DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in France on 09/12/22. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the French application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 09/11/23 & 06/04/25 was/were received by the Examiner before the issuance/mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered (except for anything in foreign language non-accompanied by an English translation) by the Examiner. The Examiner notes that there are 15 copies of foreign references submitted by Applicants, but only 9 are listed on the IDS of 06/04/25. Therefore Applicants are required to submit an updated IDS listing all the foreign references submitted.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 and 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: each of claims 1 and 16 recites “… second face’ ” on line 2. This is incorrect and should be “… second face; “. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-11 and 13-15 are 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.
Claim 9 recites “a peripheral region” while independent claim 8 also recites “a peripheral region”. Therefore the recitation of “a peripheral region” in dependent claim 9 is found indefinite because it is unclear what is the difference between that and the same recitation in independent claim 8.
Claim 11 recites “the center” and claim 13 recites “the lower face”. There are insufficient antecedent basis for those limitations in the claims.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rivera et al. (US 2018/0331011).
a. Re claim 1, Rivera et al. disclose an integrated circuit device, comprising: an electronic integrated circuit chip 16 (see figs. 1-3 and related text; see [0014] and remaining of disclosure for more details) having a first (top) face and a second (bottom) face; a thermal interface material layer 17 ([0015]) covering the first face; and a heat sink 12 ([0015]) comprising a mounting area (horizontal upper portion) fixed to the electronic integrated circuit chip via the thermal interface material layer; wherein the heat sink comprises open notches 42 extending into the mounting area to form a plurality of fins (which are basically regions 23 as delineated on annotated fig. 1 below) separated from each other by the open notches.
PNG
media_image1.png
902
1328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
b. Re claim 2, the heat sink further comprises a peripheral region 20&30 ([0015], [0017]) and wherein the open notches comprise (i.e. are) radial notches ([0022]) extending between a central region (region corresponding to the footprint of region 17 or the generally octagonal inner region defined by the inner edges of the fins and notches 42 on annotated fig. 2 above) of the mounting area and the peripheral region of the heat sink.
c. Re claim 16, Rivera et al. disclose an integrated circuit device, comprising: an electronic integrated circuit chip 16 (see figs. 1-3 and related text; see [0014] and remaining of disclosure for more details) having a first (top) face and a second (bottom) face; a thermal interface material layer 27 covering the first face; and a heat sink 12 comprising a plate (horizontal upper portion) having an upper surface 26 ([0016]) and a lower surface 25, wherein the lower surface is fixed to the first face of the electronic integrated circuit chip via the thermal interface material layer; wherein the plate of the heat sink comprises first notches 42 extending in depth completely through a thickness of the plate from the upper surface to the lower surface and extending in length outwardly from a central region (region corresponding to the footprint of region 17 or the generally octagonal inner region defined by the inner edges of the fins and notches 42 on annotated fig. 2 above) of the heat sink to a peripheral region 203&30 of the heat sink.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horvath (US 4,415,025).
a. Re claim 8, Horvath discloses a heat sink 24 (see figs. 1-3 and related text) for mounting to an electronic integrated circuit chip 12, comprising: a mounting region MR (see annotated figs. 2-3 below) having an upper face and a lower face (explicit on the figures); and a peripheral region PR surrounding the mounting region; a plurality of first open notches 26 (col. 3 ln. 40-67) extending through the mounting region to define a plurality fins (portions of 24 between notches 26); and a plurality of second open notches 28 (col. 3 ln. 40-67) extending between the mounting region and the peripheral region.
PNG
media_image2.png
831
1060
media_image2.png
Greyscale
b. Re claim 9 and in view of 112 2nd rejection above, .
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.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rivera et al. (US 2018/0331011) in view of Ho et al. (US 2015/0187679).
a. Re claim 5, Rivera et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except explicitly that the mounting area of the heatsink comprises an at least partially ribbed surface including grooves that are in contact with the thermal interface material layer.
However, Ho et al. disclose providing a partially ribbed surface including grooves 25 on a bonding surface of a lid 24’ (see figs. 2A-4L&6A-D and related text) wherein the grooves increases contact surface area between a thermal interface material (TIM) 28’ and the lid in order to increase heat dissipation efficiency (see at least [0027] and [0030]).
As such, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the mounting area of the heatsink to comprise an at least partially ribbed surface including grooves that are in contact with the thermal interface material layer, and this in in order to increase heat dissipation efficiency.
b. Re claim 6, the said grooves are arranged in concentric circles (see fig. 4I of Ho et al. ‘679).
c. Re claim 7, Ho et al. ‘679 disclose the grooves having a depth of 50 microns to 2.5mm (see [0027]), and this of course is limited by the thickness of the lid 24’. As such, and that the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art but may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law (see MPEP 2144.I), further noting that the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal and even common-sensical (see MPEP 2144.II), and finally noting from MPEP 2141.03 that “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” and that a “hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art.”, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have provided the heat sink to have thickness small enough such that grooves of a depth of 50 microns are adequate to achieve increased heat dissipation efficiency while also achieving a light weight package with a thin heat sink (see MPEP 2144.I&II and 2143.E).
d. Re claim 18, Rivera et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except explicitly that the lower surface of the plate comprises a ribbed surface including grooves that extend in depth from the lower surface only partially through the thickness of the plate. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided, in view of Ho et al. ‘679, the lower surface of the plate to comprise a ribbed surface including grooves that extend in depth from the lower surface only partially through the thickness of the plate, and this based on the same reasons invoked in claim 5 rejection above.
e. Re claim 19, the said grooves are arranged in concentric circles (see fig. 4I of Ho et al. ‘679).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 10, 12 and 17 are 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.
Claims 11 and 13-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Glenn et al. (US 6,580,167) disclose a structure similar to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PENIEL M GUMEDZOE whose telephone number is (571)270-3041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 5712707877. 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.
/PENIEL M GUMEDZOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899