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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2-8 and 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/7/26.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species E in the reply filed on 6/7/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden on the examiner because all of the species are under the umbrella of cooling systems. This is not found persuasive because each of the cooling systems outlines in the species restrictions have components or architecture not found amongst all of the species. This would cause the examiner undue burden trying to find all of the different configurations or attributes for each individual species. Searching individual species allows the examiner to narrow the search using key terms/features eliminating the burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 9-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8-9 of copending Application No. 18/428130 (US PGPub 20250140637) (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims read on each other, the only different being the use of system vs module, component vs plate. Further claim 1 of the copending application contains additional information regarding the bonding of the plate to the package structure.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brun et al. (US PGPub 2021/0280497).
Claim 1: Brun teaches (Fig. 9-10) a cooling system [0034-0036] for a heterogeneous integrated semiconductor package structure (505a-c), wherein the heterogeneous integrated semiconductor package structure is arranged on a circuit board (515), and the cooling system comprises a cooling component arranged on the heterogeneous integrated semiconductor package structure.
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(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brun et al. (US PGPub 2021/0280497).
Claim 9: Brun teaches (Fig. 9-10) The cooling system according to claim 1, wherein the heterogeneous integrated semiconductor package structure comprises a first heat-generating portion and a second heat-generating portion, a thermal design power (TDP) of the first heat-generating portion is greater than a thermal design power of the second heat-generating portion, the cooling component comprises a plurality of fluid supply holes corresponding to the heterogeneous integrated semiconductor package structure, and a flow rate of a cooling fluid sprayed onto the first heat-generating portion through the fluid supply holes is greater than a flow rate of a cooling fluid sprayed onto the second heat-generating portion through the fluid supply holes. The likelihood that both chips have the exact same TDP is very low. One of ordinary skill in the art would know that an increase in coolant flow over the chip that produces more heat would be necessary. Further evidence in [0025] of (US PGPub 2024/0349453) and [0088-0089] (US PGPub 2024/0260228) describe the commonality of differing TDP and flow rates in coolant systems as needed for various chip configurations.
Claim 10: Brun teaches (Fig. 9-10) the cooling component further comprises a main fluid chamber, a fluid supply chamber, a fluid recovery chamber, and a plurality of fluid recovery holes, the fluid supply holes are configured to be in communication with the main fluid chamber and the fluid supply chamber, the fluid recovery holes are configured to be in communication with the main fluid chamber and the fluid recovery chamber, and a configuration density of the fluid supply holes corresponding to the first heat-generating portion is greater than a configuration density of the fluid supply holes corresponding to the second heat-generating portion [0034-0036].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH KATE SALERNO whose telephone number is (571)270-1266. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-2:30pm.
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, Wael Fahmy can be reached at 5712721705. 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.
/SARAH K SALERNO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights