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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s remarks/amendments of claims 1-3 in the reply filed on December 11th, 2025, are acknowledged. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 4-5 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claim 3 cancelled. New claims 6-7 have been added. Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are pending.
Action on merits of claims 1-2 and 6-7 as follows.
35 USC § 112(f)/sixth paragraph
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “one channel configured for a cooling fluid to flow…”; and “a manifold configured to introduce the cooling fluid into the at least one channel…” as recited in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsherbini (US 2021/0407888, hereinafter as Elsh ‘888) in view of Zhou (US 2021/0180880, hereinafter as Zhou ‘880).
Regarding Claim 1, Elsh ‘888 teaches a semiconductor device thermal management module comprising:
a thermal diffusion plate (solid pad, Fig. 9, (906); [0127]) stacked on a semiconductor device (901; [0126]) for thermal diffusion of the semiconductor device;
a heat spreader (100; [0051], [0068]) disposed on the thermal diffusion plate, and having at least one channel configured for a cooling fluid to flow there through (microchannels; see para. [0127]) and a manifold (909; [0127]) disposed on an upper side of the heat spreader configured to introduce the cooling fluid into the channel, and having a flow path capable of communicating with the channel of the heat spreader, wherein an inlet line and a discharge line, for the cooling fluid, forming the flow path are partitioned from each other. Examiner considers the fluid conduit (909) is the manifold.
Thus, Elsh ‘888 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “the flow path includes a plurality of inlet lines and a plurality of discharge lines partitioned from each other, wherein each inlet line includes a first open entrance for entry of the cooling fluid, a first closed exit, and a first elongated middle section extending in an axial direction perpendicular to the at least one channel of the heat spreader, wherein each discharge line includes a second open entrance corresponding to the first closed exit of the adjacent inlet line, a second closed exit corresponding to the first open entrance of the adjacent inlet line, and a second elongated middle section extending in an axial direction perpendicular to the at least one channel of the heat spreader, and wherein the discharge lines are disposed between adjacent inlet lines”.
Zhou ‘880 teaches the flow path includes a plurality of inlet lines (Fig. 4B, (442); [0029]) and a plurality of discharge lines (Fig. 4B, (442); [0029]) partitioned from each other, wherein each inlet line includes a first open entrance for entry of the cooling fluid, a first closed exit, and a first elongated middle section extending in an axial direction perpendicular to the at least one channel of the heat spreader, wherein each discharge line (444) includes a second open entrance corresponding to the first closed exit of the adjacent inlet line, a second closed exit corresponding to the first open entrance of the adjacent inlet line, and a second elongated middle section extending in an axial direction perpendicular to the at least one channel of the heat spreader, and wherein the discharge lines are disposed between adjacent inlet lines (see Figs. 2 and 4B).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Elsh ‘888 by having a plurality of inlet lines and a plurality of discharge lines partitioned from each other, wherein each inlet line includes a first open entrance for entry of the cooling fluid, a first closed exit, and a first elongated middle section extending in an axial direction perpendicular to the at least one channel of the heat spreader, wherein each discharge line includes a second open entrance corresponding to the first closed exit of the adjacent inlet line, a second closed exit corresponding to the first open entrance of the adjacent inlet line, and a second elongated middle section extending in an axial direction perpendicular to the at least one channel of the heat spreader, and wherein the discharge lines are disposed between adjacent inlet lines in order to reduce pumping power in regions with less heat flux and increase thermal performance in regions with more heat flux, thereby optimally balancing the tradeoff between pumping power and thermal performance and fluid performance (see para. [0063]) as suggested by Zhou ‘880.
PNG
media_image1.png
632
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 9 (Elsh ‘888)
PNG
media_image2.png
526
486
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 (Zhou ‘880)
Regarding Claim 2, Elsh ‘888 teaches the heat spreader includes a first spreader layer having a channel of a relatively small hydraulic diameter (microchannels; [0127]), and a second channel (402) disposed on an upper side of the first spreader layer, the second channel communicating with the first channel (see Fig. 4).
Thus, Elsh ‘888 and Zhou ‘880 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a second channel of a larger hydraulic diameter than that of the first channel”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a second channel of a larger hydraulic diameter than that of the first channel on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a second channel of a larger hydraulic diameter than that of the first channel when this improving convective heat transfer of the semiconductor device.
Regarding Claim 6, Zhou ‘880 teaches the thermal diffusion plate (Fig. 5A, (522); [0056]) and the heat spreader (Fig. 5A, (500); [0055]) are integrally formed of same material.
Regarding Claim 7, Zhou ‘880 teaches the at least one channel (Fig. 3B, (325); [0034]) comprises a porous structure including a plurality of interconnected pores in a three-dimensional space (e.g. a three-dimensional microchannel structure (328); [0034]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 6-7, filed on December 11th, 2025, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Interviews After Final
Applicants note that an interview after a final rejection is permitted in order to place the application in condition for allowance or to resolve issues prior to appeal. However, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, preferably in writing. Upon review of the agenda, the Examiner may grant the interview if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations will be denied. See MPEP § 714.13
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Dzung Tran whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Supervisor Sue Purvis can be reached on 571-272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893