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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment and Request for Reconsideration filed July 8, 2026. The amendments to the claims have been entered. Claims 1-13 and 15-20 have been amended. Claim 14 has been canceled. Claim 21 is new.
Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 4, 2026 has been placed in the application file and is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a), necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown:
(1) the power plane portion is electrically insulated from the ground plane portion, as recited in claims 2, 9, and 16, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). FIG. 5 shows power plane portion 520 including fingers 522, 524, 526, 528, and 530 in direct contact with ground plane portion 550 including fingers 552, 554, 556, and 558. No new matter should be entered.
(2) The fin coupled to a top surface of the heat spreader, as recited in claims 3, 10, and 17, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No fin is shown. No new matter should be entered.
(3) The fin is insulated from the top surface of the heat spreader, as recited in claims 4, 11, and 18, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No fin is shown; no insulating material is shown on the surface of the heat spreader. No new matter should be entered.
(4) The heat spreader is configured to be liquid cooled, as recited in claims 6, 13, and 20, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No liquid is shown. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims filed July 8, 2026 have been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every rejection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action filed January 15, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed July 8, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17 and 20 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Therefore, the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejections set forth in the previous Office Action have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed July 8, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18 and 19 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Therefore, the 35 USC 103 rejections set forth in the previous Office Action have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection, necessitated by Applicant’s amendments, is made under 35 USC 103.
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, 2, 7-9, 15, 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson et al., US 2014/0225246 A1 (hereinafter Henderson) in view of Ruby, U.S. Pat. No. 5,061,686 (hereinafter Ruby).
Regarding claim 1, as amended, Henderson discloses: A three-dimensional integrated circuit (3DIC) system (Henderson, FIG. 4, integrated device 400, [0102]) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
583
815
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a top die including first components and a first set of through-silicon vias (TSVs) coupled to the first components (Henderson, FIG. 4 shows second die 406 [the top die] including active region 422 [first components] and first set of vias 426 & 428 and second set of vias 430 & 432 [the first set of TSVs] coupled to active region 422 [the first components], [0102]);
a bottom die positioned adjacent to the top die, the bottom die including second components (Henderson, FIG. 4 shows first die 404 [the bottom die] positioned vertically adjacent to second die 406 [the top die], first die 404 [the bottom die] including active region 418 [second components], [0095; 0104]; because the term adjacent does not appear in Applicant’s specification, and the term is not limited to horizontally adjacent structures, it has been interpreted as “vertically adjacent” or “vertically stacked” for examination purposes, support for this interpretation of adjacent may be found in Applicant’s drawings and at paragraph [0007] of Applicant’s specification);
a first through dielectric via (TDV) (Henderson, FIG. 4, TMV 414, [0102]);
a second TDV (Henderson, FIG. 4, TMV 416, [0102]); and
a heat spreader formed adjacent to the top die (Henderson, FIG. 4 shows heat spreader 409 [the heat spreader] formed vertically adjacent to second die 406 [the top die], [0102]), the heat spreader including:
a power plane portion including a power base positioned at a first end of the heat spreader (Henderson, FIG. 4, first connection layer 411 [the power plane portion] shown as a planar structure including leftmost portion of first connection layer 411 [the power base] positioned at left side of heat spreader 409 [the first end of the heat spreader], [0098; 0102]) (Henderson, FIG. 4 shows leftmost portion of first connection layer 411 [the power base] is coupled to TMV 414 [the first TDV], [0102]),
a ground plane portion including a ground base positioned at the second end of the heat spreader (Henderson, FIG. 4, second connection layer 412 [the ground plane portion] shown as a planar structure including rightmost portion of second connection layer 412 [the ground base] positioned at right side of heat spreader 409 [the second end of the heat spreader], [0098; 0102]) (Henderson, FIG. 4 shows rightmost portion of second connection layer 412 [the ground base] is coupled to TMV 416 [the second TDV], [0102]),
Henderson is silent regarding: a plurality of power fingers extending from the power base toward a second end of the heat spreader … wherein the plurality of power fingers are aligned substantially parallel to one another and coupled to the first set of TSVs … and a plurality of ground fingers extending from the ground base toward the first end of the heat spreader … wherein the plurality of ground fingers are aligned substantially parallel to one another and coupled to the first set of TSVs, and wherein the plurality of ground fingers are interleaved with the plurality of power fingers.
However, Ruby, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a power distribution structure including: a plurality of power fingers extending from the power base toward a second end of the heat spreader (Ruby, FIG. 4 shows fingers 40 [the power fingers] extending from power trace 36 [the power base] toward the topmost end [the second end] of IC package cap 28, analogous to the heat spreader 409 of Henderson [the heat spreader], col. 3, lines 39-52) … wherein the plurality of power fingers are aligned substantially parallel to one another (Ruby, FIG. 4 shows fingers 40 [the power fingers] aligned parallel to one another) and coupled to the first set of TSVs (Ruby, FIG. 4 shows fingers 40 [the power fingers] coupled to power vias 48, analogous to the first set of vias 426 & 428 of Henderson [the first set of TSVs], “power vias 48 [the first set of TSVs] contact the fingers 40 [the power fingers] of power trace 36 [the power base],” col. 3, lines 55-56) … and a plurality of ground fingers extending from the ground base toward the first end of the heat spreader (Ruby, FIG. 4 shows fingers 42 [the ground fingers] extending from ground trace 38 [the ground base] toward the bottom-most end [the first end] of IC package cap 28, analogous to the heat spreader 409 of Henderson [the heat spreader], col. 3, lines 39-52) … wherein the plurality of ground fingers are aligned substantially parallel to one another (Ruby, FIG. 4 shows fingers 42 [the ground fingers] aligned parallel to one another) and coupled to the first set of TSVs (Ruby, FIG. 4 shows fingers 42 [the ground fingers] coupled to ground vias 50, analogous to the second set of vias 430 & 432 of Henderson [the first set of TSVs], “ground vias 50 [the first set of TSVs] contact the fingers 42 [the ground fingers] of ground trace 38 [the ground base],” col. 3, lines 56-57), and wherein the plurality of ground fingers are interleaved with the plurality of power fingers (Ruby, FIG. 4 shows fingers 42 [the ground fingers] interleaved with fingers 40 [the power fingers], “power trace 36 includes several fingers 40 [the power fingers] which are interspaced [i.e., interleaved] with several fingers 42 [the ground fingers] of ground trace 38,” col. 3, lines 42-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Henderson with the teachings of Ruby, arriving at Applicant’s claimed invention with predictable results and without undue experimentation. The motivation for doing so would be, as expressly recognized by Ruby, to provide constant voltage level local ground and power planes, providing all devices of the integrated circuit with substantially the same voltage levels (Ruby, col. 3, lines 1-4), and to minimize inductance coupling (Ruby, col. 4, lines 34-39), thereby improving device performance and reliability.
Regarding claim 2, as amended, Henderson in view of Ruby teaches: The 3DIC system of claim 1, wherein the power plane portion is electrically insulated from the ground plane portion (Henderson, FIG. 4 shows first connection layer 411 [the power plane portion] electrically insulated from second connection layer 412 [the ground plane portion] by insulator layer 410, [0102]).
Regarding claim 7, as amended, Henderson in view of Ruby teaches: The 3DIC system of claim 1, wherein the power plane portion of the heat spreader (Henderson, FIG. 4, first connection layer 411 [the power plane portion] shown as a planar structure including leftmost portion of first connection layer 411 [the power base] positioned at left side of heat spreader 409 [the first end of the heat spreader], [0098; 0102]) and the first TDV (Henderson, FIG. 4, TMV 414, [0102]) form a power distribution network (Henderson, FIG. 4, “a power distribution network for the second die 406 [the top die] may include the first set of vias 426 & 428, the second set of vias 430 & 432, [the first set of vias] the first connection layer 411 [the power plane portion], the second connection layer 412 [the ground plane portion], the first TMV 414 [the first TDV], and the second TMV 416 [the second TDV],” [0102]).
Regarding claim 8, as amended, Henderson discloses: A method of forming a heat spreader (Henderson, FIG. 4, heat spreader 409, [0102]; FIG. 5, method step 525, [0115]), the method comprising: providing a power plane portion including a power base positioned at a first end of the heat spreader (Henderson, FIG. 4, first connection layer 411 [the power plane portion] shown as a planar structure including leftmost portion of first connection layer 411 [the power base] positioned at left side of heat spreader 409 [the first end of the heat spreader], [0098; 0102])
coupling a ground plane portion to the power plane portion (Henderson, FIG. 4 shows second connection layer 412 [the ground plane portion] coupled to first connection layer 411 [the power plane portion] by insulator layer 410 within heat spreader 409, [0102]), the ground plane portion including a ground base positioned at the second end of the heat spreader (Henderson, FIG. 4, second connection layer 412 [the ground plane portion] shown as a planar structure including rightmost portion of second connection layer 412 [the ground base] positioned at right side of heat spreader 409 [the second end of the heat spreader], [0098; 0102])
Henderson is silent regarding: a plurality of power fingers extending from the power base toward a second end of the heat spreader, wherein the plurality of power fingers are aligned substantially parallel to one another … and a plurality of ground fingers extending from the ground base toward the first end of the heat spreader, wherein the plurality of ground fingers are aligned substantially parallel to one another, and wherein the plurality of ground fingers are interleaved with the plurality of power fingers.
However, Ruby, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a power distribution structure including: a plurality of power fingers extending from the power base toward a second end of the heat spreader (Ruby, FIG. 4 shows fingers 40 [the power fingers] extending from power trace 36 [the power base] toward the topmost end [the second end] of IC package cap 28, analogous to the heat spreader 409 of Henderson [the heat spreader], col. 3, lines 39-52), wherein the plurality of power fingers are aligned substantially parallel to one another (Ruby, FIG. 4 shows fingers 40 [the power fingers] aligned parallel to one another) … and a plurality of ground fingers extending from the ground base toward the first end of the heat spreader (Ruby, FIG. 4 shows fingers 42 [the ground fingers] extending from ground trace 38 [the ground base] toward the bottom-most end [the first end] of IC package cap 28, analogous to the heat spreader 409 of Henderson [the heat spreader], col. 3, lines 39-52), wherein the plurality of ground fingers are aligned substantially parallel to one another (Ruby, FIG. 4 shows fingers 42 [the ground fingers] aligned parallel to one another), and wherein the plurality of ground fingers are interleaved with the plurality of power fingers (Ruby, FIG. 4 shows fingers 42 [the ground fingers] interleaved with fingers 40 [the power fingers], “power trace 36 includes several fingers 40 [the power fingers] which are interspaced [i.e., interleaved] with several fingers 42 [the ground fingers] of ground trace 38,” col. 3, lines 42-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Henderson with the teachings of Ruby, arriving at Applicant’s claimed invention with predictable results and without undue experimentation. The motivation for doing so would be, as expressly recognized by Ruby, to provide constant voltage level local ground and power planes, providing all devices of the integrated circuit with substantially the same voltage levels (Ruby, col. 3, lines 1-4), thereby improving device performance and reliability.
Regarding claim 9, as amended, Henderson in view of Ruby teaches: The method of claim 8, further including electrically insulating the power plane portion from the ground plane portion (Henderson, FIG. 4 shows first connection layer 411 [the power plane portion] electrically insulated from second connection layer 412 [the ground plane portion] by insulator layer 410, [0102]).
Regarding claim 15, as amended, Henderson discloses: A heat spreader (Henderson, FIG. 4, heat spreader 409, [0102]) comprising: a power plane portion including a power base positioned at a first end of the heat spreader (Henderson, FIG. 4, first connection layer 411 [the power plane portion] shown as a planar structure including leftmost portion of first connection layer 411 [the power base] positioned at left side of heat spreader 409 [the first end of the heat spreader], [0098; 0102])
a ground plane portion coupled to the power plane portion (Henderson, FIG. 4 shows second connection layer 412 [the ground plane portion] coupled to first connection layer 411 [the power plane portion] by insulator layer 410 within heat spreader 409, [0102]), the ground plane portion including a ground base positioned at the second end of the heat spreader (Henderson, FIG. 4, second connection layer 412 [the ground plane portion] shown as a planar structure including rightmost portion of second connection layer 412 [the ground base] positioned at right side of heat spreader 409 [the second end of the heat spreader], [0098; 0102])
Henderson is silent regarding: a plurality of power fingers extending from the power base toward a second end of the heat spreader, wherein the plurality of power fingers are aligned substantially parallel to one another … and a plurality of ground fingers extending from the ground base toward the first end of the heat spreader, wherein the plurality of ground fingers are aligned substantially parallel to one another, and wherein the plurality of ground fingers are interleaved with the plurality of power fingers.
However, Ruby, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a power distribution structure including: a plurality of power fingers extending from the power base toward a second end of the heat spreader (Ruby, FIG. 4 shows fingers 40 [the power fingers] extending from power trace 36 [the power base] toward the topmost end [the second end] of IC package cap 28, analogous to the heat spreader 409 of Henderson [the heat spreader], col. 3, lines 39-52), wherein the plurality of power fingers are aligned substantially parallel to one another (Ruby, FIG. 4 shows fingers 40 [the power fingers] aligned parallel to one another) … and a plurality of ground fingers extending from the ground base toward the first end of the heat spreader (Ruby, FIG. 4 shows fingers 42 [the ground fingers] extending from ground trace 38 [the ground base] toward the bottom-most end [the first end] of IC package cap 28, analogous to the heat spreader 409 of Henderson [the heat spreader], col. 3, lines 39-52), wherein the plurality of ground fingers are aligned substantially parallel to one another (Ruby, FIG. 4 shows fingers 42 [the ground fingers] aligned parallel to one another), and wherein the plurality of ground fingers are interleaved with the plurality of power fingers (Ruby, FIG. 4 shows fingers 42 [the ground fingers] interleaved with fingers 40 [the power fingers], “power trace 36 includes several fingers 40 [the power fingers] which are interspaced [i.e., interleaved] with several fingers 42 [the ground fingers] of ground trace 38,” col. 3, lines 42-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Henderson with the teachings of Ruby, arriving at Applicant’s claimed invention with predictable results and without undue experimentation. The motivation for doing so would be, as expressly recognized by Ruby, to provide constant voltage level local ground and power planes, providing all devices of the integrated circuit with substantially the same voltage levels (Ruby, col. 3, lines 1-4), thereby improving device performance and reliability.
Regarding claim 16, as amended, Henderson in view of Ruby teaches: The heat spreader of claim 15, wherein the power plane portion is electrically insulated from the ground plane portion (Henderson, FIG. 4 shows first connection layer 411 [the power plane portion] electrically insulated from second connection layer 412 [the ground plane portion] by insulator layer 410, [0102]).
Regarding claim 21, as amended, Henderson in view of Ruby teaches: The 3DIC system of claim 1, further including: a power bump coupled to the first TDV (Henderson, FIG. 4 shows TMV 414 [the first TDV] coupled to a bump, i.e., a power bump, at the bottom surface of packaging substrate 402 via signal interconnects 434, [0102]); and a ground bump coupled to the second TDV (Henderson, FIG. 4 shows TMV 416 [the second TDV] coupled to a bump, i.e., a ground bump, at the bottom surface of packaging substrate 402 via signal interconnects 436, [0102]).
Claims 3-6, 10-13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson in view of Ruby and further in view of Sasaki et al., US 2012/0091573 A1 (hereinafter Sasaki).
Regarding claim 3, as amended, Henderson in view of Ruby teaches: The 3DIC system of claim 1. Henderson in view of Ruby is silent regarding: wherein the heat spreader further includes a fin coupled to a top surface of the heat spreader.
However, Sasaki, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a fin coupled to the surface of the heat spreader (Sasaki, FIG. 3 shows heat dissipating fin 15 [the fin] coupled to the lower surface of heat spreader 2 [the heat spreader] by means of insulating sheet 4, [0008]).
Although Sasaki teaches that the fin is coupled to the lower surface of the heat spreader, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that rearranging the parts such that the fin is coupled to the upper surface of the heat spreader is an obvious matter of design choice and would not modify the operation of the device. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Henderson in view of Ruby with the teachings of Sasaki, arriving at Applicant’s claimed invention with predictable results and without undue experimentation. The motivation for doing so would be, as expressly recognized by Sasaki, to provide enhanced heat dissipation (Sasaki, [0050-0051], thereby improving device performance and reliability.
Regarding claim 4, as amended, Henderson in view of Ruby and further in view of Sasaki teaches: The 3DIC system of claim 3, wherein the fin (Sasaki, FIG. 3, heat dissipating fin 15) is insulated from the top surface of the heat spreader via a thermally and electrically insulative material (Sasaki, FIG. 3 shows heat dissipating fin 15 [the fin] insulated from surface of heat spreader 2 [the heat spreader] by insulating sheet 4 [the insulative material], [0008]).
Because Applicant’s specification is entirely silent on how the fin is insulated from the top surface of the heat spreader via a thermally and electrically insulative material, that silence suggests that figuring out how to achieve that step or function is within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2141.03. Applicant’s specification is silent regarding the composition of the insulative material, only stating that it is “a thermally and electrically insulating material,” (Applicant’s specification, [0035]). Applicant’s specification is also silent regarding the structural arrangement of the fin, the insulative material, and the heat spreader, and Applicant’s specification provides no discussion of any advantages or unexpected results arising from providing both thermal and electrical insulation between a heat spreader and a heat dissipating fin. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Henderson in view of Ruby and further in view of Sasaki, insofar as selecting an appropriate insulative material and an appropriate structural arrangement of the fin, the insulative material, and the heat spreader.
Regarding claim 5, as amended, Henderson in view of Ruby and further in view of Sasaki teaches: The 3DIC system of claim 1, wherein the heat spreader is configured to be air cooled (Sasaki, “a relatively inexpensive air-cooled heat dissipating fin is used,” [0022]).
