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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 05/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected package structure embodiments, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/11/2026.
In the reply filed 05/11/2026, the Applicant amended the non-elected independent claims to depend from the elected independent claim. That being so, these non-elected inventions are still directed to species embodiments that remain distinct from the elected claims. In fact, it is not at all clear that the embodiments of claims 11-20 were originally disclosed as usable with the embodiments of claims 1-10. That is, the newly amended claims appear to combine embodiments in a manner which was not originally disclosed, thus disclosing new embodiments that are more specific than those originally disclosed. Further, the Applicant’s current amendments to the non-elected embodiments raise the question of potentially improper and unsupported new matter, as it is not at all clear that, for example: the thermal interfacing unit comprises a core in any of the originally disclosed embodiments. This newly added embodiment does not appear to find any support in the original disclosure. The Applicant is strongly encouraged to ensure that all presented embodiments find support in the original disclosure and to show evidence that the embodiments are usable together.
Accordingly, the non-elected inventions remain withdrawn as non-elected. If, during prosecution and examination of this application, claim 1 is deemed to be allowable, the non-elected embodiments will be considered for rejoinder.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 discloses “the electronic component has an edge portion and a center portion, and wherein at least one wires in the edge portion has a greater bended portion than an erected portion compared to at least one wires in the center portion” (lines 1-3; emphasis added). This claim is impossible to logically follow. Both instances of “at least one wires” are confusing and likely should be amended to “at least one wire” (singular). More importantly though is the fact that “greater” is a meaningless term, because there is nothing that explains in what manner it is supposedly “greater”. Is it deemed “better” or “longer” or “thicker” or “heavier” or what? Put simply, in a reasonable reading of the claim, we don’t know how it is “greater”. Further, the term “erected portion” is not an industry standard term, does not make logical sense, and is not sufficiently defined in the original disclosure and is thus found to be ambiguous. Additionally, the “bended portion” and the “erected portion” are already being indefinitely compared (“greater bended portion”) to one another for the “at least one wire in the edge portion”, so it makes no logical sense nor is it understandable how they are then ambiguously compared to “at least one wire in the center portion”. That is, the term “greater” is being applied to a comparison between the “bended portion” and the “erected portion” of the wire(s) in the edge portion, and therefore there is no explanation of how or what is being compared between the wire(s) of the edge portion and the wire(s) of the center portion.
Claim 10 discloses “the confining structure further comprises a core having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, and wherein the confining structure is disposed over the first surface and the second surface” (lines 1-3; emphasis added). This recitation does not logically follow. It makes little sense for the confining structure to comprise a core and to also be disposed over the core. It is confusing to try to interpret such language with respect to the structures of the claim. The reader is left to guess how an object can comprise an element and also be disposed over the element it comprises. As best understood, it would seem reasonable to interpret the limitation intending that the confining structure can comprise a plurality of parts, including a core, and that one or more of the other parts of the confining structure can be placed, positioned or located over (a relative and subjective term, which can be interpreted as: above, or adjacent/proximal to, or in contact with) the core.
NOTE: Claims 5 and 10 have been interpreted and examined as best understood according to the 112(b) rejections, above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 2011/0024892 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a package structure (Title; Abstract; fig. 1: All), comprising: an electronic component (20) having an *upper surface (fig. 1: top, as viewed; par. 0013); a heat dissipating element (61 and/or 70) over the upper surface of the electronic component (fig. 1; pars. 0015 and 0017-0019); a thermal interfacing unit (50, 65, 67) between the upper surface of the electronic component and the heat dissipating element, wherein the thermal interfacing unit comprises: a thermal interfacing material (TIM) (50); and a confining structure (65, 67, 70, 75, 80) (fig. 1; pars. 0014-0015), wherein the TIM is **attached to the confining structure by capillary force (pars. 0023-0024).
*NOTE: with respect to relative and subjectively defined terms like “upper surface”, there is no referential direction claimed and therefore the reader is left to decide which direction is intended to be “upper” or “lower” or “left” or “right”. Package structures are employed in an uncountable number of different electronic devices which can be, and are, oriented in an infinite number of directions. As such, the “upper surface” of claim 1 is dictated by the reader of the claim. This holds true throughout the claims and with each prior art reference applied. So long as the reader (in this instance, the Examiner) is consistent in the application of directional labels, they can be decided subjectively.
**NOTE: the claims are directed to a product and not to a method of manufacturing a product, nor to the method of using the product. As such, it is not clear how the limitation directed to the TIM being “attached to the confining structure by capillary force” is intended to further limit the structures of the claimed product. Please refer to MPEP 2113, which states that:
“"[T]he lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult… We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith." In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972).”
In this instance, the cited confining structure of Ihara is bonded to the TIM by way of capillary action and thus is held to be anticipatory of the structure and its method of manufacture.
Regarding claim 2, Lin discloses the package structure of claim 1, wherein the confining structure comprises a plurality of wires (67) extending along a direction (the wires of 67 extend right/left from 20 and upward from 20, toward 61/70; either direction can be “a direction from the electronic component toward the heat dissipating element”) from the electronic component toward the heat dissipating element (fig. 1; par. 0023), and wherein a length of at least one wires measured along the direction is greater than a width of the at least one wires (if this were not the case, then they wouldn’t be wires; wires by the very nature of being wires must naturally have a length greater than a width).
