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 Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
independent claims 1, 8 and 12 each recites “with backside of silicon die”. This is incorrect and should instead be “with a backside of the silicon die”.
Claim 7 recites “wherein thin flexible foil” and “metal coated composite foil which having graphite”. This is incorrect and should instead be “wherein a thin flexible foil” and “metal coated composite foil which comprises graphite” (or something similar).
Claim 13 recites “isolated supporter grids made of heat isolated material” (emphasis added). The underlined appears incorrect and should instead be “heat isolating material”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent claims 1 and 8 each recites “a major portion of the die is exposed out through the hollowed out central area of the integrated heat spreader”, and independent claim 12 recites “a major portion of each die is exposed out through the hollowed out central areas of the integrated heat spreader”. The limitations above cover two scenarios wherein the first scenario is that the major portion of the die is just exposed by the hollowed out portion and underlies said hollowed out portion as in the drawings of the disclosure, and the second scenario is that the major portion of die can be a protruding portion of said die wherein the said protruding portion is exposed by and extends through the said hollowed out portion. The second scenario is not disclosed and therefore cannot be claimed with the use of the claim language above.
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 1-20 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.
Independent claims 1 and 8 each recites “a large silicon die”. The use of the relative term “large” introduces indefiniteness and unnecessary ambiguity in the claims. It is unclear relatively to what the term “large” is defined. What would be considered a large chip and what would be consider a small chip since the introduction of the term large implicitly mean that a chip of the prior art can be contested by Applicants as not being a large chip, but it is unclear which criteria would be used to make the distinction.
Claim 1 recites “the backside” (of the integrated heat spreader) in several instances, “the peripheral edges”, “the die” in several instances, “the heat sink supporter”, “the backside” (of the heat sink), “the expansion”. There are lacks of antecedent basis for those limitations in the claim.
Claim 2 recites in two instances “the size range”. There are lacks of antecedent basis for those limitations in the claim.
Claim 3 recites “the ratio”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites “the property”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “the backside” (of the heat sink). There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “the backside” (of the heatsink), “the overall thermal conductivity”, “the heat”, “the dies” (in several instances), “the peak temperature”, “the melting point” and “the computing efficiency”. There are lacks of antecedent basis for those limitations in the claim. Besides that, the question with the limitation “the overall thermal conductivity” is: the overall thermal conductivity of what?
Claim 8 recites “the backside” (of the integrated heat spreader) in several instances, “the peripheral edges”, “the die” in several instances, “the heat sink supporter”, “the backside” (of the heat sink), “the surface”. There are lacks of antecedent basis for those limitations in the claim.
Claim 9 recites in two instances “the size range”. There are lacks of antecedent basis for those limitations in the claim.
Claim 10 recites “the ratio”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “the property”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “the dies” (in several instances), “the backside” (of the integrated heat spreader) in several instances, “the peripheral edges”, “the die” in several instances, “the heat sink supporter”, “the backside” (of the heat sink), “the heat”, “the expansion”. There are lacks of antecedent basis for those limitations in the claim. Additionally, claim 12 recites “the dies have different thickness from each other” (emphasis added), “the at least two dies has different thickness” (emphasis added) and “protruded parts with different thickness” (emphasis added). The underlined portions are found indefinite because there are multiple thicknesses involved and as such, “thickness” should be “thicknesses” in all the underlined above, “has” should be replaced with “have” in the second quoted limitation because the two dies are the subject of the verb.
Claim 13 recites “the thermal cross-talk”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites in two instances “the size range”. There are lacks of antecedent basis for those limitations in the claim.
Claim 15 recites “the ratio”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites “the metal matrix composite”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites “the backside” (of the heat sink). There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites “the backside” (of the heat sink) and “the overall thermal conductivity”. There are lacks of antecedent basis for those limitations in the claim. Besides that, the question with the limitation “the overall thermal conductivity” is: the overall thermal conductivity of what?
Claim 19 recites “the backside” (of the heat sink) and “the surface die”. There are lacks of antecedent basis for those limitations in the claim. Besides that, “die” is found indefinite as it is unclear which one of the at least two dies of claim 12 it is referring back to.
Claim 20 recites in two instances “the size range”. There are lacks of antecedent basis for those limitations in the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sugimoto et al. (US 4,698,663), Shimizu et al. (US 5,055,914), Sir et al. (US 7,678,616), Heng et al. (US 8,216,887), Yamaguchi et al. (US 2013/0188319) and Bet-Shliemoun (US 2015/0279761) disclose structures similar to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PENIEL M GUMEDZOE whose telephone number is (571)270-3041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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.
/PENIEL M GUMEDZOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899