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 information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/18/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 3-19 and 21-25 are 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 1 newly recites “the temper-detect circuitry having a diffusion bond connection to the heat sink within the heat sink cover…”. The only support for diffusion-bonding is in [00137] of the specification, but it is generic and does not explicitly mention “the temper-detect circuitry having a diffusion bond connection to the heat sink within the heat sink cover”. Thus, the new limitation is considered as new matter.
Claims 3-10 depends on claim 1.
Claim 11 newly recites “the integrated tamper-detect circuitry of the heat sink cover is disposed, at least in part, between and has respective thermal bond connections to the heat sink and the thermally conductive base of the heat sink cover”. There is not explicit support for this limitation. Thus, the new limitation is considered as new matter.
Claims 12-18 depends on claim 11.
Claim 19 newly recites “a heat sink cover comprising a heat sink and a tamper-detect circuitry with a diffusion bond connection to the heat sink within the heat sink cover”. The only support for diffusion-bonding is in [00137] of the specification, but it is generic and does not explicitly support the recited claim. Thus, the new limitation is considered as new matter.
Claims 20-25 depends on claim 19.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-13 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites “with other diffusion bond connections… by the other diffusion bond connections”. Claim 12 appear to imply there was a diffusion bond mentioned in earlier claim, but this is unsupported. It appears the error is due to claim 11 uses thermal bond unlike independent claim 1 and claim 19 where it uses diffusion bond.
Claim 13 depends on claim 12.
Claim 21 recites “The method of claim 20”. There is a lack of antecedent basis. In order to examine this application, examiner will consider the limitation as “The method of claim 19”.
Claims 22-23 depends on claim 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 3, 7-9, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brodsky et al. (US 9,911,012; hereinafter “Brodsky”) in view of Zhang et al. (US 11,191,155; hereinafter “Zhang ‘155”).
Regarding claim 1, Brodsky teaches a tamper-detect assembly (Figs. 1-21C) comprising:
a laminate carrier (same as 810, Fig. 8A) with embedded tamper-detect circuitry (same as 811, Fig. 8A) within the laminate carrier;
one or more electronic components (802, Fig. 8A) on the laminate carrier; and
a heat sink cover (820+821, Fig. 8A), the heat sink cover comprising a heat sink (col. 20, lns. 34-57: “… enclosure 820 may… operate as a heat sink…”) and tamper-detect circuitry (821, Fig. 8A) integrated within the heat sink cover, with the tamper-detect circuitry having a direct-bonded connection (821 is direct-bonded to 820 as shown in Figs. 8A, 9, 11-12 without any intermediate structure) to the heat sink within the heat sink cover and the heat sink cover being mounted to the laminate carrier and enclosing the one or more electronic components between the laminate carrier and the heat sink cover (as shown in Fig. 8A), wherein together the integrated tamper-detect circuitry of the laminate carrier and the embedded tamper-detect circuitry of the heat sink cover define, at least in part, a secure volume (801, Fig. 8A) about the one or more electronic components.
Brodsky teaches direct-bonded connection, but does not explicitly teach diffusion bond connection. However, Zhang ‘155 teaches diffusion bond connection (col. 13, lns. 35-53: “…diffusion bonded…”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use diffusion bond connection in Brodsky, as taught by Zhang ‘155, in order to improve bonding and prevent separation. Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, select a well-known bonding method, i.e. diffusion bond, to use between different layers and structures yields predictable results of improve bonding, and using this specific bonding method does not yield any unexpected results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘155 teaches the tamper-detect assembly of claim 2, and Brodsky further teaches wherein the tamper-detect circuitry integrated within the heat sink cover comprises multiple tamper-detect circuit layers (such as shown in Figs. 3A-7C) with other diffusion bond connections between tamper-detect circuit layers of the multiple tamper-detect circuit layers (established in above Zhang ‘155 to use diffusion bond), the multiple tamper-detect circuit layers comprising multiple dielectric and conductor layers (col. 11 Ln. 45 – col. 12 Ln. 15: “circuit lines 301…… flexible layer 302… (PVDF), or Kapton…”; note those are dielectric layers) connected together by the other diffusion bond connections (established in above Zhang ‘155 to use diffusion bond).
Regarding claim 7, Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘155 the tamper-detect assembly of claim 1, and Brodsky further teaches wherein the heat sink cover is mounted to the laminate carrier at a peripheral interface of the heat sink cover and laminate carrier (along 812, Figs. 8A, 8B, 9), and wherein the tamper-detect circuitry integrated within the heat sink cover is electrically connected to the embedded tamper-detect circuitry within the laminate carrier at the peripheral interface of the heat sink cover and laminate carrier via an interface security layer (via 901 or bottom of 821 in Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 8, Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘155 the tamper-detect assembly of claim 7, and Brodsky further teaches wherein the heat sink cover includes a heat sink cover sidewall (sidewall of 820, Figs. 8A-9) with an edge (lower edge of 820, see Figs. 8A-9) mounted to the laminate carrier at the peripheral interface of the heat sink cover and laminate carrier, the tamper-detect circuitry integrated within the heat sink cover being, at least in part, embedded within the heat sink cover sidewall (such as shown in 1900, Figs. 19A, 19B; note that part of tamper-detect circuitry can be broadly considered as part of the heat sink cover sidewall).
Regarding claim 9, Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘155 the tamper-detect assembly of claim 7, and Brodsky further teaches wherein the laminate carrier includes a laminate carrier sidewall (such as left sidewall portion of 900 in Fig. 9), the heat sink cover being mounted to an end of the laminate carrier sidewall (as shown in Fig. 9), and the embedded tamper-detect circuitry within the laminate carrier being, at least in part, embedded within the laminate carrier sidewall (as shown in Fig. 9; see cropped Fig. 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
347
443
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Brodsky teaches a method of fabricating a tamper-detect assembly (Figs. 1-21C), the method comprising:
forming a laminate carrier (same as 810, Fig. 8A) with embedded tamper-detect circuitry (same as 811, Fig. 8A) within the laminate carrier;
providing one or more electronic components (802, Fig. 8A) on the laminate carrier;
providing a heat sink cover (820+821, Fig. 8A) comprising a heat sink (col. 20, lns. 34-57: “… enclosure 820 may… operate as a heat sink…”) and a tamper-detect circuitry (821, Fig. 8A) with a direct-bond connection (821 is direct-bonded to 820 as shown in Figs. 8A, 9, 11-12 without any intermediate structure) to the heat sink within the heat sink cover; and
mounting the heat sink cover to the laminate carrier to enclose the one or more electronic components between the laminate carrier and the heat sink cover (as shown in Fig. 8A), wherein together the embedded tamper-detect circuitry of the laminate carrier and the tamper-detect circuitry of the heat sink cover define, at least in part, a secure volume (801, Fig. 8A) about the one or more electronic components.
Brodsky teaches direct bond connection, but does not explicitly teach diffusion bond connection. However, Zhang ‘155 teaches diffusion bond connection (col. 13, lns. 35-53: “…diffusion bonded…”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use diffusion bond connection in Brodsky, as taught by Zhang ‘155, in order to improve bonding and prevent separation. Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, select a well-known bonding method, i.e. diffusion bond, to use between different layers and structures yields predictable results of improve bonding, and using this specific bonding method does not yield any unexpected results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 21, Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘155 teaches the method of claim 20, and Brodsky further teaches wherein the tamper-detect circuitry integrated within the heat sink cover comprises multiple tamper-detect circuit layers (such as shown in Figs. 3A-7C) with other diffusion bond connections between tamper-detect circuit layers of the multiple tamper-detect circuit layers (established in above Zhang ‘155 to use diffusion bond), the multiple tamper-detect circuit layers comprising multiple dielectric and conductor layers connected together by the other diffusion bond connections (established in above Zhang ‘155 to use diffusion bond), and providing the heat sink cover further includes the multiple dielectric and conductor layers together (821 is direct-bonded to 820 as shown in Figs. 8A, 9, 11-12 without any intermediate structure; col. 11 Ln. 45 – col. 12 Ln. 15: “circuit lines 301…… flexible layer 302… (PVDF), or Kapton…”; note those are dielectric layers).