Regarding claim 3, Lin discloses the package structure of claim 2, wherein at least one of the plurality of wires comprises a bended portion (at the upper left/right rounded corners of 67), and the bended portion is closer to the heat dissipating element than to the electronic component along the direction (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Lin discloses the package structure of claim 3, further comprising: a *seed layer (64) between the electronic component and the plurality of wires.
*NOTE: the term “seed” layer is disclosed by the applicant as being significantly more broad than the common definition. The seed layer in the original specification is nothing more than a “metallic layer 62…[which] may function as a seed layer, which may assist in forming the 1-dimensional feature 31 (or wires)” (par. 0063; emphasis added). As such, it is apparent (especially given the fact that the claims are statutorily directed to a product and not to its method of manufacture or use) that any “metallic layer” anticipates the “seed layer” of claim 4. The layer, 64, of Lin is metallic and is located between the electronic component (20) and the wires (67) and thus expressly anticipates the limitation.
Regarding claim 5, Lin discloses the package structure of claim 2, wherein the electronic component has an edge portion (curved left and right ends) and a center portion (straight central region directly above 50), and wherein at least one wires in the edge portion has a greater bended portion (entirely bent) than an erected portion (no straight portion) compared to at least one wires in the center portion (entirely straight and no bent portion) (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Lin discloses the package structure of claim 1, wherein a portion (70, 75) of the confining structure downwardly extend to a lateral side (left and right sides) of the electronic component (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Lin discloses the package structure of claim 2, wherein the TIM is attached to the plurality of wires and the TIM has a length greater than a width along the direction (fig. 1: length of 50 in the left/right direction is greater than width as viewed vertically).
Regarding claim 8, Lin discloses the package structure of claim 2, wherein a first portion of the plurality of wires have an erected end (portion of 67 running left/right along the top surface at 61) extending from the heat dissipating element and a curved end (curved left/right portions connected by flat portion at bottom of 67)contacting the upper surface of the electronic component (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Lin discloses the package structure of claim 1, wherein the heat dissipating element comprises a first portion (bottom at 64 where there is contact with 50 above 20) covering the upper surface of the electronic component and a second portion (inside faces of curved portions of 61) facing a lateral side of the electronic component, and wherein the confining structure comprises a plurality of wires (67) extending laterally along a direction (left/right) from the second portion of the heat dissipating element toward the electronic component (fig. 1; par. 0023).
Regarding claim 10, Lin discloses the package structure of claim 1, wherein the confining structure further comprises a core (65) having a first surface (top) and a second surface (bottom) opposite to the first surface, and wherein the confining structure is disposed over the first surface and the second surface (fig. 1).
Claims 1, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ihara (US 2011/0133321 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ihara discloses a package structure (20) (Title; Abstract; fig. 1), comprising: an electronic component (22) having an *upper surface (22A, as in fig. 4A: bottom surface, as viewed) (par. 0121); a heat dissipating (par. 0005) element (21 and/or 21V) over the upper surface of the electronic component (figs. 4A-4B; pars. 0005, 0121 and 0129); a thermal interfacing unit (22a, 23, 24, 25, 26) between the upper surface of the electronic component and the heat dissipating element (fig. 4A; pars. 0122-0125 and 0130), wherein the thermal interfacing unit comprises: a thermal interfacing material (TIM) (22a); and a confining structure (25/26, and/or 23), wherein the TIM is **attached to the confining structure by capillary force (pars. 0006 and 0146).
NOTE: for * and ** in claim 1, see notes above with respect to claim 1 in the rejection to Lin.
Regarding claim 6, Ihara discloses the package structure of claim 1, wherein a portion of the confining structure (23 and/or 25) *downwardly extend to a lateral side (left/right sides) of the electronic component (fig. 4A: the bottom surface, as viewed, of 22 has been cited as the “upper surface”, thus a “downward” direction would be the opposite direction of surface 22A, and would be upward, as viewed; both 23 and 25 extend in that direction to the side surfaces of 22).
Regarding claim 10, Ihara discloses the package structure of claim 1, wherein the confining structure (including 25 and 26) further comprises a core (24) having a first surface (left side at 24A) and a second surface (right side at 24B) opposite to the first surface, and wherein the confining structure (25 and 26) is disposed over the first surface and the second surface (fig. 4A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the concurrently mailed PTO-892, as all of those cited references are considered to be pertinent to the claimed invention. For example, Wilson et al. (US 2006/0158855 A1) is held to disclose most, if not all, of the limitations of at least claim 1 (see, e.g., fig. 1; pars. 0009-0011; electronic component: 102/103, heat dissipating unit: 110, thermal interface unit: 112, TIM: 116, confining structure: 114). The Wilson reference is not currently applied as an anticipation rejection due to the completeness of the above applied art, and in order to avoid an overly long Office Action or duplicative rejections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey T Carley whose telephone number is (571)270-5609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571)272-3460. 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.
/JEFFREY T CARLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights