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 § 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, 5-7, 9-11, 13-14, 17-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takano et al. (of record, US 6376907 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Takano discloses a heat dissipation structure (Fig. 6B), comprising:
a heat dissipation member (24) defined with a central area (annotated), a plurality of edge areas (annotated) located at sides of an outer periphery of the central area, and a plurality of corner areas (annotated) located at corners of the outer periphery of the central area; and
a plurality of supporting members (24b) disposed on the heat dissipation member;
wherein a portion of the plurality of supporting members (two 24b on a same side) are disposed in one (a same side) of the plurality of edge areas of the heat dissipation member and spaced apart from each other (Fig. 6B) but not disposed in the plurality of comer areas (Fig. 6B)
PNG
media_image1.png
307
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Takano discloses the heat dissipation structure of claim 1, further comprising at least one joint (MPEP 2111, 2112 and/or 2114, no structural difference imparted) member (in between notches 24c) disposed in the plurality of comer areas of the heat dissipation member, wherein the at least one joint member and the plurality of supporting members (24b) are not connected (across 24c) to each other.
PNG
media_image2.png
322
382
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Takano discloses the heat dissipation structure of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of joint (MPEP 2111, 2112 and/or 2114, no structural difference imparted) members (created by notches 24c) disposed in (at least) some of the plurality of comer areas (annotated Fig. above).
Regarding claim 6, Takano discloses the heat dissipation structure of claim 5, wherein the plurality of joint members (in between notches 24c) are disposed in the plurality of comer areas that are opposite (Fig. 1 above; opposite across a diagonal or along a side of 24).
Regarding claim 7, Takano discloses the heat dissipation structure of claim 1, wherein the plurality of supporting members (24b) are heat dissipation walls or heat dissipation pillars (Fig. 6B, 24 comprises a metal).
Regarding claim 9, Takano discloses the heat dissipation structure of claim 1, wherein a portion of the plurality of supporting members (24b) are disposed in (at least) each of two of the plurality of edge areas that are opposite (Fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 10, Takano discloses the heat dissipation structure of claim 1, wherein the plurality of supporting members (24b) are disposed in each of the plurality of edge areas (Fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 11, Takano discloses the heat dissipation structure of claim 1, wherein the heat dissipation member (24) and the plurality of supporting members (24b) are integrally formed (Fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 13, Takano discloses an electronic package, comprising:
a carrier structure (12, Fig. 1A);
an electronic component (14) disposed on the carrier structure; and
a heat dissipation structure (16 replaced by 24 of Fig. 6B) disposed on the carrier structure and covering the electronic component, and the heat dissipation structure comprising (Fig. 6B):
a heat dissipation member (24) defined with a central area (annotated), a plurality of edge areas (annotated) located at sides of an outer periphery of the central area, and a plurality of corner areas (annotated) located at corners of the outer periphery of the central area; and
a plurality of supporting members (24b) disposed on the heat dissipation member, wherein the heat dissipation structure (24) is disposed on the carrier structure (12) via (partly) the plurality of supporting members (Figs. 1A and 6B);
wherein the electronic component is corresponding to a position of the central area (Figs. 1B and 6B), and a portion of the plurality of supporting members (two 24b on a same side) are disposed in one (a same side) of the plurality of edge areas of the heat dissipation member and spaced apart from each other (Fig. 6B) but not disposed in the plurality of comer areas (Fig. 6B).
PNG
media_image1.png
307
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Takano discloses the electronic package of claim 13, further comprising at least one joint (MPEP 2111, 2112 and/or 2114, no structural difference imparted) member (in between notches 24c) disposed in the plurality of comer areas of the heat dissipation member, wherein the at least one joint member and the plurality of supporting members (24b) are not connected (across 24c) to each other.
PNG
media_image2.png
322
382
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Takano discloses the electronic package of claim 13, further comprising a plurality of joint (MPEP 2111, 2112 and/or 2114, no structural difference imparted) members (created by notches 24c) disposed in (at least) some of the plurality of comer areas (annotated Fig. above).
Regarding claim 18, Takano discloses the electronic package of claim 17, wherein the plurality of joint members (in between notches 24c) are disposed in the plurality of comer areas that are opposite (Fig. 1 above; opposite across a diagonal or along a side of 24).
Regarding claim 19, Takano discloses the electronic package of claim 13, wherein the plurality of supporting members (24b) are heat dissipation walls or heat dissipation pillars (Fig. 6B, 24 comprises a metal).
Regarding claim 21, Takano discloses the electronic package of claim 13, wherein a portion of the plurality of supporting members (24b) are disposed in (at least) each of two of the plurality of edge areas that are opposite (Fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 22, Takano discloses the electronic package of claim 13, wherein the plurality of supporting members (24b) are disposed in each of the plurality of edge areas (Fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 23, Takano discloses the electronic package of claim 13, wherein the heat dissipation member (24) and the plurality of supporting members (24b) are integrally formed (Fig. 6B).
Claims 12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano et al. (of record, US 6376907 B1).
Regarding claims 12 and 24, Takano fails to disclose (claim 12) the heat dissipation structure of claim 1, wherein the heat dissipation member and the plurality of supporting members are not integrally formed, and, (claim 24) the electronic package of claim 13, wherein the heat dissipation member and the plurality of supporting members are not integrally formed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Takano to comprise non-integrally formed elements as claimed so as to employ different metals, e.g. a combination of SUS and Cu, since “each metal has a good heat conductivity, the heat radiating effect can be improved” as disclosed by Takano, and/or, because transitioning from an integrally formed structure to a non-integrally formed one was within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest the glue material or pillar of claims 3-4 and 15-16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 7-8, filed 5.8.2026, with respect to overcoming the previous 35 USC 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims 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. The examiner now relies on Takano et al. (of record, US 6376907 B1) which was previously cited.
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 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