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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the feature of the size and shape of the corresponding second heat transfer parts corresponding to the size and shape of the individual heating elements is not found in Talpallikar and notes that the TIM material is deposited beyond the heating element on both sides thereof. The examiner notes that the 2ndry parts being configured to prevent deposition of the TIM only on the upper surface of the heating element is not recited in the claims until claim 5. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As the BLS is sized to the IC and each PCB would comprise multiple IC, the BLS of Talpallikar would reasonably read on the feature of being sized and shaped to each corresponding heating element ie the ICs. Additionally, the feature of the TIM only being deposited on the surface of the IC/heating element and not on the PCB is clearly displayed in case 2 [0041, 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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talpallikar (US 2018/0110158) in view of Kazmer (US 6343922).
As to claim 1, Talpallikar teaches an injection assembly comprising: a cover part (the combination of the aluminum heat spreader and board level shield) configured to cover an upper surface of a controller (PCB), a plurality of injection holes being formed in the cover part to correspond respectively to positions of a plurality of heating elements in the controller [0025, 0035, 0097]; and a nozzle unit including a plurality of nozzles configured to simultaneously inject an injection material into the plurality of injection holes in the cover part of the controller [0025, 0035, 0037, 0038]. Talpallikar teaches first heat transfer part (BLS shield/ aluminum heat spreader) configured to cover a region of the controller in which the plurality of heating elements (IC) are formed and to protrude toward the cover part (top of BLS/cover); a plurality of second heat transfer part (bottom portions of each BLS shield) protruding on a lower end portion of the first heat transfer part and corresponding to a size of each of the plurality of heating elements above which each second heat transfer part is located [0041, Fig 1-5]. The examiner notes that PCB contain multiple IC [0030], while the figures only show a single IC one of ordinary skill in the art would be cognizant the PCB would have multiple ICs [0030] as the BLS would be configured for each individual IC the same way as the configurations depicted in [Fig 1-5] the bottom parts of the BLS would be sized and shaped to correspond to the size and shape of each IC. Furthermore, this would be a mere duplication of part which is generally obvious, see MPEP 2144.04.
Talpallikar does not explicitly state a plurality of pressure sensors are disposed respectively in the plurality of nozzles so that each of the plurality of nozzles includes one of the pressure sensors, and each of the plurality of pressure sensors is configured to measure an internal pressure of a corresponding nozzle in which it is located and to control an injection speed of the injection material into a corresponding injection hole adjacent to which the nozzle is positioned based upon the measured internal pressure.
Kazmer teaches a method of injecting material wherein a plurality of pressure sensors are associated with individual nozzles [Abstract] that control the rate of material flow [col 1 line 42-54]. This has a number of advantages: avoidance of pressure spikes [col 4 line 50-62], uniformity of parts, and even fill rates [col 4 line 25-37]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Talpallikar and included a plurality of pressure sensors are disposed respectively in the plurality of nozzles so that each of the plurality of nozzles includes one of the pressure sensors, and each of the plurality of pressure sensors is configured to measure an internal pressure of a corresponding nozzle in which it is located and to control an injection speed of the injection material into a corresponding injection hole adjacent to which the nozzle is positioned based upon the measured internal pressure, as suggested by Kazmer, in order to avoid pressure spikes and maintain uniformity of parts.
As to claim 2, Talpallikar teaches first heat transfer part (BLS shield/ aluminum heat spreader) configured to cover a region of the controller in which the plurality of heating elements are formed and to protrude toward the cover part (top of BLS/cover); a second heat transfer part on a lower end portion of the first heat transfer part, protruding from the lower end portion of the first heat transfer part and corresponding to a size of each of the plurality of heating elements; wherein: an end of the second heat transfer part and at least one of the heating elements above which the second heart transfer part is located are spaced apart from each other by a predetermined distance (the bottom portions of the BLS shield); and the injection holes are formed to pass through the first heat transfer part and the second heat transfer part [Fig 1-5].
As to claim 3, Whether the injection material fills a space between the second heat transfer part and the at least one of the heating elements is dependent on the amount of material injected which is a manner of operating a device, the manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, see MPEP 2114 II. Talpallikar teaches an injection speed of the injection material is lowered or stopped based on an increase in internal pressure of the corresponding nozzle detected by the pressure sensor in the corresponding nozzle as explained above.
As to claim 4, length of each of the nozzles is greater than a depth of the corresponding injection hole located adjacent to the nozzle; and in a state in which an end of the nozzle is inserted into a lower end of the corresponding injection hole, the injection material is injected.
Kazmer teaches a method of injecting material wherein a plurality of pressure sensors are associated with individual nozzles [Abstract] that control the rate of material flow [col 1 line 42-54]. This has a number of advantages: avoidance of pressure spikes [col 4 line 50-62], uniformity of parts, and even fill rates [col 4 line 25-37]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Talpallikar and included a nozzle longer than the depth of the injection hole, as suggested by Kazmer, as this had proven successful at injecting material while avoiding pressure spikes and maintain uniformity of parts. Moreover, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is generally obvious, see MPEP 2143 I C.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talpallikar (US 2018/0110158) in view of Kazmer (US 6343922), as applied to claims 1-4 above, and in further view of Zhang (US 9462673).
As to claim 5, Talpallikar does not explicitly state a first rib configured to prevent the injection material from overflowing to a periphery portion of the at least one of the heating elements that protrudes from an edge of the second heat transfer part.
Zhang teaches a heat sink and frame for a PCB [col 3 line 35-67] and notes a ring (280) that prevents the material from overflowing to the circuit board [col 5 line 42-col 6 line 60, Fig 3]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Talpallikar and included a rib, as suggested by Zhang, in order to prevent overflow onto the circuit board. Moreover, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is generally obvious, see MPEP 2143 I A.
As to claim 6, Talpallikar does not explicitly state a guide groove is formed in a surface of the second heat transfer part facing the at least one of the heating elements; and the corresponding injection hole is formed inside the guide groove.
Zhang teaches a heat sink and frame for a PCB [col 3 line 35-67] a guide groove (150) is formed in a surface of the second heat transfer part facing the at least one of the heating elements; and the corresponding injection hole (135) is formed inside the guide groove (the higher groove near by 150) as this dispersed the gap filler material [Fig 1-3, col 3 line 47-65]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Talpallikar and included a guide groove is formed in a surface of the second heat transfer part facing the at least one of the heating elements; and the corresponding injection hole is formed inside the guide groove, as suggested by Zhang, as this configuration had proven successful at dispersing the gap filling material. Moreover, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is generally obvious, see MPEP 2143 I A.
Claim(s) 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talpallikar (US 2018/0110158) in view of Kazmer (US 6343922) and Zhang (US 9462673), as applied to claims 5 and 6 above, and in further view of Hata (US 10529682).
As to claim 7, Talpallikar teaches a second rib configured to prevent a backflow of the injection material is located on an inner side surface of the corresponding injection hole.
Hata teaches a semiconductor device [Abstract] wherein ribs (110) in the injection hole located on an inner side surface of the hole [Fig 12] which allowed for prevention of backflow of the thermal interface material [col 6 line 65-col 7 line 10]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Talpallikar and included ribs on the inner surface of the injection hole, as suggested by Hata, in order to prevent leaking of the insulating grease through the top of the injection hole.
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 ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