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 4 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘155.
Regarding claim 4, Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘155 teaches the tamper-detect assembly of claim 3, and Brodsky further teaches wherein the multiple dielectric and conductor layers comprise multiple copper layers (col. 16, lns. 8-11: “… metal lines (e.g., copper lines)…”).
Brodsky does not explicitly teach wherein the multiple dielectric and conductor layers comprise multiple ceramic, and wherein the heat sink comprises copper. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the multiple dielectric and conductor layers comprise multiple ceramic, and wherein the heat sink comprises copper in Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘155, since it has been held that a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Selecting a known compound to meet requirements is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (citing Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). In this case, ceramic as dielectric material and copper as heat sink are already commonly used material in the art, and selecting those materials does not yield any unexpected result.
Regarding claim 22, Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘155 teaches the method of claim 21, and Brodsky further teaches wherein the multiple dielectric and conductor layers comprise multiple copper layers (col. 16, lns. 8-11: “… metal lines (e.g., copper lines)…”).
Brodsky does not explicitly teach wherein the multiple dielectric and conductor layers comprise multiple ceramic, and wherein the heat sink comprises copper. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the multiple dielectric and conductor layers comprise multiple ceramic, and wherein the heat sink comprises copper in Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘155, since it has been held that a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Selecting a known compound to meet requirements is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (citing Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). In this case, ceramic as dielectric material and copper as heat sink are already commonly used material in the art, and selecting those materials does not yield any unexpected result.
Claims 5, 10, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘155, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2022/0192011; hereinafter “Zhang ‘011”).
Regarding claim 5, Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘155 teaches the tamper-detect assembly of claim 3. Brodsky does not teach wherein the heat sink cover further comprises a thermally conductive base, and the multiple tamper-detect circuit layers are connected, at least in part, between the heat sink and the thermally conductive base of the heat sink cover. However, Zhang ‘011 teaches a heat sink cover (120, 620, Figs. 1, 6A-6B) comprises a thermally conductive base (635, Figs. 6A, 6B), and a tamper-detect circuit layer ([0053]: “…tamper detection is implemented using pressure sensing…”) are connected, at least in part, between a heat sink (622, 624, Fig. 6A, 6B) and the thermally conductive base of the heat sink cover (as shown in Figs. 6A, 6B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the heat sink cover further comprises a thermally conductive base, and the multiple tamper-detect circuit layers are connected, at least in part, between the heat sink and the thermally conductive base of the heat sink cover in Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘155, as taught by Zhang ‘011, in order to improve heat dissipation.
Regarding claim 10, Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘155 teaches the tamper-detect assembly of claim 1. Brodsky does not teach wherein the heat sink is selected from the group consisting of a coolant-cooled heat sink, an air-cooled heat sink, and an air-cooled heat sink with an integrated heat pipe. However, Zhang ‘011 teaches a heat sink is an air-cooled heat sink (624, Figs. 6A, 6B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the heat sink is selected from the group consisting of a coolant-cooled heat sink, an air-cooled heat sink, and an air-cooled heat sink with an integrated heat pipe in Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘155, as taught by Zhang ‘011, in order to further improve heat dissipation using other well-known types of heat sinks.
Regarding claim 23, Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘155 teaches the method of claim 21. Brodsky does not teach wherein the heat sink cover further comprises a thermally conductive base, and providing the heat sink cover includes positioning the multiple tamper-detect circuit layers, at least in part, between the heat sink and the thermally conductive base, and diffusion-bonding (established in above Zhang ‘155 to use diffusion bond) the multiple tamper-detect circuit layers to the heat sink and to the thermally conductive base of the heat sink cover. However, Zhang ‘011 teaches a heat sink cover (120, 620, Figs. 1, 6A-6B) comprises a thermally conductive base (635, Figs. 6A, 6B), and providing the heat sink cover includes positioning a tamper-detect circuit layer ([0053]: “…tamper detection is implemented using pressure sensing…”), at least in part, between a heat sink (622, 624, Figs. 6A, 6B) and the thermally conductive base (as shown in Figs. 6A, 6B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a thermally conductive base, and providing the heat sink cover includes positioning the multiple tamper-detect circuit layers, at least in part, between the heat sink and the thermally conductive base, and direct-bonding the multiple tamper-detect circuit layers to the heat sink and to the thermally conductive base of the heat sink cover (note that adding Zhang ‘011’s thermally conductive base 635 would directly bonded to the tamper-detect circuitry of Brodsky) of the heat sink cover in Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘155, as taught by Zhang ‘011, in order to improve heat dissipation.
Regarding claim 25, Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘155 teaches the method of claim 19. Brodsky does not teach wherein the heat sink is selected from the group consisting of a coolant-cooled heat sink, an air-cooled heat sink, and an air-cooled heat sink with an integrated heat pipe. However, Zhang ‘011 teaches a heat sink is an air-cooled heat sink (624, Figs. 6A, 6B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the heat sink is selected from the group consisting of a coolant-cooled heat sink, an air-cooled heat sink, and an air-cooled heat sink with an integrated heat pipe in Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘155, as taught by Zhang ‘011, in order to further improve heat dissipation using other well-known types of heat sinks.
Claims 6 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘155, and further in view of Thornley et al. (US 7,710,286; hereinafter “Thornley”).
Regarding claim 6, Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘155 teaches the tamper-detect assembly of claim 1. Brodsky does not explicitly teach wherein the tamper-detect assembly is a single multi-chip module package, the one or more electronic components comprise one or more semiconductor die, and the laminate carrier includes an electrical contact array on one side of the laminate carrier for electrically coupling the single multi-chip module package to a circuit board. However, Thornley teaches a tamper-detect assembly (10, Fig. 1) is a single chip module package (as shown in Fig. 1), one or more electronic components (11, Fig. 1) comprise one or more semiconductor die (inherent for integrated circuit 11), and a laminate carrier (12, Fig. 1) includes an electrical contact array (18, Fig. 1) on one side of the laminate carrier for electrically coupling the single chip module package to a circuit board (col. 2, lns. 56-61: “…to a printed circuit board (not shown) via solder balls 18…”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the tamper-detect assembly is a single multi-chip module package, the one or more electronic components comprise one or more semiconductor die, and the laminate carrier includes an electrical contact array on one side of the laminate carrier for electrically coupling the single multi-chip module package to a circuit board in Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘155, as taught by Thornley, in order to utilize the tamper-detect assembly to secure a functional electronic device, such as a point of sale device.
Regarding claim 24, Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘155 teaches the method of claim 19. Brodsky does not explicitly teach wherein the tamper-detect assembly is a single multi-chip module package, the one or more electronic components comprise one or more semiconductor die, and the laminate carrier includes an electrical contact array on one side of the laminate carrier for electrically coupling the single multi-chip module package to a circuit board. However, Thornley teaches a tamper-detect assembly (10, Fig. 1) is a single chip module package (as shown in Fig. 1), one or more electronic components (11, Fig. 1) comprise one or more semiconductor die (inherent for integrated circuit 11), and a laminate carrier (12, Fig. 1) includes an electrical contact array (18, Fig. 1) on one side of the laminate carrier for electrically coupling the single chip module package to a circuit board (col. 2, lns. 56-61: “…to a printed circuit board (not shown) via solder balls 18…”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the tamper-detect assembly is a single multi-chip module package, the one or more electronic components comprise one or more semiconductor die, and the laminate carrier includes an electrical contact array on one side of the laminate carrier for electrically coupling the single multi-chip module package to a circuit board in Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘155, as taught by Thornley, in order to utilize the tamper-detect assembly to secure a functional electronic device, such as a point of sale device.
Claims 11-13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘011 and Zhang ‘155.
Regarding claim 11 as best understood, Brodsky teaches a tamper-detect assembly (Figs. 1-21C) comprising:
a laminate carrier (same as 810, Fig. 8A) with embedded tamper-detect circuitry (same as 811, Fig. 8A) within the laminate carrier;
one or more electronic components (802, Fig. 8A) on the laminate carrier; and
a heat sink cover (820+821, Fig. 8A) with tamper-detect circuitry integrated within the heat sink cover, the heat sink cover being mounted to the laminate carrier and enclosing the one or more electronic components between the laminate carrier and the heat sink cover (as shown in Fig. 8A), wherein together the embedded tamper-detect circuitry of the laminate carrier and the integrated tamper-detect circuitry of the heat sink cover define, at least in part, a secure volume (801, Fig. 8A) about the one or more electronic components, and wherein the heat sink cover comprises:
a heat sink (col. 20, lns. 34-57: “… enclosure 820 may… operate as a heat sink…”); and
wherein the integrated tamper-detect circuitry of the heat sink cover is disposed, at least in part, and has direct-bonded to the heat sink (821 is direct-bonded to 820 as shown in Figs. 8A, 9, 11-12 without any intermediate structure).
Brodsky does not teach a thermally conductive base; wherein the integrated tamper-detect circuitry of the heat sink cover is disposed, at least in part, between and direct-bonded to the heat sink and to the thermally conductive base of the heat sink cover. However, Zhang ‘011 teaches a thermally conductive base (635, Figs. 6A, 6B); wherein an integrated tamper-detect circuitry ([0053]: “…tamper detection is implemented using pressure sensing…”) of a heat sink cover (120, 620, Figs. 1, 6A-6B) is disposed, at least in part, between a heat sink (622, 624, Figs. 6A, 6B; ([0026]: “…printed directly onto one or more layers…”)) and to the thermally conductive base of the heat sink cover (as shown in Fig. 6A, 6B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a thermally conductive base; wherein the integrated tamper-detect circuitry of the heat sink cover is disposed, at least in part, between and direct-bonded to the heat sink and to the thermally conductive base (note that adding Zhang ‘011’s thermally conductive base 635 would directly bonded to the tamper-detect circuitry of Brodsky) of the heat sink cover in Brodsky, as taught by Zhang ‘011, in order to improve heat dissipation.
Brodsky teaches direct-bonded connection, but does not explicitly teach thermal bond connections. However, Zhang ‘155 teaches thermal bond connections (same as diffusion bond, see col. 13, lns. 35-53: “…diffusion bonded…”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use thermal bond connections in Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘011, as taught by Zhang ‘155, in order to improve bonding and prevent separation. Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, select a well-known bonding method, i.e. diffusion bond, to use between different layers and structures yields predictable results of improve bonding, and using this specific bonding method does not yield any unexpected results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12 as best understood, Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘011 and Zhang ‘155 teaches the tamper-detect assembly of claim 11, and Brodsky further teaches wherein the tamper-detect circuitry integrated within the heat sink cover comprises multiple tamper-detect circuit layers (such as shown in Figs. 3A-7C) with other diffusion bond connections between tamper-detect circuit layers of the multiple tamper-detect circuit layers (established in above Zhang ‘155 to use diffusion bond), the multiple tamper-detect circuit layers comprising multiple dielectric and conductor layers (col. 11 ln. 45 – col. 12, ln. 15: “circuit lines 301…… flexible layer 302… (PVDF), or Kapton…”; note those are dielectric layers) connected together by the other diffusion bond connections (established in above Zhang ‘155 to use diffusion bond).
Regarding claim 13, Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘011 and Zhang ‘155 teaches the tamper-detect assembly of claim 12, and Brodsky further teaches wherein the multiple dielectric and conductor layers comprise multiple copper layers (col. 16, lns. 8-11: “… metal lines (e.g., copper lines)…”).
Brodsky does not teach wherein the multiple dielectric and conductor layers comprise multiple ceramic, and wherein the heat sink comprises copper. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the multiple dielectric and conductor layers comprise multiple ceramic, and wherein the heat sink comprises copper in Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘011 and Zhang ‘155, since it has been held that a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Selecting a known compound to meet requirements is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (citing Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). In this case, ceramic as dielectric material and copper as heat sink are already commonly used material in the art, and selecting those materials does not yield any unexpected result.
Regarding claim 15, Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘011 and Zhang ‘155 teaches the tamper-detect assembly of claim 11, and Brodsky further teaches wherein the heat sink cover is mounted to the laminate carrier at a peripheral interface of the heat sink cover and laminate carrier (along 812, Figs. 8A, 8B, 9), and wherein the tamper-detect circuitry integrated within the heat sink cover is electrically connected to the embedded tamper-detect circuitry within the laminate carrier at the peripheral interface of the heat sink cover and laminate carrier via an interface security layer (via 901 or bottom of 821 in Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 16, Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘011 and Zhang ‘155 teaches the tamper-detect assembly of claim 15, and Brodsky further teaches wherein the heat sink cover includes a heat sink cover sidewall (sidewall of 820, Figs. 8A-9) with an edge (lower edge of 820, see Figs. 8-9) mounted to the laminate carrier at the peripheral interface of the heat sink cover and laminate carrier, the tamper-detect circuitry integrated within the heat sink cover being, at least in part, embedded within the heat sink cover sidewall (such as shown in 1900, Figs. 19A, 19B; note that part of tamper-detect circuitry can be broadly considered as part of the heat sink cover sidewall).
Regarding claim 17, Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘011 and Zhang ‘155 teaches the tamper-detect assembly of claim 15, and Brodsky further teaches wherein the laminate carrier includes a laminate carrier sidewall (such as left sidewall portion of 900 in Fig. 9), the heat sink cover being mounted to an end of the laminate carrier sidewall (as shown in Fig. 9), and the embedded tamper-detect circuitry within the laminate carrier being, at least in part, embedded within the laminate carrier sidewall (as shown in Fig. 9; see cropped Fig. 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
347
443
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘011 and Zhang ‘155 teaches the tamper-detect assembly of claim 11. Brodsky does not teach wherein the heat sink is selected from the group consisting of a coolant-cooled heat sink, an air-cooled heat sink, and an air-cooled heat sink with an integrated heat pipe. However, Zhang ‘011 further teaches a heat sink is an air-cooled heat sink (624, Figs. 6A, 6B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the heat sink is selected from the group consisting of a coolant-cooled heat sink, an air-cooled heat sink, and an air-cooled heat sink with an integrated heat pipe in Brodsky Zhang ‘011 and Zhang ‘155, as taught by Zhang ‘011, in order to further improve heat dissipation using other well-known type heat sinks.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘011 and Zhang ‘155, and further in view of Thornley.
Regarding claim 14, Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘011 and Zhang ‘155 teaches the tamper-detect assembly of claim 11. Brodsky does not explicitly teach wherein the tamper-detect assembly is a single multi-chip module package, the one or more electronic components comprise one or more semiconductor die, and the laminate carrier includes an electrical contact array on one side of the laminate carrier for electrically coupling the single multi-chip module package to a circuit board. However, Thornley teaches a tamper-detect assembly (10, Fig. 1) is a single chip module package (as shown in Fig. 1), one or more electronic components (11, Fig. 1) comprise one or more semiconductor die (inherent for integrated circuit 11), and a laminate carrier (12, Fig. 1) includes an electrical contact array (18, Fig. 1) on one side of the laminate carrier for electrically coupling the single multi-chip module package to a circuit board (col. 2, lns. 56-61: “…to a printed circuit board (not shown) via solder balls 18…”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the tamper-detect assembly is a single multi-chip module package, the one or more electronic components comprise one or more semiconductor die, and the laminate carrier includes an electrical contact array on one side of the laminate carrier for electrically coupling the single multi-chip module package to a circuit board in Brodsky in view of Zhang ‘011 and Zhang ‘155, as taught by Thornley, in order to utilize the tamper-detect assembly to secure a functional electronic device, such as a point of sale device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-19 and 21-25 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 JAMES WU whose telephone number is (571)270-7974. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Allen Parker can be reached at (303)297-4722. 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.
/JAMES WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841