)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Dory with a plurality of blind thermal vias comprising vias of a first height and vias of a second height greater than the first height taught by Refai-Ahmed. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to compensate for a die making more heat than another die to provide thermal heat transfer without interference with an IC die. (Refai-Ahmed para. 0032-0034)
Re. claims 13-14: Dory discloses:
wherein the thermally conductive material comprises at least one of diamond, metal-diamond composite, diamond-like carbon, and carbon nanotubes. (diamond). (see col. 4-5)
Dory and Kim fail to disclose:
wherein the plurality of blind thermal vias comprises a first thermally conductive material and the upper portion of the thermal exchanger comprises a second thermally conductive material that has a higher thermal conductivity than the first thermally conductive material.
Refai-Ahmed discloses:
wherein the plurality of blind thermal vias comprises a first thermally conductive material (430) (phase change material) and the upper portion of the thermal exchanger comprises a second thermally conductive material (422) that has a higher thermal conductivity (diamond) than the first thermally conductive material. (see fig. 1, 4; para. 0049)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the thermal vias of Dory comprise a first thermally conductive material and a second thermally conductive material as taught by Refai-Ahmed. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to provide an excellent heat transfer rate from the bottom surface to the cover of the device. (Refai-Ahmed para. 0049)
Re. claim 15: Refai-Ahmed discloses wherein the thermal exchanger comprises at least one thru via (leftmost and rightmost 110) that extends starting from the first side (top of 112) and stopping at the second side (bottom of 112). (see fig. 1; para. 0028-0030)
Re. claim 17: Refai-Ahmed discloses wherein the semiconductor device comprises a three-dimensional stacked integrated circuit (stacked 106). (see fig. 1, 4; para. 0019-0026)
Claim(s) 58 and 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dory in view of Kim as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2005/0062150 A1).
Re. claims 58 and 60: Dory and Kim ‘071 fail to disclose:
wherein the housing is attached to the thermal exchanger by direct dielectric bonds.
However, Kim ‘150 discloses:
wherein the housing is attached to the thermal exchanger by direct dielectric bonds. (see fig. 20-22; para. 0052-0055)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the housing of Dory to the thermal exchanger by direct dielectric bonds as disclosed by Kim ‘150. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to enable connection between the different components without the need for solder bumps. (Kim ‘150 para. 0053)
Claim(s) 59 and 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dory in view of Kim as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Or-Bach et al. (US 2018/0277530 A1).
Re. claims 59 and 61: Dory fails to disclose:
wherein the housing is attached to the thermal exchanger by direct hybrid bonds.
However, Or-Bach discloses:
wherein the housing is attached to the thermal exchanger by direct hybrid bonds. (see para. 0193, 0235)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the thermal exchanger and the housing of Dory by direct hybrid bonding as taught by Or-Bach et al. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this because these methods of bonding are known in the art to be direct replacements for other bonding such as metal to metal bonding. (Or-Bach para. 0193)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 09 October 2025, with respect to the objections to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 09 October 2025, with respect to the objection to claim 19, in combination with the claim amendments, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 09 October 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dory, in combination with the claim amendments, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Dory in view of Kim as seen above. Applicant argues that Dory fails to disclose “the upper portion of the thermal exchanger including an upper side of the one or more protrusions is exposed to the chamber volume.” The Examiner agrees, however, Kim teaches these limitations as explained above.
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 ADAM B DRAVININKAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9a-6p MT.
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, JAYPRAKASH (JP) N GANDHI can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
December 10, 2025
/ADAM B DRAVININKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835