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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/29/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 3 are amended. Claim 13 is cancelled. Claims 5 and 15-20 remain withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103:
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 1-4 and 6-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antoniswamy et al. (US 2018/0012820, herein “Antoni”) in view of Bish et al. (US 2007/0152323, herein “Bish”) and Kentaro (JP 2009-290118A, machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Antoni discloses:
a heat spreader (100) having a longitudinal axis (see annotated fig. 6-ANTONI, page 3), comprising:
a top surface (118) opposite a bottom surface (116-1 plus 116-2 plus 116-3) (fig. 6), the bottom surface (116-1 plus 116-2 plus 116-3) including a first side portion, a second side portion, and an intermediate portion (see annotated fig. 6-ANTONI, page 3);
an outer periphery (at 112-2) extending around the bottom surface (116-1 plus 116-2 plus 116-3) (fig. 6);
a plurality of cavities (106-1, 106-2, 106-3) formed within and extending from the bottom surface (116-1 plus 116-2 plus 116-3) toward the top surface (118), the plurality of cavities including a first cavity (106-1) and a second cavity (106-3) (fig. 6);
PNG
media_image1.png
428
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the plurality of cavities (106-1, 106-2, 106-3) is longitudinally aligned with one another along the longitudinal axis (see annotated fig. 6-ANTONI, above);
wherein the first side portion of the bottom surface (116-1 plus 116-2 plus 116-3) is disposed between the outer periphery and the first dome cavity (106-1), the second side portion of the bottom surface (116-1 plus 116-2 plus 116-3) is disposed between the outer periphery and the second cavity (106-3), and the intermediate portion of the bottom surface (116-1 plus 116-2 plus 116-3) is disposed between the first cavity (106-1) and the second cavity (106-3) (see annotated fig. 6-ANTONI, above);
wherein the heat spreader (100) lacks any features, except for the outer periphery (at 112-2), below the bottom surface (see annotated fig. 6-ANTONI, above).
Antoni does not disclose:
each of the plurality of cavities having a dome shape defined by a radius and a depth.
Bish, also directed to a heat spreader (16) having a top surface (20) opposite a bottom surface, an outer periphery (at 60) extending around the bottom surface (see annotated fig. 5-BISH, page 4) and a plurality of domes (at 24) formed within and extending from the bottom surface toward the top surface (20), teaches that the size and shape of a heat spreader is dictated by the underlying heat generating component and alludes to the possibility that different sizes and shapes may be required to accommodate different heat generating components [par. 0019]. Further, Kentaro, also directed to a heat spreader (14) having a top surface opposite a bottom surface (figs. 9, 11, 13), teaches a heat spreader (14) having a dome (24a) formed within and extending from the bottom surface towards the top surface of the heat spreader (14) (fig. 11) wherein the dome (24a) is defined by a radius and a depth (seen in fig. 11) as an obvious variation of a heat spreader (14) having a dome (24c) formed within and extending from the bottom surface towards the top surface of the heat spreader (14) in a stepped manner (fig. 13) (just as in Antoni). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate into Antoni the teachings of Bish and Kentaro to have each of the plurality of cavities having a dome shape defined by a radius and a depth as a matter of an obvious design choice according to the user’s needs. Furthermore, it has been held that changing the shape of an old device is a matter of design choice which involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04, section IV, part A.
PNG
media_image2.png
264
778
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Antoni, Bish and Kentaro discloses:
each of the plurality of domes (Antoni 106-1-2-3, upon modification with Kentaro 24a) being defined by a curved profile (Kentaro, fig. 11).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Antoni, Bish and Kentaro discloses:
the plurality domes (Antoni, 106-1, 106-2, 106-3, upon modification with Kentaro 24a) further includes a third dome (106-2) (Antoni, fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Antoni, Bish and Kentaro discloses:
the plurality of domes (Antoni, 106-1, 106-2, 106-3, upon modification with Kentaro 24a) each extend upwardly relative to the bottom surface of the heat spreader (Antoni, 100), such that each dome (Antoni, 106-1-2-3) forms a cavity within the heat spreader (100) (see annotated fig. 7-ANTONI, page 3).
Regarding claims 6-7, the combination of Antoni, Bish and Kentaro does not disclose:
the radius of each of the plurality of domes being between 5 and 15mm, as claimed in claim 6, and the depth of each of the plurality of domes being between 0.005 and 0.03mm, as claimed in claim 7.
However, the sizing of the radius and the depth of the plurality of domes/cavities is considered to be an obvious design choice, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would design or size the radius and the depth of the domes/cavities of the combination of Antoni, Bish and Kentaro to provide a proper isolation of strain and relief of stress due to thermal expansion of the spreader [Bish, abstract] according to the electronic components needed to be cooled, based on the user’s needs. Further, Bish discloses the regions of the domes (at 24) being a reduced substrate thickness region, with the width of such a region typically chosen to be in the range of one times its depth to 15 times its depth [Bish, par. 0029].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive to the radius and depth of each of the plurality of domes (Antoni, 106-1, 106-2, 106-3, upon modification with Kentaro 24a) being between 5 mm and 15 mm, and between 0.005 and 0.03mm, respectively, as a matter of an obvious design choice according to the user’s needs, since it has been held that, when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (in this case disclosed by the combination of Antoni, Bish and Kentaro acknowledging that the strain isolation regions -Bish, at 24- where the domes are arranged may have a curved profile, Bish, fig. 5; “or otherwise” Bish, par. 0029), it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05, Section II).
Regarding claim 8, Antoni discloses:
the heat spreader (100) being defined by a rectangular shape defined by at least four sides [par. 0034, as it applies to the embodiment of fig. 6].
Regarding claim 9, Antoni:
the outer periphery (at 112-2) extending along each of the four sides of the heat spreader (100) (fig. 6) [par. 0034, as it applies to the embodiment of fig. 6].
Regarding claim 10, Antoni discloses:
the outer periphery (at 112-2) being at least partially vertically offset from the bottom surface of the heat spreader (100) (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, Antoni discloses:
the heat spreader (100) being composed of copper [par. 0019].
Regarding claims 12 and 14, Antoni discloses:
a heat spreader (100) (fig. 6), comprising:
a top surface (118) opposite a bottom surface (116-1 plus 116-2 plus 116-3) (fig. 6);
an outer periphery (at 112-2) extending around the bottom surface (116-1 plus 116-2 plus 116-3) (fig. 6);
a first cavity (106-1) within and extending upwardly from the bottom surface;
a second cavity (106-2) within and extending upwardly from the bottom surface and positioned adjacent the first cavity (106-1) (fig. 6);
a third cavity (106-3) within and extending upwardly from the bottom surface and positioned adjacent to the second cavity (106-2) (fig. 6);
wherein the heat spreader (100) includes a single integral body defining the top surface (118), the bottom surface (116-1 plus 116-2 plus 116-3), the outer periphery (at 112-2), the first cavity (106-1), the second cavity (106-2), and the third cavity (106-3) (fig. 6) (it is noted, the body of the heat spreader 100 that defines the top surface 118, the bottom surfaces 106-1-2-3, the outer periphery at 112-2, the first cavity 106-1, the second cavity 106-2 and the third cavity 106-3 is single an integral, since the inserts 104 do not define any of the aforementioned elements and are just inserts in the integral body 100) .
Antoni does not disclose:
the first, second and third cavities being defined by a domed profile defined by a radius and a depth, wherein the lateral radius of the first cavity, second cavity, and third cavity is between approximately 5mm and 15mm, as claimed in claim 12, and
the depth of each of the first, second and third cavity being between 0.005 and 0.03mm, as claimed in claim 14.
However, the sizing of the radius and the depth of the plurality of domes/cavities is considered to be an obvious design choice, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would design or size the radius and the depth of the domes/cavities of Bish to provide a proper isolation of strain and relief of stress due to thermal expansion of the spreader [Bish, abstract] according to the electronic components needed to be cooled, based on the user’s needs. Further, Bish discloses the regions of the domes (at 24) being a reduced substrate thickness region, with the width of such a region typically chosen to be in the range of one times its depth to 15 times its depth [par. 0029].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive to the radius and depth of each of the plurality of domes (at 24) being between 5 mm and 15 mm, and between 0.005 and 0.03mm, respectively, as a matter of an obvious design choice according to the user’s needs, since it has been held that, when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (in this case disclosed by Bish acknowledging that the strain isolation regions -at 24- where the domes are arranged may have a curved profile, fig. 5; “or otherwise” par. 0029), it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05, Section II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 with respect to rejected claims 1-4 and 6-11 under Bish and with respect to claims 12 and 14 under Antoniswamy ‘567, do not apply to the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUSTAVO A HINCAPIE SERNA whose telephone number is (571)272-6018. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/GUSTAVO A HINCAPIE SERNA/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JENNA M MARONEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763