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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 6.22.2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-14 and 21-25 are elected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 5-6, 8, 13-14, 21 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagase et et al. (JP H08107166 A, machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Nagase discloses an apparatus (Fig. 1), comprising:
a substrate (13 or parts thereof);
a metal layer (at least 21) disposed on the substrate;
a first recess (one 21a) formed in the metal layer;
a second recess (another 21a) formed in the metal layer; and
a folded cooling fin (two 22),
a first portion (one 22) of the folded cooling fin being disposed within the first recess and coupled with the metal layer, and
a second portion (another 22) of the folded cooling fin being disposed within the second recess and coupled with the metal layer.
Regarding claim 2, Nagase discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the metal layer (now as 19+14+21) has a (total) thickness; and
the first recess (one 21a) and the second recess (another 21a) have a (total) depth (in 21) in the metal layer, the depth (in 21) being less than the thickness (of 19+14+21, Fig.1).
Regarding claim 5, Nagase discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the folded cooling fin (two 22) is a first folded cooling fin (two 22), the apparatus further comprising:
a third recess (another 21a) formed in the metal layer;
a fourth recess (another 21a) formed in the metal layer; and
a second folded cooling fin (two other 22),
a first portion (one 22) of the second folded cooling fin being disposed within the third recess and coupled with the metal layer, and
a second portion (another 22) of the second folded cooling fin being disposed within the fourth recess and coupled with the metal layer (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Nagase discloses the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the second folded cooling fin (two other 22) is parallel to the first folded cooling fin (two 22) on a surface of the substrate.
Regarding claim 8, Nagase discloses an apparatus (Fig. 1), comprising:
a substrate (13 or parts thereof);
a semiconductor die (12) coupled with a first surface (top) of the substrate;
a metal layer (at least 21) disposed on a second surf ace (bottom) of the substrate, the second surface being opposite the first surf ace;
a first recess (one 21a) formed in the metal layer;
a second recess (another 21a) formed in the metal layer; and
a folded cooling fin (two 22) coupled with the metal layer,
a first portion (one 22) of the folded cooling fin being disposed within the first recess, and
a second portion (another 22) of the folded cooling fin being disposed within the second recess (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Nagase discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the folded cooling fin is a first folded cooling fin (two 22), the apparatus further comprising:
a third recess (another 21a) formed in the metal layer;
a fourth recess (another 21a) formed in the metal layer; and
a second folded cooling fin (another two 22) coupled with the metal layer, a first portion (one 22) of the second folded cooling fin being disposed within the third recess, and a second portion (another 22) of the second folded cooling fin being disposed within the fourth recess (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Nagase discloses the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the second folded cooling fin (another two 22) is parallel to the first folded cooling fin (two 22) on the second surf ace of the substrate (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 21, Nagase discloses an apparatus (Fig. 1), comprising:
a substrate (at least 13) including a metal layer (at least 21);
at least one recess (one 21a) formed in the metal layer; and
at least one folded cooling fin (22) including at least one folded portion that is disposed within the at least one recess and coupled with the metal layer (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 23, Nagase discloses the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the at least one folded cooling fin (22) is formed from a metal sheet (22, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 24, Nagase discloses the apparatus of claim 21, wherein:
the substrate comprises a dielectric layer (16) having a first surface (bottom) and a second surface (top) opposite the first surf ace,
the metal layer (at least 21) is disposed on the first surface of the dielectric layer, and
a semiconductor die (12) is coupled to the second surf ace of the dielectric layer (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 25, Nagase discloses the apparatus of claim 24, wherein the at least one folded cooling fin is disposed on a side (bottom) of the dielectric layer opposite the semiconductor die (12, Fig. 1).
Claims 3-4 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagase et et al. (JP H08107166 A, machine translation provided).
Regarding claims 3-4, Nagase fails to disclose (claim 3) the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the depth is seventy percent of the thickness and (claim 4) the apparatus of claim 2, wherein: the thickness is in a range of 0.2 to 2 millimeters (mm); and the depth is in a range of 0.14 to 1.4 mm.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure that (a) the depth is seventy percent of the thickness as in claim 3 so as to ensure that the fins are secured in the recesses and prevent separation thereof without affecting the mechanical stability of the metal layer with overly deep recesses, because it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 IV) and/or as a matter of routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05), and, (b) the claimed dimensions are included so as to select a metal layer thickness appropriate for heat dissipation and/or recess depths appropriate for securing the fins as claimed in claim 4 so as to ensure that the fins are secured in the recesses and prevent separation thereof without affecting the mechanical stability of the metal layer with overly deep recesses, because it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 IV) ) and/or as a matter of routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claims 11-12, Nagase discloses (claim 11) the apparatus of claim 8, wherein:
the metal layer (as 19+14+21) has a thickness; and the first recess (21a) and the second recess (21a) have a depth in the metal layer (Fig. 1), the depth being less than the thickness (Fig.).
Nagase fails to disclose (claim 11) the depth being seventy percent of the thickness and (claim 12) the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the thickness is in a range of 0.2 to 2 millimeters.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure that (a) the depth is seventy percent of the thickness as in claim 11 so as to ensure that the fins are secured in the recesses and prevent separation thereof without affecting the mechanical stability of the metal layer with overly deep recesses, because it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 IV) and/or as a matter of routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05), and, (b) the claimed dimensions are included so as to select a metal layer thickness appropriate for heat dissipation and/or recess depths appropriate for securing the fins as claimed in claim 12 so as to ensure that the fins are secured in the recesses and prevent separation thereof without affecting the mechanical stability of the metal layer with overly deep recesses, because it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 IV) ) and/or as a matter of routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 7, 9-10 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagase et et al. (JP H08107166 A, machine translation provided) in view of Romero et al. (US 5533257 A).
Regarding claim 7, Nagase fails to disclose the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a thermally conductive adhesive disposed in the first recess and the second recess, the thermally conductive adhesive thermally: coupling the first portion of the folded cooling fin to the metal layer in the first recess; and coupling the second portion of the folded cooling fin to the metal layer in the second
recess.
Romero discloses (Fig. 4) further comprising a thermally conductive adhesive (31, “a conductive epoxy 31”) disposed in the first recess and the second recess (Fig. 4), the thermally conductive adhesive thermally: coupling the first portion (one 29) of the folded (folded per Nagase) cooling fin to the metal layer (11, “the base structure may be metal”) in the first recess; and coupling the second portion (another 29) of the folded (folded per Nagase) cooling fin to the metal layer in the second recess (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to include the thermally conductive adhesive of Romero in Nagase and arrive at the claimed invention so as to secure parts of the structure and avoid delamination.
Regarding claims 9-10, Nagase fails to disclose (claim 9) the apparatus of claim 8, further comprising a thermally conductive adhesive disposed in the first recess and the second recess, the thermally conductive adhesive thermally coupling the first portion of the folded cooling fin to the metal layer in the first recess, and coupling the second portion of the folded cooling fin to the metal layer in the second recess and (claim 10) the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the thermally conductive adhesive includes at least one of solder, epoxy, or sintering material.
Romero discloses (claim 9) further comprising a thermally conductive adhesive (31) disposed in the first recess and the second recess (Fig. 4), the thermally conductive adhesive thermally coupling the first portion of the folded (per Nagase) cooling fin (29) to the metal layer (11) in the first recess, and coupling the second portion of the folded (per Nagase) cooling fin (another 29) to the metal layer in the second recess (Fig. 1) and (claim 10) the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the thermally conductive adhesive includes at least one of solder, epoxy, or sintering material (“conductive epoxy 31”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to include the thermally conductive adhesive of Romero in Nagase and arrive at the claimed invention so as to secure parts of the structure and avoid delamination.
Regarding claim 22, Nagase fails to disclose the apparatus of claim 21, further comprising a thermally conductive adhesive disposed in the at least one recess and coupling the at least one folded portion to the metal layer.
Romero discloses further comprising a thermally conductive adhesive (31) disposed in the at least one recess and coupling the at least one folded (per Nagase) portion (29) to the metal layer (11, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to include the thermally conductive adhesive of Romero in Nagase and arrive at the claimed invention so as to secure parts of the structure and avoid delamination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20030155103 A1 to Barten discloses a folded cooling fin (Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRES MUNOZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3346. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM Central Time.
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.
/Andres Munoz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights