DETAILED ACTION
This Action is responsive to the Amendment filed on 10/21/2025.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-15 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, regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation: “a substrate having a heat sink made of a first material.” It is unclear whether the substrate is made of the first material or the heat sink is made of the first material.
Under the principles of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the claimed limitation as a substrate having a heat sink, wherein the substrate is made of a first material.
Claim 2-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite due to the claims’ dependency to Claim 1.
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 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanathan (US 2007/0235847), in view of Dangelo (US 2006/0278901).
Regarding claim 1, Ramanathan (see, e.g., FIG. 2J, FIG. 4A) discloses a semiconductor comprising:
a substrate 210 having a heat sink 220 made of a first material e.g., silicon, said heat sink 220, 230, 270 including a plurality of spaced-apart depressions 270 (Para 0015-Para 0017, Para 0029);
an area e.g., area of substrate surrounding each 270 surrounding said depressions 270 wherein said depressions 270 are filled with one or more materials e.g., insulating material (Para 0029); and
a plurality of heat-conducting members 230 located in at least one of said depressions 270, said heat-conducting members 230 extends out of said depressions 270 (Para 0029).
Although Ramanathan shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Park fails to expressly teach said depressions are filled with one or more materials having a heat conductivity greater than said first material. Ramanathan does, however, teach that said depressions 270 are filled with one or more materials e.g., insulating material (Para 0029).
Dangelo (see, e.g., FIG. 5), on the other hand, teaches said depressions 508 are filled with one or more materials, such as copper or a dielectric (electrical insulator) (Para 0043, Para 0047).
The combination of Ramanathan (see, e.g., FIG. 2J, FIG. 4A) / Dangelo (see, e.g., FIG. 5) teaches that said depressions 270 (as taught by Ramanathan) are filled with one or more materials e.g., copper (as taught by Dangelo) having a heat conductivity greater than said first material e.g., silicon (as taught by Ramanathan) (Ramanathan: Para 0015, Para 0029; Dangelo: Para 0043, Para 0047).
Examiner Note: The materials of the spaced-apart depressions, e.g., copper and the substate, e.g., silicon of Ramanathan/Dangelo are of the same material as disclosed by Applicant (see, e.g., Para 0028, Para 0029, Table 1 of the disclosure as originally filed), which would result in the claimed property of the depressions being filled with one or more materials, e.g., copper having a heat conductivity greater than said first material, e.g., silicon. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. See In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one or ordinary skill in the art to use either copper or a dielectric (electrical insulator) in Ramanathan’s device because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as materials to fill voids between carbon nanotubes utilized as heat sinks, as taught by Dangelo, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Ramanathan (see, e.g., FIG. 2J, FIG. 4A) / Dangelo (see, e.g., FIG. 5) teaches the semiconductor of claim 1 wherein said heat-conducting members 230 (as taught by Ramanathan) extend out of said depressions 270 (as taught by Ramanathan w/ material modified by Dangelo) towards a hot region 283 (Ramanathan: Para 0027; Dangelo: Para 0043, Para 0047).
Regarding claim 3, Ramanathan (see, e.g., FIG. 2J, FIG. 4A) / Dangelo (see, e.g., FIG. 5) teaches semiconductor of claim 1 wherein said heat-conducting members 230 (as taught by Ramanathan) extends out of said depressions 270 (as taught by Ramanathan w/ material modified by Dangelo) towards a hot region 283 until terminating in the hot region 283 (Ramanathan: Para 0027; Dangelo: Para 0043, Para 0047).
Regarding claim 5, Ramanathan (see, e.g., FIG. 2J, FIG. 4A) teaches semiconductor of claim 3 wherein one or more of said heat-conducting members 230 is a carbon nanotube (Para 0029).
Regarding claim 6, Ramanathan (see, e.g., FIG. 2J, FIG. 4A) teaches semiconductor of claim 3 wherein one or more of said heat-conducting members 230 is a cylindrical carbon nanotube (Para 0018, Para 0029).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanathan (US 2007/0235847), in view of Dangelo (US 2006/0278901), and further in view of Sekine (US 2012/0168206).
Regarding claim 4, although Ramanathan/Dangelo show substantial features of the claimed invention of claim 3, Ramanathan/Dangelo fail to expressly teach one or more of said heat-conducting members is a diamond rod. Ramanathan does, however, teach that one or more of said heat-conducting members 230 is a carbon nanotube (Para 0018, Para 0029).
Sekine (see, e.g., FIG. 3), on the other hand, teaches that columnar heat sink 3 diamond or carbon nanotubes (Para 0106, Para 0117-Para 0119).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one or ordinary skill in the art to use either diamond rods or carbon nanotubes as heat-conducting members in Ramanathan’s device because these materials were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as materials with excellent thermal conductivity utilized as heat sinks, as taught by Sekine, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 7-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanathan (US 2007/0235847), in view of Dangelo (US 2006/0278901), and further in view of Gambino (US 2015/0084128).
Regarding claim 7, although Ramanathan/Dangelo show substantial features of the claimed invention of claim 1, Ramanathan/Dangelo fail to expressly teach said spaced-apart depressions are spaced apart truncated cones having at least therein at least one of said heat-conducting members and said heat-conducting members extend out of said truncated.
Gambino (see, e.g., FIG. 2A), on the other hand, teaches said spaced-apart depressions 120 are spaced apart truncated cones 120 for the purpose of enhancing heat dissipation (Para 0087 - Para 0088).
