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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colgan et al. (PG Pub. No. US 2016/0358836 A1) in view of Lau et al. (PG Pub. No. US 2010/0213600 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Colgan teaches a heat dissipation structure (¶ 0023: 200), comprising:
a heat sink (¶ 0043) defined with a central area, a plurality of edge areas located at sides of an outer periphery of the central area (implicit, & fig. 1: Colgan discloses heat sinks with edge areas surrounding a central area); and
a supporting member (¶ 0023: frame 220) disposed on the heat sink and downwardly extending from the heat sink (¶ 0043 & fig. 2: heat sink disposed above module 220 such that 220 is at least indirectly disposed on a bottom surface of the heat sink and extends downwardly from the heat sink), wherein the supporting member has at least one groove at the corner area (fig. 2: 220 includes grooved corners).
Colgan is silent to the heat sink comprising a plurality of corner areas located at corners of the outer periphery of the central area, or the supporting member disposed on the edge areas and the corner areas of the heat sink.
Lau teaches a heat dissipation structure (¶ 0044: 106/102) including:
a heat sink (¶ 0038: 102, similar to that of Colgan) defined with a central area, a plurality of edge areas located at sides of an outer periphery of the central area, and a plurality of corner areas located at corners of the outer periphery of the central area (fig. 7B: 102 includes a central area, a plurality of edge areas located at sides of an outer periphery of the central area, and a plurality of corner areas located at corners of the outer periphery of the central area); and
a supporting member (¶ 0044: 106, similar to 220 of Colgan) disposed on the edge areas and the corner areas of the heat sink and downwardly extending from the heat sink (fig. 7B: 102 disposed above module 106 such that 106 is disposed on bottom of edge areas and the corner areas of 102, and extends downwardly from 102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the heat sink of Colgan to include corner areas, and the supporting member disposed on the corner areas, as a means to optimize the size and/or shape of the heat sink, improving cooling, thermal management and heat dissipation (Lau, ¶ 0019).
Furthermore, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the heat sink of Colgan. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, Colgan in view of Lau teaches the heat dissipation structure of claim 1, wherein the groove extends from one end of the supporting member connected to the heat sink to another end of the supporting member (Colgan, fig. 2: corner groove extends from top end of 220 to bottom end of 220).
Regarding claim 3, Colgan in view of Lau teaches the heat dissipation structure of claim 1, wherein the groove is located at an inner side of the supporting member (Colgan, fig. 2: corner groove located at inner side of 220).
Regarding claim 4, Colgan in view of Lau teaches the heat dissipation structure of claim 1, wherein the groove opens inwardly and is in communication with a space of the central area (Colgan, fig. 2: corner groove opens inwardly and in communication with central space).
Regarding claim 6, Colgan in view of Lau teaches the heat dissipation structure of claim 1, wherein the supporting member is distributed within each of the edge areas and each of the corner areas (Lau, fig. 7B: 106 distributed within edge and corner areas of overlying heat sink 102), and the supporting member has the groove at each of the corner areas (Colgan, fig. 2: corner of 220 includes grooves).
PNG
media_image1.png
528
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Colgan teaches an electronic package (¶ 0020: module 200), comprising:
a carrying structure (¶ 0020: carrier 206);
an electronic element (¶ 0020: IC chip 202) disposed on the carrying structure (fig. 4: 202 disposed on 206); and
a heat dissipation structure (¶ 0023: 220) disposed on the carrying structure and covering the electronic element (figs. 2, 7: 220 at least partially covers 202), and the heat dissipation structure comprising:
a heat sink (¶ 0043) defined with a central area and a plurality of edge areas located at sides of an outer periphery of the central area (implicit, & fig. 1: Colgan discloses heat sinks with edge areas surrounding a central area); and
a supporting member (¶ 0023: frame 220) disposed on the heat sink and downwardly extending from the heat sink (¶ 0043 & fig. 2: heat sink disposed above module 220 such that 220 is at least indirectly disposed on a bottom surface of the heat sink and extends downwardly from the heat sink), wherein the supporting member has at least one groove at the corner area (fig. 2: 220 includes grooved corners).
Colgan is silent to the heat sink comprising a plurality of corner areas located at corners of the outer periphery of the central area, or the supporting member disposed on the edge areas and the corner areas of the heat sink.
Lau teaches a heat dissipation structure (¶ 0044: 106/102) including:
a heat sink (¶ 0038: 102, similar to that of Colgan) defined with a central area, a plurality of edge areas located at sides of an outer periphery of the central area, and a plurality of corner areas located at corners of the outer periphery of the central area (fig. 7B: 102 includes a central area, a plurality of edge areas located at sides of an outer periphery of the central area, and a plurality of corner areas located at corners of the outer periphery of the central area); and
a supporting member (¶ 0044: 106, similar to 220 of Colgan) disposed on the edge areas and the corner areas of the heat sink and downwardly extending from the heat sink (fig. 7B: 102 disposed above module 106 such that 106 is disposed on bottom of edge areas and the corner areas of 102, and extends downwardly from 102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the heat sink of Colgan to include corner areas, and the supporting member disposed on the corner areas, as a means to optimize the size and/or shape of the heat sink, improving cooling, thermal management and heat dissipation (Lau, ¶ 0019).
Furthermore, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the heat sink of Colgan. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9, Colgan in view of Lau teaches the electronic package of claim 8, wherein the groove extends from one end of the supporting member connected to the heat sink to another end of the supporting member (Colgan, fig. 2: corner groove extends from top end of 220 to bottom end of 220).
Regarding claim 10, Colgan in view of Lau teaches the electronic package of claim 8, wherein the groove is located at an inner side of the supporting member (Colgan, fig. 2: corner groove located at inner side of 220).
Regarding claim 11, Colgan in view of Lau teaches the electronic package of claim 8, wherein the groove opens inwardly and is in communication with a space of the central area (Colgan, fig. 2: corner groove opens inwardly and in communication with central space).
Regarding claim 13, Colgan in view of Lau teaches the electronic package of claim 8, wherein the supporting member is distributed within each of the edge areas and each of the corner areas (Lau, fig. 7B: 106 distributed within edge and corner areas of overlying heat sink 102), and the supporting member has the groove at each of the corner areas (Colgan, fig. 2: corner of 220 includes grooves).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colgan in view of Lau as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Domadia et al. (US Patent US 5,949,137 A).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Colgan in view of Lau teaches the heat dissipation structure of claim 1 and the electronic package of claim 8, comprising a supporting member (Colgan, 220, and/or Lau, 106) having a groove at each of the corner areas (Colgan, fig. 2: corner of 220 includes grooves), wherein the supporting member continuously connects at outer peripheries of the edge areas (Colgan, fig. 2: 220 continuously connects at outer peripheries of edge areas).
Colgan in view of Lau as applied to claims 1 and 8 above does not explicitly teach wherein the supporting member continuously connects at outer peripheries of the corner areas without being interrupted by the groove.
Domadia teaches a heat dissipation structure including a supporting member (col. 5 line 31: 48, similar to 220 of Colgan and/or 106 of Lau), wherein the supporting member continuously connects at outer peripheries of the edge areas and the corner areas without being interrupted by the groove (fig. 6: outer periphery of 48 continuously connects at outer peripheries of the edge areas 43 and the corner areas 51 without being fully interrupted by the groove 41/43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the supporting member of Colgan in view of Lau with continuous corners, as a means to optimize the thickness of the supporting member, to relieve stresses urged upon the corners (Domadia, col. 5 lines 50-52), improving the structural integrity of the supporting member.
PNG
media_image2.png
384
340
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colgan in view of Lau as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Ho et al. (PG Pub. No. US 2005/0001311 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Colgan in view of Lau teaches the heat dissipation structure of claim 1 and the electronic package of claim 8, comprising a supporting member (Colgan, 220 and/or Lau, 106) and a heat sink (Colgan, 104 and/or Lau, 102).
Colgan in view of Lau does not teach wherein the supporting member and the heat sink are integrally formed.
Ho teaches a heat dissipation structure including a supporting member (¶ 0027: 210) and a heat sink (¶ 0025: 212), wherein the supporting member and the heat sink are integrally formed (¶ 0035: in at least one embodiment, a stiffener and a heat sink are integrally formed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to integrally form the heat dissipation structure of Colgan in view of Lau, as a means to provide a chip package structure which affords better heat dissipation of the chip (Ho, ¶ 0010).
Furthermore, it has been held that the term "integral" is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973). In the instant case, the supporting member and the heat sink of Colgan, Lau and/or Ho are at least fastened together, meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of “integrally formed”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4, filed 6/30/2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 112(d) rejections of claims 7 and 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the 35 USC § 112(d) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC § 102 rejections of claims 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 BRIAN TURNER whose telephone number is (571)270-5411. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at 571-270-3829. 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.
/BRIAN TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights