Detailed Action
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
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.
Claims 11- are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20150085446 to Hable et al. (Hable).
Regarding Claim 11, Hable teaches in Fig. 9 at least, a method, comprising:
forming a set of mesas 110F in a bottom metal layer 106G of a three-layer direct bonded metal (DBM) substrate 106F/120F/104F to increase a surface area of the bottom metal layer;
disposing a semiconductor die 702 on a top metal layer of the three-layer DBM substrate;
and exposing the bottom metal layer of the three-layer DBM substrate through a bottom of a mold body 908 encapsulating the semiconductor die.
Regarding Claim 13, Hable teaches the method of claim 11, wherein forming the set of mesas in the bottom metal layer of the three-layer DBM substrate includes forming an array of mesas in the bottom metal layer (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 14, Hable teaches the method of claim 13, wherein forming the array of mesas in the bottom metal layer includes etching [0021] a first set of parallel grooves and etching a second set of parallel grooves intersecting the first set of parallel grooves in the bottom metal layer (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 15, Hable teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the etching includes defining a path for cooling fluid flow through grooves along sides of the mesas in the array of mesas (fluid flow 916).
Regarding Claim 16, Hable teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the array of mesas includes mesas disposed in rows and the mesas in a row are offset from corresponding mesas in a next row by an offset distance, and wherein the etching includes defining a serpentine path for cooling fluid flow through grooves along and around the sides of mesas in the array of mesas (see Fig. 4).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hable.
Regarding Claim 12, Hable teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the bottom metal layer of the three-layer DBM substrate is a copper layer that is at least 1.0 mm thick ([0045], MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claims 17-20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hable in view of CN 114270503 to Meng et al. (Meng).
Regarding Claim 17, Hable teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the array of mesas includes mesas disposed in rows (see Fig. 2), but does not explicitly teach forming the set of mesas in the bottom metal layer of the three-layer DBM substrate includes attaching a strip to top surfaces of the mesas disposed in a row.
However, in analogous art, Meng teaches in Figs. 1-2 a strip 2 on top of mesas 3. It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to include the teaching of Meng to provide a container for the coolant fluid taught by Hable.
Regarding Claim 18, Hable and Meng teach the method of claim 17, wherein the strip is made of metal (strip 2 is brazed to mesas 3 and is therefore metal), and has a width that is a same as, or about the same as, a length of the mesas in direction perpendicular to a direction of the row (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 19, Hable and Meng teach the method of claim 17, wherein the strip is a corrugated strip including coupling portions and bridging portions, and wherein attaching the strip to the top surfaces of the mesas disposed in the row includes aligning and bonding the coupling portions of the strip to the top surfaces of the mesas while the bridging portions extend over the grooves between adjacent mesas in the row (portions where mesas 3 attach to strip 2 are interpreted as coupling portions).
Regarding Claim 20, Hable and Meng teach the method of claim 19, wherein attaching the strip to the top surfaces of the mesas disposed in the row further includes extending the bridging portions over the grooves between adjacent mesas in the row (strip 2 is extended between coupling portions).
Regarding Claim 24, Hable and Meng teach the method of claim 17, wherein the strip is conductive strip having a thickness in a range of 0.1 mm to 0.4 mm (the thickness of the strip would directly affect its thermal resistance and is therefore a result effective variable that may be optimized by the person of ordinary skill).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hable in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20160111345 to Kawase et al. (Kawase).
Regarding Claim 21, Hable teaches the method of claim 15, wherein exposing the bottom metal layer of the three-layer DBM substrate through the bottom of the mold body further includes attaching a cooling jacket the bottom of the mold body to enclose the bottom metal layer.
However, in analogous art, Kawase teaches a cooling jacket 28 enclosing a bottom metal layer 20 having mesas 2. It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to include the teaching of Kawase to provide additional cooling and structural support.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVREN SEVEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5666. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00- 5:00 Pacific.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571) 272-8458. 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.
/EVREN SEVEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812