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. Response to Arguments made in Amendment Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6 of “ Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment ” , filed 12/30/2025 , with respect to the objection of Claim 9 and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of Claim 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendments fix the indicated reasons for the objection of Claim 9 and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of Claim 16 and as such the objection and rejection have been withdraw. Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6 of “ Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment ”, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) by Gandhi ( US 20180358280 A1 ) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendment to claim 1 further adds the limitation of “ wherein a gap between the cooling cover and the lid exposes a bottom surface of the lid and the plurality of fluid channels, wherein the gap has a width at least as large as a total width of the plurality of fluid channels ”. The rejection relies of having Alapati disclose the device, however, Alapati fails to disclose where there is a gap between the cooling cover and the lid where the lid exposes a plurality of fluid channels in said gap. Therefore, the rejection of Claim 1 by Alapati has been withdrawn. However, as necessitated by amendment, a new ground(s) of rejection is made for Claim 1 which is now anticipated by Wu et al. (US 20210066164 A1). Applicant’s arguments, see Page 9 of “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment”, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) by Gandhi (US 20180358280 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendment to claim 10 further adds the limitation of “a lid attached to the semiconductor device” and “herein the ring structure encircles the semiconductor device and the lid ”. The rejection relies of having Gandhi teach the positions of the ring structure and the lid, however, in the prior art of Gandhi, the ring structure is directly under the lid and not encircling it. Therefore, the rejection of Claim 10 by Gandhi has been withdrawn. However, as necessitated by amendment, a new ground(s) of rejection is made for Claim 10 which is now anticipated by Chi et al. (US 20210118767 A1). Applicant’s arguments, see Page 10 of “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment ”, filed 12/30/2025 , with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14-15 and 21-22 by Gebrehiwot in view of Gandhi have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendment further adds the limitation of “ wherein the ring structure is free of contact with the lid and the cover ”. The rejection relies of having Gandhi teach the ring structure that the invention of Gebrehiwot may us in an obvious combination, however there is no indication that the ring structure would be free from of contact with the lid, and actually it would be the opposite where the ring structure is specifically made to contact and hold up the lid. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, as necessitated by amendment, a new ground(s) of rejection is made for Claim 14 by Chi et al. (US 20210118767 A1), For claim 15 by Chi in view of Gebrehiwot (US 20200409398 A13), and for claims 21 and its dependents by Wu et al. (US 20210066164 A1) in view of Chi and further in view of Ku (US 20190385929 A1). To be clear, all previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been overcome at least by the amendments and as such all previous rejections related to 102 and 103 have been overcome, however several new rejections are presented below which are necessitated by amendment. 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. Claim 2 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Currently Claim 23 depends on Claim 21. Claim 21 was amended in previous action to require that the “ the ring structure is free of contact with the lid and the cover ”. Claim 2 3 looks to further limited Claim 21 with the limitation of “ wherein the spacer physically contacts a top surface of the ring structure ”. It is unclear how one of skill in the art would make a ring structure that is free of contact from the spacer structure, while at the same time, having the space structure contacting a surface of the ring structure. Currently, claim 2 3 is unclear enough that it would be improper to try to examine it for prior art, and as such there is no suggestion that Examiner can make to assist in furthering prosecution of said claim. 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 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 lid 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. Claims 10-12, 14, and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication by Chi et al. ( US 20210118767 A1 ; Chi). Regarding Claim 1 0 , 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). Regarding Claim 11 , Chi discloses the device of claim 10, and further wherein a top surface of the ring structure is lower than a top surface of the spacer structure (Fig. 1E, where top surface of ring structure 160 is lower than top surface of spacer structure 224/226). Regarding Claim 1 2 , Chi discloses the device of claim 10, and further wherein a portion of the spacer structure extends between a bottom surface of the cooling cover and a top surface of the ring structure (Fig. 1E, Where the bottom portions 224/226 are considered the spacer structure and the top portion 222 is the cooling cover, it is apparent that the spacer structure extends to the cooling over). Regarding Claim 1 4 , Chi discloses the device of claim 10, and further wherein the cooling cover is attached to the lid by a sealant (228) around a perimeter of the lid. Regarding Claim 1 6 , Chi discloses the device of claim 10, wherein the bottom side of the cooling cover is planar. 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. 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”). Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious by Chi in view of United States Patent Application Publication by Gebrehiwot et al. ( US 20200409398 A1; Gebrehiwot ) Regarding Claim 15 , Chi discloses the device of claim 10, however, Chi fails to further disclose wherein the cooling cover is configured to be coupled to a heat transfer unit, wherein the heat transfer unit is configured to supply liquid coolant to the cooling cover. The cooling cover (222) in Chi however, is configured to be made of materials that are good for heat spreading (Para. 61). In a similar field of endeavor, Gebrehiwot discloses a similar semiconductor device (600) with a die (602) attached to a substrate (658), a lid ( 610 ) on top of the die, a cooling structure over the lid ( 616 ), and a spacer structure ( 652 ) attached to the substrate and adjacent to the die. Furthermore, Gebrehiwot discloses the cooling cover is configured to be coupled to a heat transfer unit (heat exchanger and a pump), wherein the heat transfer unit is configured to supply liquid coolant to the cooling cover (Para. 79). In view of the disclosure of Gebrehiwot , it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the disclosure of Gebrehiwot to Chi at the time the instant application was filed to incorporate a having a heat transfer unit and a cooling cover that is configured to receive liquid coolant from the heat exchanger . Accordingly, one would have been motivated to make the modification because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the advantages that having dedicated liquid coolant being moved through the cooling cover instead of relying on passive cooling alone. This allows for the advantageous transfer of heat (Para. 51). Claims 21-22 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 (15) : 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). 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 2 2 , the combination of Wu, Chi, and Ku disclose the device of claim 21, and further wherein the spacer is attached to the substrate by an adhesive (Chi: 210) . Regarding claim 2 4 , 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 2 5 , 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 2 6 , 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 ] ) . 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Enter examiner's name" \* MERGEFORMAT DANIEL J HIBBERT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-1562 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 8am-5pm 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Zandra Smith can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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 /ZANDRA V SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899