The combination of Ramanathan (see, e.g., FIG. 2J, FIG. 4A) / Dangelo (see, e.g., FIG. 5) / Gambino (see, e.g., FIG. 2A) teaches that said spaced-apart depressions 270 (as taught by Ramanathan w/ material modified by Dangelo) are spaced apart truncated cones 120 (as taught by Gambino) having at least therein at least one of said heat-conducting members 230 (as taught by Ramanathan) and said heat-conducting members 230 (as taught by Ramanathan) extend out of said truncated cones 270 (as taught by Ramanathan, w/ material modified by Dangelo, and w/ shape modified by Gambino).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the spaced-apart depressions of Ramanathan to be spaced apart truncated cones as described by Gambino for the purpose of enhancing heat dissipation (Para 0087 - Para 0088).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Ramanathan (see, e.g., FIG. 2J, FIG. 4A) / Dangelo (see, e.g., FIG. 5) / Gambino (see, e.g., FIG. 2A) teaches semiconductor of claim 7 wherein said heat-conducting members 230 (as taught by Ramanathan) extends out of said truncated cones 270 (as taught by Ramanathan, w/ material modified by Dangelo, and w/ shape modified by Gambino) towards a hot region 283 (Ramanathan: Para 0027; Dangelo: Para 0043, Para 0047, Gambino: Para 0087).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ramanathan (see, e.g., FIG. 2J, FIG. 4A) / Dangelo (see, e.g., FIG. 5) / Gambino (see, e.g., FIG. 2A) teaches semiconductor of claim 8 wherein said heat-conducting members 230 (as taught by Ramanathan) extends out of said truncated cones 270 (as taught by Ramanathan, w/ material modified by Dangelo, and w/ shape modified by Gambino) towards a hot region 283 until terminating in the hot region 283 (Ramanathan: Para 0027; Dangelo: Para 0043, Para 0047, Gambino: Para 0087 - Para 0088).
Regarding claim 11, Ramanathan (see, e.g., FIG. 2J, FIG. 4A) teaches semiconductor of claim 9 wherein one or more of said heat-conducting members 230 is a carbon nanotube (Para 0029).
Regarding claim 12, Ramanathan (see, e.g., FIG. 2J, FIG. 4A) teaches semiconductor of claim 9 wherein one or more of said heat-conducting members 230 is a cylindrical carbon nanotube (Para 0018, Para 0029).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Ramanathan (see, e.g., FIG. 2J, FIG. 4A) / Dangelo (see, e.g., FIG. 5) / Gambino (see, e.g., FIG. 2A) teaches the semiconductor of claim 9 wherein said spaced-apart truncated cones 270 (as taught by Ramanathan, w/ material modified by Dangelo, and w/ shape modified by Gambino) are made of at least one material e.g., copper that increases the mechanical strength of the said substrate 210 (as taught by Ramanathan) (Ramanathan: Para 0015, Para 0029; Dangelo: Para 0043, Para 0047).
Examiner Note: The material of the spaced-apart truncated cones, e.g., copper and the material of the substate, e.g., silicon of Ramanathan/Dangelo are of the same materials as disclosed by Applicant (see, e.g., Para 0028, Para 0029 of the disclosure as originally filed), which would result in the claimed property of the truncated cones, e.g., copper increases the mechanical strength of the substrate, e.g., silicon. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. See In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Ramanathan (see, e.g., FIG. 2J, FIG. 4A) / Dangelo (see, e.g., FIG. 5) / Gambino (see, e.g., FIG. 2A) teaches semiconductor of claim 9 wherein said spaced-apart truncated cones 270 (as taught by Ramanathan, w/ material modified by Dangelo, and w/ shape modified by Gambino) include a top radius 212 (as taught by Gambino) and a bottom radius 211 (as taught by Gambino), said top radius spaced apart from said bottom radius 211 (as taught by Gambino), and heat conduction flows from said top radius to said bottom radius 211 (as taught by Gambino) (Ramanathan: Para 0029; Dangelo: Para 0043, Para 0047; Gambino: Para 0085 - Para 0088).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Ramanathan (see, e.g., FIG. 2J, FIG. 4A) / Dangelo (see, e.g., FIG. 5) / Gambino (see, e.g., FIG. 2A) teaches semiconductor of claim 9 wherein said spaced-apart truncated cones 270 (as taught by Ramanathan, w/ material modified by Dangelo, and w/ shape modified by Gambino) include a top radius 212 (as taught by Gambino) and a bottom radius 211 (as taught by Gambino), said top radius 212 (as taught by Gambino) spaced apart from said bottom radius 211 (as taught by Gambino), and said top radius 212 (as taught by Gambino) having a higher temperature than said bottom radius 211 (as taught by Gambino) when heat is conducted through the said heat sink (Gambino: Para 0085 - Para 0088).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanathan (US 2007/0235847), in view of Dangelo (US 2006/0278901), in view of Gambino (US 2015/0084128), and further in view of Sekine (US 2012/0168206).
Regarding claim 10, although Ramanathan/Dangelo/Gambino show substantial features of the claimed invention of claim 9, Ramanathan/Dangelo/Gambino fail to expressly teach one or more of said heat-conducting members is a diamond rod. Ramanathan does, however, teach that one or more of said heat-conducting members 230 is a carbon nanotube (Para 0018, Para 0029).
Sekine (see, e.g., FIG. 3), on the other hand, teaches that columnar heat sink 3 diamond or carbon nanotubes (Para 0106, Para 0117-Para 0119).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one or ordinary skill in the art to use either diamond rods or carbon nanotubes as heat-conducting members in Ramanathan’s device because these materials were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as materials with excellent thermal conductivity utilized as heat sinks, as taught by Sekine, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
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 ANTONIO CRITE whose telephone number is (571) 270-5267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 am - 6:30 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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/ANTONIO B CRITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817