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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments made in Amendment
Applicant's arguments on Page 6 of “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” filed 06/30/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(A) rejection of claim 23 have been fully considered and are persuasive, as such the 35 U.S.C. 112(A) rejection of claim 23 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments on Page 6-8 of “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” filed 06/30/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 6-8, as well as, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 21, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant amended claim 1 to include the new limitation of “wherein a bottom surface of the cooling cover extends over the spacer structure.” Applicant argues that the office has failed to illustrate how the cited references teach the recited features. Examiner agrees that the previous Office Action does fail to illustrate how the cited art of Wu demonstrates the new limitation. However, the new limitation still appears to be disclosed in the cited art of Wu. Wu discloses that the cooling cover (600A or 600B) extends over the spacer structure (810) (See Fig. 9A, and Para. 47, where Cooling cover is at least secured to the package by the spacer structure 810, therefore the cooling cover extends to at least where the spacer structure is). In regard to the other limitations, Examiner would point to the previous Office Action, where each of “a sealant on the lid,” “a spacer attached to the substrate adjacent the circuit die,” ETC, are all illustrated in the rejections. Claim 21 was amended to include the new limitation of “wherein the spacer is between a bottom surface of the cover and the substrate.” However, similar to how claim 1 was amended, claim 21 is still very much disclosed by the already cited reference of Wu even when in view of the new limitation. Wu’s spacers extend from the cover to the substrate, meaning they would at least be “between a bottom surface of the cover and the substrate,” albeit, not exclusively. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, it is still fair to say that claim 21 is disclosed by Wu at least in part of the combination of references.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6-8 of “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” filed 06/30/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 10-12, 14, and 16 by Chi (US 20210118767 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 10-12, 14, and 16 are hereby withdrawn.
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.
Claim 1 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.
Currently, claim 1 has the limitation of “wherein a gap between the cooling cover and the lid exposes a bottom surface of the lid …” In the previous action, the bottom surface of the lid could be understood as the upper part of the lid in the figures, which is the same surface that has the plurality of fluid channels. However, the claim was amended to include that the cooling cover extends over the spacer structures, which narrows the “bottom surface of the lid” to only reasonably be the bottom surface of the lid in the figures, which is the side opposite the fluid channels. Because of this, it is now unclear how the gap between the cooling cover and the lid can expose the bottom surface of this lid. Even in the instant application, it doesn’t appear as though the gap exposes the bottom surface of the lid, as the bottom surface of the lid is not near the gap. In an effort for compact prosecution, the claim will be examined as if read “wherein a gap between the cooling cover and the lid exposes a bottom surface of the cooling cover.” Examiner believes this captures the original intention of the claim and will allow for examination to continue. Appropriate action is still needed.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication by Wu et al. (US 20210066164 A1; Wu).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a device (15) comprising:
an integrated circuit die (119) attached to a substrate (400);
a lid attached to the integrated circuit die (top surface [111r] of the die has been shaped/etched/altered in such a way that it would be fair to call the top surface a lid to the rest of the die), wherein the lid comprises a plurality of fluid channels (120);
a sealant on the lid (700);
a spacer structure (810) attached to the substrate adjacent the integrated circuit die;
and a cooling cover (600A or 600B) attached to the spacer structure (Fig. 9A), wherein a bottom surface of the cooling cover extends over the spacer structure (See Fig. 9A, and Para. 47, where Cooling cover is at least secured to the package by the spacer structure 810, therefore the cooling cover extends to at least where the spacer structure is), wherein the cooling cover extends over the lid (Fig. 8A, where the cooling cover 600A extends over the lid 119), wherein a gap between the cooling cover and the lid exposes a bottom surface of the cooling cover* (See above 112b rejection) and the plurality of fluid channels (Gap [indicated by CR and arrow in Fig. 8B) between 111r and bottom surface of cover 600A), wherein the gap has a width at least as large as a total width of the plurality of fluid channels (Fig. 8A/B, where gap extends beyond the channels 120 to the inlet 630in and outlet 630out), wherein the cooling cover is attached to the lid by the sealant (700)(Para. 42, the seal ring 700 may include an adhesive material and may secure the cooling cover 600A to the die 110”).
Regarding Claim 6, Wu discloses the device of claim 1, and further wherein the cooling cover is configured to provide coolant to the gap between the cooling cover and the lid (Fig. 8b, where the arrows on the figure show the path of the coolant and how the cover has inlet 630in and 630 out as means to move coolant to and from the gap [0045]).
