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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (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.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-5, and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamilton et al. (US 5,801,442).
Re. claim 1: Hamilton discloses a case (22, 24, 26) for packaging electronic component(s) (20’), the case forming a housing for receiving at least one electronic component, the case comprising: (see fig. 4A-C; col. 3)
a support wall (56) for the at least one electronic component comprising: (see fig. 8; col. 6)
an inner face (inner face of 26) receiving the at least one electronic component; and (see fig. 4A-C; col. 3-4)
an outer face (outer face of 26); lateral edges (top edges of 26); (see fig. 4A-C; col. 3-4)
said support wall, said lateral edges, being made of a first material, at least one electrical connection element (76) extending towards the outside of the case; and (see fig. 4, 9; col. 3, 6)
a microfluidic cooling device (52, 54, 58, 60) made of a second material (sealing O-rings), inserted into said support wall, the microfluidic cooling device comprising: (see fig. 8; col. 6)
at least one channel (52, 54) for circulation of a heat-transfer fluid connected to an inlet port for the heat-transfer fluid and to an outlet port for the heat-transfer fluid; and (see fig. 8, 12: col. 6-7)
at least one platform (20) for receiving the electronic component(s) (66) in contact with said at least one channel. (see fig. 7, 12, 13; col. 6-7)
Re. claim 2: Hamilton discloses wherein said cooling device is attached by brazing to said support wall. (see col. 3 ln. 37-58)
Re. claim 3: Hamilton discloses wherein the second material of which said cooling device is made of silicon. (see col. 3)
Re. claim 4: Hamilton discloses a heat exchanger (70) wherein is formed, by micro-machining said at least one channel (68). (see fig. 7, 9; col. 5)
Re. claim 5: Hamilton discloses wherein said heat exchanger comprises: fins (70, 70’) arranged in parallel; and
Channels (68, 68’) for circulation of the heat-transfer fluid, formed between said fins. (see fig. 7, 9; col. 5)
Re. claim 7: Hamilton discloses wherein the first material is a ceramic or a metallic material or a composite material. (see col. 3)
Re. claim 8: Hamilton discloses wherein each platform (20, 20’, 20”) is inserted protruding from said inner face of said support wall (56), the inlet and outlet ports (86, 88, 90) opening towards said outer face of said support wall. (see fig. 8, 12)
Re. claim 9: Hamilton discloses wherein each platform (20, 20’, 20”) has dimensions substantially equal to the dimensions (at least the length dimensions) of an electronic component (66) , the electronic component being either brazed or bonded to the platform. (see fig. 7; col. 5)
Re. claim 10: Hamilton discloses an electronic assembly comprising:
at least one case according to claim 1; and
a support structure (24”) integrating a fluid distribution (104, 106, 110, 112) towards said at least one case, each case including an electronic component either brazed or bonded to the interior of the case, in contact with the cooling device of the case. (see fig. 13A-B; col. 6-7)
Re. claim 11: Hamilton discloses wherein said support structure comprises channels (104, 110) for distribution of heat-transfer fluid,
one of said heat-transfer fluid distribution channels being connected to the inlet ports (86) of each cooling device and another of said heat-transfer fluid distribution channels being connected to the outlet ports (88, 90) of each cooling device, each case being bonded by the outer face of the support wall of the case to said support structure. (see fig. 13A-B; col. 6-7)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Boday et al. (US 2017/0045300 A1).
Re. claim 6: Hamilton fails to disclose:
wherein said heat exchanger comprises pins arranged in a regular pattern; and circulation channels for the heat-transfer fluid, formed between said pins.
However, Boday discloses:
wherein said heat exchanger comprises pins (424) arranged in a regular pattern; and circulation channels (spaces between 424) for the heat-transfer fluid, formed between said pins. (see fig. 4; para. 0050-0054)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the fins of Hamilton with the pins taught by Boday. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to increase the surface area of contact between the fluid and the fins. (Boday para. 0043-0044)
at least one platform (20) for receiving the electronic component(s) (66) in contact with said at least one channel. (see fig. 7, 12, 13; col. 6-7)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 13 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re. claim 12: the limitations of “at least one platform for receiving the at least one electronic component in contact with said at least one channel, the platform having a parallelepipedal geometric shape, protruding towards the inside of the case, forming a promontory for receiving the at least one electronic component” in combination with the remaining limitations in the claim cannot be found in the prior art. The prior art fails to teach the claimed parallelepipedal platform for receiving the electronic component in contact with the at least one channel. The prior art discloses platforms but not in contact with the channel and protruding towards an inside of a case.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 23 October 2025, with respect to the objection to the drawings, in combination with the claim amendments, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 23 October 2025, with respect to the objection to the abstract, in combination with the amended abstract, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the abstract has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 23 October 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant appears to argue that Hamilton ‘s semiconductor devices do not anticipate the claimed “electronic components.” Applicant, at page 11, argues that “the claimed invention does not perform any structure modification of the chip/die, but instead uses a reception platform for receiving the electronic components.” However, these limitations are not found in the claims. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., no structural modification of the chip/die) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The teachings of Hamilton anticipate the claimed limitations as written.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ADAM B DRAVININKAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9a-6p MT.
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, JAYPRAKASH (JP) N GANDHI can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
December 11, 2025
/ADAM B DRAVININKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835
Prosecution Insights