Regarding claim 6, as amended, Henderson in view of Ruby and further in view of Sasaki teaches: The 3DIC system of claim 1, wherein the heat spreader is configured to be liquid cooled (Sasaki, “it is possible to appropriately change a heat dissipating fin between the air-cooled one and water-cooled one in accordance with, for example, the use of the semiconductor device,” [0026]).
Regarding claim 10, as amended, Henderson in view of Ruby teaches: The method of claim 8. Henderson in view of Ruby is silent regarding: coupling a fin to a top surface of the heat spreader.
However, Sasaki, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a fin coupled to the surface of the heat spreader (Sasaki, FIG. 3 shows heat dissipating fin 15 [the fin] coupled to the lower surface of heat spreader 2 [the heat spreader] by means of insulating sheet 4, [0008]).
Although Sasaki teaches that the fin is coupled to the lower surface of the heat spreader, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that rearranging the parts such that the fin is coupled to the upper surface of the heat spreader is an obvious matter of design choice and would not modify the operation of the device. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Henderson in view of Ruby with the teachings of Sasaki, arriving at Applicant’s claimed invention with predictable results and without undue experimentation. The motivation for doing so would be, as expressly recognized by Sasaki, to provide enhanced heat dissipation (Sasaki, [0050-0051], thereby improving device performance and reliability.
Regarding claim 11, as amended, Henderson in view of Ruby and further in view of Sasaki teaches: The method of claim 10, further including insulating the fin from the top surface of the heat spreader via a thermally and electrically insulative material (Sasaki, FIG. 3 shows heat dissipating fin 15 [the fin] insulated from surface of heat spreader 2 [the heat spreader] by insulating sheet 4 [the insulative material], [0008]).
Regarding claim 12, as amended, Henderson in view of Ruby and further in view of Sasaki teaches: The method of claim 8, further including configuring the heat spreader to be air cooled (Sasaki, “a relatively inexpensive air-cooled heat dissipating fin is used,” [0022]).
Regarding claim 13, as amended, Henderson in view of Ruby and further in view of Sasaki teaches: The method of claim 8, further including configuring the heat spreader to be liquid cooled (Sasaki, “it is possible to appropriately change a heat dissipating fin between the air-cooled one and water-cooled one in accordance with, for example, the use of the semiconductor device,” [0026]).
Regarding claim 17, as amended, Henderson in view of Ruby teaches: The heat spreader of claim 15. Henderson in view of Ruby is silent regarding: including a fin coupled to a top surface of the heat spreader.
However, Sasaki, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a fin coupled to the surface of the heat spreader (Sasaki, FIG. 3 shows heat dissipating fin 15 [the fin] coupled to the lower surface of heat spreader 2 [the heat spreader] by means of insulating sheet 4, [0008]).
Although Sasaki teaches that the fin is coupled to the lower surface of the heat spreader, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that rearranging the parts such that the fin is coupled to the upper surface of the heat spreader is an obvious matter of design choice and would not modify the operation of the device. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Henderson in view of Ruby with the teachings of Sasaki, arriving at Applicant’s claimed invention with predictable results and without undue experimentation. The motivation for doing so would be, as expressly recognized by Sasaki, to provide enhanced heat dissipation (Sasaki, [0050-0051], thereby improving device performance and reliability.
Regarding claim 18, as amended, Henderson in view of Ruby and further in view of Sasaki teaches: The heat spreader of claim 17, wherein the fin is insulated from the top surface of the heat spreader via a thermally and electrically insulative material (Sasaki, FIG. 3 shows heat dissipating fin 15 [the fin] insulated from surface of heat spreader 2 [the heat spreader] by insulating sheet 4 [the insulative material], [0008]).
Regarding claim 19, as amended, Henderson in view of Ruby and further in view of Sasaki teaches: The heat spreader of claim 15, wherein the heat spreader is configured to be air cooled (Sasaki, “a relatively inexpensive air-cooled heat dissipating fin is used,” [0022]).
Regarding claim 20, as amended, Henderson in view of Ruby and further in view of Sasaki teaches: The heat spreader of claim 15, wherein the heat spreader is configured to be liquid cooled (Sasaki, “it is possible to appropriately change a heat dissipating fin between the air-cooled one and water-cooled one in accordance with, for example, the use of the semiconductor device,” [0026]).
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 DEREK NIELSEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1266. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 A.M. - 5:30 P.M..
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, BRENT A FAIRBANKS can be reached at (408)918-7532. 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.
/D.L.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/Brent A. Fairbanks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