Regarding Claim 7, Wu discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the spacer structure comprises a vertical portion (Fig. 9, where the spacer has, in reference to the figure, the left and right sides that can be interpreted to be vertical portions) and a horizontal portion, wherein a top surface of the horizontal portion contacts the cooling cover (Fig. 9, where the spacer has, in reference to the figure, the top and bottom sides that can be interpreted to be horizontal portions, the top horizontal portion is in contact with the cooling cover).
Regarding Claim 8, Wu discloses the device of claim 1, and further wherein a portion of the cooling cover that extends over the lid has a thickness greater than a portion of the cooling cover that is attached to the spacer structure.
When looking at a top/down (or over) view, the cooling cover has portions that contain inlets and outlets as well as tubing paths for the cooling medium, as well as portions that don’t contain such inlets and outlets meaning the cooling cover is solid at those points. It is trivial to point to a portion that is extending over the lid and is solid meaning it will have same thickness as distance from the top of the cooling cover to the bottom of the cooling cover. Meanwhile, it is also possible to choose a portion that is not over the lid that has cooling paths inside the cooling cover and the thickens would be reduced.
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious by Wu in view of Chi et al. (US 20210118767 A1; Chi).
Regarding Claim 2, Wu discloses the device of claim 1, However, Wu fails to disclose the device further comprising a ring structure on the substrate, wherein the ring structure is between the spacer structure and the integrated circuit die.
In a similar field of endeavor, Chi discloses a similar semiconductor device with a die (122) attached to a substrate (110), a lid (190) on top of the die, and a spacer structure (224) attached to the substrate adjacent to the die. Furthermore, Chi discloses having a ring structure (160) on the substrate, where the ring structure is between the spacer structure and the integrated circuit die (Fig. 12).
In view of the disclosure of Chi, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the disclosure of Chi to Wu at the time the instant application was filed to incorporate the addition of a ring structure from Chi into the similar device of Wu where the ring structure is on the substrate, and wherein the ring structure is between the spacer structure and the integrated circuit die. Accordingly, one would have been motivated to make the modification because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the advantages that having the ring structure incorporated device in order to further help with heat conduction (Chi: Para 43-45).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Wu and Chi disclose the device of claim 2, and further wherein the cooling cover extends over the ring structure (The combination of the Ring structure from Chi with the rest of the device from Wu would place the ring structure under the cooling cover).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Wu and Chi discloses the device of claim 2, and further wherein a top surface of the ring structure is higher than a top surface of the lid (Where the combination is made, so will the ring structure have a higher surface that a top surface of the lid).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious by Wu in view of United States Patent Application Publication by Gandhi et al. (US 20180358280 A1; Gandhi)
Regarding Claim 9, Wu discloses the device of claim 1. Wu also discloses an alternate embodiment where the device uses (820 – clamps), however, Wu fails to disclose where said clamps are present with the spacer structure and the clamps press the cooling cover into the spacer structure.
In a similar field of endeavor, Gandhi discloses a similar semiconductor device with a die (114) attached to a substrate (112), a lid (150) on top of the die, a cooling structure over the lid (180), and a spacer structure (154) attached to the substrate adjacent to the die. Furthermore, Gandhi discloses comprising a frame (182) that presses the cooling cover against the spacer structure (Gandhi: Para. 35, “a fastener 182 may be threadingly engaged with posts 186 of the heat sink assembly 180 so that the heat sink assembly exerts a force on the lid 150 in a direction of the dies 114, as illustrated by arrow 190”).
In view of the disclosure of Gandhi, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the disclosure of Gandhi to Wu at the time the instant application was filed to incorporate frame that presses the cooling cover against the spacer structure. Accordingly, one would have been motivated to make the modification because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the advantages that having A frame that presses the cooling cover against the spacer structure in order to maintain good thermal contact (Gandhi: Para. 35, “Advantageously, the force provided by the heat sink assembly 180 allows the lid 150 to maintain good thermal contact with the dies 114, while remaining floating on the stiffener 154”).
Claims 21 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious by Wu in view of Chi and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication by Ku et al. (US 20190385929 A1; Ku).
Regarding claim 21, Wu discloses device comprising:
a semiconductor device (119) attached to a substrate (400);
a lid (111r) attached to the semiconductor device (top surface [111r] of the die has been shaped/etched/altered in such a way that it would be fair to call the top surface a lid to the rest of the die), wherein the lid comprises coolant channels (120);
a spacer (810) on the substrate; and
a cover (600A or B) attached to the spacer and the lid (Fig. 9A), and “wherein the spacer is between a bottom surface of the cover and the substrate” (Fig. 9A, Where the spacer extends through at least the cover to the substrate, meaning the spacer is at least between the cover and the substrate”).
However, Wu fails to disclose the device further comprising a ring structure on the substrate, wherein the ring structure is between the spacer structure and the integrated circuit die, and further the ring structure is free of contact with the lid and the cover.
In a similar field of endeavor, Chi discloses a similar semiconductor device with a die (122) attached to a substrate (110), a lid (190) on top of the die, and a spacer structure (224) attached to the substrate adjacent to the die. Furthermore, Chi discloses having a ring structure (160) on the substrate, where the ring structure is between the spacer structure and the integrated circuit die (Fig. 12).
In view of the disclosure of Chi, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the disclosure of Chi to Wu at the time the instant application was filed to incorporate the addition of a ring structure from Chi into the similar device of Wu where the ring structure is on the substrate, and wherein the ring structure is between the spacer structure and the integrated circuit die. Accordingly, one would have been motivated to make the modification because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the advantages that having the ring structure incorporated device in order to further help with heat conduction (Chi: Para 43-45)
However, the ring structure in Chi and as such the obvious combination of Chi and Wu, fails to disclose where the ring structure is free of contact with the lid and the cover.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ku discloses a similar semiconductor device (100) with a die (115) attached to a substrate (103), a lid (131) on top of the die, a cover (331) on top of the lid. Furthermore, Ku discloses having a ring structure (127) on the substrate, where the ring structure is disposed around the die and, where the ring structure is free of contact from the lid and the cover (Fig. 6) creating a gap (615) between the ring structure and the cover.
In view of the disclosure of Ku, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the disclosure of Ku to the obvious combination of Chi and Wu at the time the instant application was filed to incorporate having the ring structure in the obvious combination not extending all the way to the cover and instead leaving the ring structure free of contact from the lid and the cover. Accordingly, one would have been motivated to make the modification because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the advantages that having the ring structure not extending to the cover would allow for there to be a gap which would allow for additional thermal paths away from the die (Ku: Para. 70, “In addition, during operation of the packaged arrangement 600, heat generated from the 3D-IC PKG substrate 103 and from the 3D-IC module 105 may be vented through the gap 615 in order to allow heat to escape from the cavity 128 in order to maintain a lower temperature surrounding the 3D-IC”).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Wu, Chi, and Ku disclose the device of claim 21, and further wherein the spacer extends over a top surface of the ring structure (As the spacer is outside the ring structure from the die, if turned sideways, the spacer would be extending over the ring structure).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Wu, Chi, and Ku, disclose the device claim 21, and further wherein a top surface of the lid is a first height above the substrate, wherein a top surface of the ring structure is at least the first height above the substrate (The combination would result in a ring structure that is at least the same height as the top of the die).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Wu, Chi, and Ku, disclose the device claim 21, and further comprising a gap between a bottom surface of the cover and a top surface of the lid (Wu: (Gap [indicated by CR and arrow in Fig. 8B]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10-12, and 14-16 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 10, Chi discloses a device comprising:
a first substrate (112);
a second substrate (122) connected to the first substrate (connected by at least underfill 140 and bumps 130);
a spacer structure (224/226) attached to the first substrate, wherein the spacer structure encircles the second substrate (Fig. 1E, Where spacer structure 224/226 is attached to second substrate 122 via adhesive 210, and the spacer structure encircles first substrate 112);
a semiconductor device (120 – Chip) connected to the second substrate (Para. 29);
a lid (190) attached to the semiconductor device;
a ring structure (160) attached to the second substrate (Attached with adhesive layer 150), wherein the ring structure encircles the semiconductor device and the lid (Para 43-44, and Fig. 1E-1, where the ring structure encircles the lid and second substrate); and
a cooling cover (222 – top plate) attached to the spacer structure, wherein the cooling cover is vertically separated from the ring structure and the lid (The cooling cover 222 is vertically above the lid and ring structure).
However, the prior art of record fails to disclose wherein the lid comprises fluid channels” and the cooling cover is attached to a top surface of the spacer structure along with the other limitations of the claim.
Furthermore, dependent claims 11-12, and 14-16 are also found to be allowable at least based on their dependency on indicated allowed claim 10.
Claims 22, 23 and 27 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Examiner believes that the prior art does not appear to show where “spacer is attached to the cover by an adhesive” while at the same time, also having at least the ring structure free of contact with the lid and the cover and the spacer is between the bottom surface of the cover and the substrate, along with the other limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J HIBBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-1562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10am-6pm EST.
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, Zandra Smith can be reached at (571) 272-2429. 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.
/DANIEL J HIBBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/EVAN G CLINTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights