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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 7/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 6-11, and 15-18 remain
pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome all the 112(b) and 112(a) rejections. Thus, Examiner is withdrawing all the 112(b) and 112(a) rejections.
Regarding the 102 and 103 rejections, please see Response to Arguments below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to Claims 1 and 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, Applicant argues that neither Park nor Refai-Ahmed alone disclose the elements of Claims 1 and 10. Specifically, Applicant argues that Park does not that the TIM encapsulates the underfill, and Refai-Ahmed does not disclose the dam.
However, the standard of obviousness is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would find the claim obvious in light of the combination of the references, not either reference alone (MPEP 2145 IV). In the view of the Examiner, the amended claim language of Claims 1 and 10 are obvious over Park and Refai-Ahmed. Park discloses a dam and a TIM, where the TIM does not touch the bumps. Refai-Ahmed discloses a TIM that covers the underfill. Refai-Ahmed provides a clear motivation for having the TIM fully cover the pocket where the package lies (see Claim rejection below). Although Park’s TIM does not touch the conductive bumps, there is not teaching in Park that precludes this, and if it is advantageous to do so, then a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such a modification. Because the references teach all the limitations, and there is a clear motivation to modify Park based on Refai-Ahmed, Examiner is issuing a 103 rejection of Claims 1 and 10 in view of these references.
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 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20240371719A1 (Park) in view of 20120098119A1 (Refai-Ahmed).
Regarding Claim 1, Park discloses an electronic package (Figs. 1 – 4E), comprising: a carrier structure (Figs. 4A-4E, el. 120, Para. [0028]); an electronic component disposed on the carrier structure (Figs. 4A-4E, el. 104, Para. [0021] – different figure, but refers to the same component) via a plurality of conductive bumps (Fig. 4e, els. 114, Para. [0020]); a dam (Figs. 4A-4E, el. 148, Para. [0026]) disposed on the carrier structure and surrounding the electronic component (Fig. 3C, Para. [0027]); a thermal conduction layer (Figs. 4A-4e, el. 150, Para. [0028]) encapsulating the electronic component and located between the electronic component and the dam (Fig. 4e, Para. [0030]); and a heat sink (Figs. 3a-3e, el. 140, Para. [0026]) disposed on the carrier structure (Figs. 4A-E, Para. [0028]) and covering the electronic component, the dam and the thermal conduction layer (Para. [0028]), wherein the thermal conduction layer is further located between the heat sink and the electronic component (Fig. 4e, Para. [0030]), wherein the dam and the heat sink are integrally formed (Fig. 3a, Para. [0026]) and made of metal material (Para. [0026]).
Park does not disclose (in the embodiment of Fig. 4e) an underfill that encapsulates the plurality of conductive bumps, and does not disclose that the thermal conduction layer encapsulates the underfill.
Refai-Ahmed discloses an electronic package (Fig. 2, el. 10, Para. [0027]) with an underfill material (Fig. 2, el. 75, Para. [0027]) encapsulating a plurality of conductive bumps (Fig. 2), and a thermal conduction layer (Fig. 2, el. 45, Para. [0024]) that encapsulates the underfill material (Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to modify Park by adding an underfill material, as disclosed by Refai-Ahmed. As disclosed by Refai-Ahmed, adding an underfill material has the benefit of lessening the effects of differential CTE (Para. [0027]). Further, it would have been obvious to have the thermal conduction layer encapsulate the underfill, as disclosed by Refai-Ahmed. As disclosed by Refai-Ahmed, it is desirable to have the thermal conduction layer fill any voids in the cavity (which would mean that the thermal conduction layer would encapsulate the underfill) for more favorable thermal conduction (Para. [0028]).
Regarding Claim 2, Park in view of Refai-Ahmed discloses the electronic package of claim 1, wherein the dam is a frame or a wall structure (Para. [0026]).
Regarding Claim 6, Park in view of Refai-Ahmed discloses the electronic package of claim 1, wherein the thermal conduction layer is made of a liquid metal (Para. [0028]).
Regarding Claim 7, Park discloses the electronic package of claim 1, wherein the heat sink has a heat dissipation body bonded to the thermal conduction layer (Para. [0032]) and has a plurality of supporting legs (Fig. 3A, els. 142 and 144, Para. [0026]) disposed on the heat dissipation body (Fig. 3A) and bonded to the carrier structure (Fig. 4C, Para. [0030]).
Regarding Claim 8, Park in view of Refai-Ahmed discloses the electronic package of claim 7, wherein the heat dissipation body and the supporting legs are integrally formed (Fig. 3A).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Refai-Ahmed.
Regarding Claim 9, Park in view of Refai-Ahmed discloses the electronic package of Claim 7.
Refai-Ahmed further discloses an electronic package (Fig. 2, el. 10, Para. [0027]) with a heat sink (Fig. 2, el. 35, Para. [0024]) with a heat dissipation body (Fig. 2, el. 60) and supporting legs (Fig. 2, el. 25, Para. [0024]) where the supporting legs are bonded to the heat dissipation body via an adhesive (Fig. 2, el. 85, Para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to use an adhesive to bond the supporting legs to the heat dissipation body in Park, as in Refai-Ahmed, as a simple substitution of one known element (the supporting legs with an adhesive) for another (the supporting legs without an adhesive) to obtain predictable results (a heat sink where the supporting legs are bonded to the body via an adhesive).
Claims 10-11 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Refai-Ahmed.
Regarding Claim 10, Park discloses a method of manufacturing an electronic package (Figs. 2A-2C and 4A-4e, Para. [0022] and [0028]), the method comprising: disposing an electronic component on a carrier structure (Fig. 2b, Para. [0023]) via a plurality of conductive bumps (Fig. 2b, Para. [0023]); encapsulating the electronic component by a thermal conduction layer (Fig. 4a, Para. [0028]); and disposing a heat sink with a dam on the carrier structure to cover the electronic component and the thermal conduction layer (Figs. 4B-4E, Paras. [0029-0032]), wherein the electronic component is surrounded by the dam (Fig. 4e, Para. [0032]), and the thermal conduction layer is located between the electronic component and the dam (Fig. 4E, Para. [0032]) and between the heat sink and the electronic component (Fig. 4E, Para. [0032]), wherein the dam and the heat sink are integrally formed and made of metal material (Para. [0026]).
Park does not disclose an underfill that encapsulates the plurality of conductive bumps, and does not disclose that the thermal conduction layer encapsulates the underfill.
Refai-Ahmed discloses an electronic package (Fig. 2, el. 10, Para. [0027]) with an underfill material (Fig. 2, el. 75, Para. [0027]) encapsulating a plurality of conductive bumps (Fig. 2), and a thermal conduction layer (Fig. 2, el. 45, Para. [0024]) that encapsulates the underfill material (Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to modify Park by adding an underfill material, as disclosed by Refai-Ahmed. As disclosed by Refai-Ahmed, adding an underfill material has the benefit of lessening the effects of differential CTE (Para. [0027]). Further, it would have been obvious to have the thermal conduction layer encapsulate the underfill, as disclosed by Refai-Ahmed. As disclosed by Refai-Ahmed, it is desirable to have the thermal conduction layer fill any voids in the cavity (which would mean that the thermal conduction layer would encapsulate the underfill) for more favorable thermal conduction (Para. [0028]).
Regarding Claim 11, Park in view of Refai-Ahmed discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the dam is a frame or a wall structure (Para. [0026]).
Regarding Claim 15, Park in view of Refai-Ahmed discloses the method of Claim 10, wherein the thermal conduction layer is made of a liquid metal (Para. [0028]).
Regarding Claim 16, Park in view of Refai-Ahmed discloses the method of Claim 10, wherein the heat sink has a heat dissipation body bonded to the thermal conduction layer (Para. [0032]) and has a plurality of supporting legs (Fig. 3A, els. 142 and 144, Para. [0026]) disposed on the heat dissipation body (Fig. 3A) and bonded to the carrier structure (Fig. 4C, Para. [0030]).
Regarding Claim 17, Park in view of Refai-Ahmed discloses the method of Claim 16, wherein the heat dissipation body and the supporting legs are integrally formed (Fig. 3A).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Refai-Ahmed.
Regarding Claim 18, Park in view of Refai-Ahmed discloses the method of Claim 16.
Refai-Ahmed further discloses an electronic package (Fig. 2, el. 10, Para. [0027]) with a heat sink (Fig. 2, el. 35, Para. [0024]) with a heat dissipation body (Fig. 2, el. 60) and supporting legs (Fig. 2, el. 25, Para. [0024]) where the supporting legs are bonded to the heat dissipation body via an adhesive (Fig. 2, el. 85, Para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to use an adhesive to bond the supporting legs to the heat dissipation body in Liang, as in Refai-Ahmed, as a simple substitution of one known element (the supporting legs with an adhesive) for another (the supporting legs without an adhesive) to obtain predictable results (a heat sink where the supporting legs are bonded to the body via an adhesive).
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 ROHIT PARTHASARATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-2572. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30a-5p.
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.
/ROHIT PARTHASARATHY/Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights