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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on 02/16/2024 and 05/01/2024 has been considered and made of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 is dependent of claim 15. However, the limitations of claim 15, as described in paragraphs [0062] - [0064] and Fig.11B, and the limitations of claim 16, as described in paragraph [0065] – [0067] and Fig.11C, belong to two separate embodiments. The combination of the two embodiments is not obvious. Furthermore, no other parts of the specification appear to include a written description of how the limitations of claims 16 and 15 may work together. Therefore, a person skilled in the art, at the time the application was filed, would have not recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed, in view of the disclosure of the application as filed.
For the purpose of examination, claim 16 will be interpreted as: The electronic device assembly of claim 11, wherein the second fluidic circuit includes a bypass channel disposed on a bottom wall of the coolant distributor, the bottom wall being parallel to the fluidic interface surface of the cooling 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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over disclosed prior art, Meyer et al., (United States Patent Application Publication Number, US 2021/0233828 A1) hereinafter referenced as Meyer, in view of disclosed prior art, Funakoshi et al., (United States Patent Application Publication Number, US 2009/0321924 A1), hereinafter referenced as Funakoshi_924, and in view of Mundinger et al., (United States Patent Number US 5727618A) hereinafter referenced as Mundinger.
Regarding claim 1, Meyer teaches a semiconductor device module comprising: a ceramic substrate (Fig.1, element #11, paragraph [0039], row 7) having a first surface (Fig.1, top surface of element #11) and a second surface opposite the first surface (Fig.1, bottom surface of element #1); a patterned metal layer disposed on the first surface of the ceramic substrate (Fig.1, element #12, paragraph [0039], rows 10-17); a semiconductor die disposed on the patterned metal layer (Fig.1, element #4, paragraph [0004], rows 11-13); a cooling structure disposed on the second surface of the ceramic substrate (Fig.1, element #20, paragraph [0040], rows 1-2), the cooling structure including a plurality of copper sheets defining a plurality of fluidic-cooling channels (paragraph [0032], rows 3-4, paragraph [0033], rows 1-5 and paragraph [0034], rows 1-3).
Meyer does not teach at least one copper sheet of the plurality of copper sheets being at least one of coated or plated with a corrosion-resistant material. Mundinger teaches at least one copper sheet of the plurality of copper sheets being at least one of coated or plated with a corrosion-resistant material (column 5, rows 50-62). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Mundinger and disclose at least one copper sheet of the plurality of copper sheets being at least one of coated or plated with a corrosion-resistant material. Copper can corrode by the cooling fluid that flows through the microchannels, and the corrosion-resistant material prevents this from happening.
The combination of Meyer and Mundinger does not teach and a molding compound that: encapsulates the ceramic substrate, the patterned metal layer and the semiconductor die; and partially encapsulates the cooling structure, such that a fluidic interface surface of the cooling structure is exposed through the molding compound. Funakoshi_924 teaches a molding compound (Fig.1, element #44, paragraph [0048], rows 6-7) that: encapsulates the ceramic substrate, the patterned metal layer and the semiconductor die; and partially encapsulates the cooling structure (Fig.1, element #44 encapsulates the ceramic substrate, element #20, paragraph [0043], rows 1-2 and paragraph [0037], rows 1-3, the patterned metal layer, formed by element #21 and #22, paragraph [0038], rows 1-2, the semiconductor die, element #4, paragraph [0039], row 3, and the cooling structure, formed by elements #25, #35, and #37, paragraph [0045], rows 1-2 and 7-8) such that a fluidic interface surface of the cooling structure is exposed through the molding compound. (Fig.1, interface between element #41 and #43 where element #36 is located, is exposed from the molding compound); and a coolant distributor coupled with the fluidic interface surface of the cooling structure (Fig.1, distributor element #40 is coupled to element #36). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Funakoshi_924 and disclose a molding compound that: encapsulates the ceramic substrate, the patterned metal layer and the semiconductor die; and partially encapsulates the cooling structure, such that a fluidic interface surface of the cooling structure is exposed through the molding compound. The molding compound protects the substrate, the metal pattern and the semiconductor die from degradation due to external environmental factors. Partially encapsulating the cooling structure together with the substrate and the die, increases the structural stability of the module, while leaving a fluidic interface surface exposed allows for inlets and/or outlets disposed on the fluidic interface surface to be used for cooling fluid circulation.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Meyer, Mundinger and Funakoshi_924 teaches the semiconductor device module of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Meyer further teaches the semiconductor device module of claim 1, wherein the plurality of fluidic-cooling channels are configured to be in fluidic communication with a coolant distributor (Fig.2, element #40, paragraph [0041], rows 14-16).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Meyer, Mundinger and Funakoshi_924 teaches the semiconductor device module of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Meyer further teaches the semiconductor device module of claim 1, wherein a fluidic-cooling channel of the plurality of fluidic-cooling channels includes: an inlet portion; an outlet portion; and a U-turn portion that fluidically couples the inlet portion with the outlet portion (Fig.3 annotated below, bottom of elements #34 are the inlet and outlet portions respectively, element #33 is the U-turn portion, paragraph [0049], rows 1-5).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Meyer, Mundinger and Funakoshi_924 teaches the semiconductor device module of claims 1 and 4 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Meyer further teaches the semiconductor device module of claim 4, wherein: the inlet portion is arranged along a first axis and the outlet portion is arranged along a second axis, the first axis and the second axis being orthogonal to the second surface of the ceramic substrate (Fig.1, the inlet and outlet portions are arranged along vertical direction, and the second surface of the ceramic substrate is along horizontal direction); and the U-turn portion is arranged along a third axis that is parallel to the second surface of the ceramic substrate (Fig.1, the U-turn portion is arranged along the horizontal direction).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Meyer, Mundinger and Funakoshi_924 teaches the semiconductor device module of claims 1 and 4 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Meyer further teaches the semiconductor device module of claim 4, wherein: the inlet portion and the outlet portion are defined by a first subset of the plurality of copper sheets (Fig.3, annotated below, copper sheets between the two doted lines); and the U-turn portion is defined by a second subset of the plurality of copper sheets (Fig.3, annotated below, copper sheets above the top dotted line, paragraph [0022], rows 19-22).
PNG
media_image1.png
636
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Meyer, Mundinger and Funakoshi_924 teaches the semiconductor device module of claims 1, 4 and 6 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Meyer further teaches the semiconductor device module of claim 6, wherein: the fluidic-cooling channel is a first fluidic-cooling channel (Fig.3, first fluidic channel is element #30 on the front side of the figure, the second fluidic channel is the one right behind it); the first subset of the plurality of copper sheets (sheets between the dotted lines in Fig.3 annotated above) further defines: a barrier between the inlet portion and the outlet portion of the first fluidic-cooling channel (Fig.3 annotated above, the inlet and outlet portions, elements #34, are openings in the copper sheets, and the plurality of sheets between the dotted lines form a barrier between them, and Fig.4 between the channels there is a copper barrier); and a first portion of a barrier between the inlet portion of the first fluidic-cooling channel and an inlet portion of a second fluidic-cooling channel (Fig.4, the first plurality of cooper sheets form a lower portion of a barrier between the inlets of the two channels furthermost to the right); and the second subset of the plurality of copper sheets (sheets above the top dotted line in Fig.3 annotated above) further defines a second portion of the barrier between the inlet portion of the first fluidic-cooling channel and the inlet portion of the second fluidic-cooling channel (Fig.4, the second plurality of cooper sheets, form a top portion of the barrier between the inlets of the two channels furthermost to the right).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Meyer, Mundinger and Funakoshi_924 teaches the semiconductor device module of claims 1, 4, 6 and 7 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Meyer further teaches the semiconductor device module of claim 7, wherein the inlet portion of the first fluidic-cooling channel is adjacent to the inlet portion of the second fluidic-cooling channel (Fig.4, the first and second channels are the ones furthermost to the right, their inlets are adjacent, connected to inlet part #41).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Meyer, Mundinger and Funakoshi_924 teaches the semiconductor device module of claims 1, 4, 6 and 7 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Meyer further teaches the semiconductor device module of claim 7, wherein: the first subset of the plurality of copper sheets (sheets between the dotted lines in Fig.3 annotated above) further defines a first portion of a barrier between the outlet portion of the first fluidic-cooling channel and an outlet portion of a second fluidic-cooling channel (Fig.4, the first plurality of cooper sheets, form a lower portion of a barrier between the outlets of the two channels furthermost to the right) and the second subset of the plurality of copper sheets (sheets above the top dotted line in Fig.3 annotated above) further defines a second portion of the barrier between the outlet portion of the first fluidic-cooling channel and the outlet portion of the second fluidic-cooling channel (Fig.4, the second plurality of cooper sheets, form a top portion of the barrier between the outlets of the two channels furthermost to the right).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Meyer and Funakoshi_924 teaches the semiconductor device module of claims 1, 4, 6, 7 and 9 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Meyer further teaches the semiconductor device module of claim 9, wherein the outlet portion of the first fluidic-cooling channel is adjacent to the outlet portion of the second fluidic-cooling channel (Fig.4, the first and second channels are the ones furthermost to the right, their outlets are adjacent, connected to outlet part #42).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Mundinger, Funakoshi_924 and in view of Gerstler et al., (United States Patent Application Publication Number, US 2010/0175857 A1) hereinafter referenced as Gerstler.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Meyer, Mundinger and Funakoshi_924 teaches the semiconductor device module of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. The combination of Meyer, Mundinger and Funakoshi_924 does not teach the semiconductor device module of claim 1, wherein a fluidic-cooling channel of the plurality of fluidic-cooling channels has a width of greater than 1.0 millimeter. Gerstler teaches wherein a fluidic-cooling channel of the plurality of fluidic-cooling channels has a width of greater than 1.0 millimeter (paragraph [0022], rows 7-9). The claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by Gerstler and therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 11, 12, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Funakoshi_924 and in view of Wang, (Chinese Patent Publication Number, CN 114068450A) hereinafter referenced as Wang.
Regarding claim 11, Meyer teaches an electronic device assembly comprising: a molded semiconductor device module (Fig.1, the entire structure) including: a ceramic substrate (Fig.1, element #11, paragraph [0039], row 7) having a first surface (Fig.1, top surface of element #1) and a second surface opposite the first surface (Fig.1, bottom surface of element #1); a patterned metal layer disposed on the first surface of the ceramic substrate (Fig.1, element #12, paragraph [0039], rows 10-17); a semiconductor die disposed on the patterned metal layer (Fig.1, element #4, paragraph [0004], rows 11-13); a cooling structure disposed on the second surface of the ceramic substrate (Fig.1, element #20, paragraph [0040], rows 1-2),, the cooling structure including a plurality of fluidic-cooling channels (paragraph [0041], rows 8-10).
Meyer does not teach a molding compound that: encapsulates the ceramic substrate, the patterned metal layer and the semiconductor die; and partially encapsulates the cooling structure, such that a fluidic interface surface of the cooling structure is exposed through the molding compound, a coolant distributor coupled with the fluidic interface surface of the cooling structure. Funakoshi_924 teaches a molding compound (Fig.11, element #44, paragraph [0048], rows 6-7) that: encapsulates the ceramic substrate (Fig.11, ceramic substrate, element #14, paragraph [0037], rows 1-3), the patterned metal layer (Fig.11, element #27) and the semiconductor die (Fig.11, element #4); and partially encapsulates the cooling structure (Fig.11, element #18) such that a fluidic interface surface of the cooling structure is exposed through the molding compound. (Fig.11, bottom side of element #18 is exposed through the molding compound); and a coolant distributor coupled with the fluidic interface surface of the cooling structure (Fig.11, distributor element #34). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Funakoshi_924 and disclose a molding compound that: encapsulates the ceramic substrate, the patterned metal layer and the semiconductor die; and partially encapsulates the cooling structure, such that a fluidic interface surface of the cooling structure is exposed through the molding compound. Partially encapsulating the cooling structure together with the substrate and the die, increases the structural stability of the module, while leaving a fluidic interface surface exposed, allows for inlets and/or outlets disposed on the fluidic interface surface to be used for cooling fluid circulation, while the distributer allows the coolant fluid to reach the entire area that needs cooling.
The combination of Meyer and Funakoshi_924 does not teach a fluidic-cooling jacket having: a coolant inlet; a first fluidic circuit configured to provide a first portion of a coolant flow received at the coolant inlet to the coolant distributor; a second fluidic circuit configured such that a second portion of the coolant flow bypasses the coolant distributor; and a coolant outlet configured to receive the first portion of the coolant flow and the second portion of the coolant flow for egress from the fluidic-cooling jacket. Wang teaches a fluidic-cooling jacket (Fig.1b, formed by elements #22, #2 and #1) having: a coolant inlet (Fig.1c, element #22h1); a first fluidic circuit configured to provide a first portion of a coolant flow received at the coolant inlet to the coolant distributor (Fig.1c, element #2T); a second fluidic circuit configured such that a second portion of the coolant flow bypasses the coolant distributor (Fig.1c, element #1T); and a coolant outlet configured to receive the first portion of the coolant flow and the second portion of the coolant flow for egress from the fluidic-cooling jacket (Fig.1c, element #22h2). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Wang and disclose a fluidic-cooling jacket having: a coolant inlet; a first fluidic circuit configured to provide a first portion of a coolant flow received at the coolant inlet to the coolant distributor; a second fluidic circuit configured such that a second portion of the coolant flow bypasses the coolant distributor; and a coolant outlet configured to receive the first portion of the coolant flow and the second portion of the coolant flow for egress from the fluidic-cooling jacket. As disclosed by Wang, the cooling jacket comprised of the cooling fluid, the inlet and the outlet, directs the cooling fluid to the areas that need cooling, and the two fluidic circuits provide cooling on both sides of the semiconductor die.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Meyer, Funakoshi_924 and Wang teaches the electronic device assembly of claim 11 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Meyer further teaches the electronic device assembly of claim 11, wherein: the plurality of fluidic-cooling channels include respective inlet portions, respective outlet portions, and respective U-turn portions, the respective U-turn portions fluidically coupling the respective inlet portions with the respective outlet portions (Fig.1, each channel, element #30 include an inlet, element #31, and an outlet, element #34, and U turn potions), and the coolant distributor (Fig.8, element #40, paragraph [0053], rows 1-2 and paragraph [0054], rows 1-2) including: at least one coolant-inlet channel configured to provide a coolant flow to the respective inlet portions (Fig.8, element #41, paragraph [0054], row 4); and at least one coolant-outlet channel configured to receive the coolant flow from the respective outlet portions (Fig.8, element #42, paragraph [0054], row 4).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Meyer, Funakoshi_924 and Wang teaches the electronic device assembly of claims 11 and 12 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Meyer further teaches the electronic device assembly of claim 12, wherein: a coolant-inlet channel of the at least one coolant-inlet channel includes a ramped portion having a first slope; and a coolant-outlet channel of the at least one coolant-outlet channel includes a ramped portion having a second slope opposite the first slope (paragraph [0054], rows 4-11).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Meyer, Funakoshi_924 and Wang teaches the electronic device assembly of claim 11 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Wang further teaches the electronic device assembly of claim 11 .
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Funakoshi_924, Wang and in view of Funakoshi et al., (United States Patent Application Publication Number, US 2008/0224303 A1), hereinafter referenced as Funakoshi_303.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Meyer, Funakoshi_924 and Wang teaches the electronic device assembly of claims 11 and 12 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Meyer further teaches the electronic device assembly of claim 12, wherein: a coolant-inlet channel of the at least one coolant-inlet channel can include a fluidic-ingress port that is disposed on a first side of the coolant distributor; and a coolant-outlet channel of the at least one coolant-outlet channel can include a fluidic-egress port that is disposed on a second side of the coolant distributor (Fig.9, the ports are disposed on the side).
The combination of Meyer, Funakoshi and Wang does not teach the fluidic egress port is disposed on a second side opposite to the first side. Funakoshi_303 teaches a fluidic-ingress port that is disposed on a first side; and a fluidic-egress port that is disposed on a second side, opposite to the first side (Fig.13, the fluidic-ingress port, element #51, is disposed to the left side and the fluidic-egress port, element #50, is disposed to the right side). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Funakoshi_303 and disclose a fluidic-ingress port that is disposed on a first side; and a fluidic-egress port that is disposed on a second side, opposite to the first side. This may help the fluid flow from the ingress port to the egress port, across the full length of the cooling structure, which maximizes heat dissipation and helps distribute heat more evenly across the entire structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is allowed if written in independent form. Claims 17-20 will be allowed as being dependent on claim 15.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 15 the cited prior art does not teach or fairly suggests, along with other
claimed features: “a first bypass channel disposed along a first sidewall of the coolant distributor, the first sidewall being orthogonal to the fluidic interface surface of the cooling structure; and a second bypass channel disposed along a second sidewall of the coolant distributor, the second sidewall being opposite the first sidewall and orthogonal to the fluidic interface surface of the cooling structure”. Wang discloses a single bypass channel, along a first sidewall of the coolant distributor, but the first sidewall is parallel, not orthogonal, to the fluidic interface surface of the cooling structure (Fig.1c).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRISTIAN A TIVARUS whose telephone number is (703)756-4688. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00 AM -5:00 PM EST.
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 (571)270-7877. 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.
/CRISTIAN A TIVARUS/Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights