The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA
DETAILED ACTION
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 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 of this title, 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, 4, 11, 13-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bet-Shliemoun (2015/0279761).Regarding claims 1 and 15, Bet-Shliemoun teaches in figure 1 and related text a chip package structure, comprising:
a PCB 16;
a chip 24 welded (with solder bumps 28) to the PCB;
a package cover 30 disposed on the PCB, the chip is packaged in the package cover;
a thermal interface material layer 32 covering the chip and attached to an inner top surface of the package cover; and
a heat sink 20 disposed on the PCB,
wherein an assembly space is formed between the heat sink and the PCB, the chip 24 and the package cover 30 are both located in the assembly space,
a contact plate (lower part of heat sink 20) is provided on a side, facing the package cover of the heat sink, a lower end face of the contact plate abuts against an outer top surface of the package cover 30 by using an abutting member 33.
Bet-Shliemoun does not teach in figure 1 that a projection of the abutting member in a height direction of the chip package structure into a region enclosed by an edge of the outer top surface of the package cover covers the chip.
Bet-Shliemoun teach in figure 4 that a projection of the abutting member 233 (at least part thereof) in a height direction of the chip package structure into a region enclosed (at least partially enclosed) by an edge of the outer top surface of the package cover 230 covers the chip.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form a projection of the abutting member in a height direction of the chip package structure into a region enclosed by an edge of the outer top surface of the package cover covers the chip, as taught by figure 4 of Bet-Shliemoun, in Bet-Shliemoun’s device, in order to improve the structural integrity of the device.
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Bet-Shliemoun teaches in figure 1 and related text that the abutting member 33 is disposed on the lower end face of the contact plate (lower part of heat sink 20) and abuts against the outer top surface of the package cover 30; and the abutting member 33 is an elastic thermal interface material member or a metal dome.
Regarding claim 11, Bet-Shliemoun does not teach that the elastic thermal interface material member is an elastic phase-change metal sheet or a silicone gasket.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form the elastic thermal interface material member as an elastic phase-change metal sheet or a silicone gasket in Bet-Shliemoun’s device, in order to simplify the proessing steps of making the device by using conventional materials.
Regarding claim 13, Bet-Shliemoun does not teach that the thermal interface material layer is a silicone layer or a graphene thermal pad.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form the thermal interface material layer is a silicone layer or a graphene thermal pad, in Bet-Shliemoun’s device, in order to simplify the proessing steps of making the device by using conventional materials.
Regarding claim 14, Bet-Shliemoun teaches in figure 1 and related text that the heat sink further comprises a fastening post, an elastic member, and a plurality of heat sink fins disposed on the contact plate, the fastening post is disposed on the PCB, an upper end of the elastic member is connected to the fastening post, a lower end of the elastic member is connected to the contact plate, and the elastic member applies elastic force to the contact plate.
Regarding claim 15, Bet-Shliemoun teaches in figures 1, 3 and related text substantially the entire claimed structure, as applied to claim 1 above, including an electronic device, comprising a mainboard 118 and a chip package structure, wherein the chip package structure is disposed on the mainboard.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicants argue that “Claim 1 requires the projection of the abutting member to be located strictly in a region enclosed by an edge of the outer top surface of the package cover. This targeted geometry concentrates downward pressing force over the chip. In contrast, thermal interface material 233 in Figure 4 of Bet-Shliemoun is a continuous layer disposed across the entire top interface between the heat sink 220 and the lid 230”.
1. Claim 1 recites “a projection of the abutting member in a height direction of the chip package structure into a region enclosed by an edge of the outer top surface of the package cover covers the chip”. Said recitation does not require the projection of the abutting member to be located strictly in a region enclosed by an edge of the outer top surface of the package cover, as argue by applicants.
Furthermore, the recitation in claim 1 does not require that “this targeted geometry” concentrates downward pressing force over the chip, as argue by applicants.
2. Applicants argue that “Modifying Bet-Shliemoun to restrict the footprint of the thermal interface material 233 to a smaller, enclosed region over the chip would decrease the surface area, thereby destroying the primary purpose of the reference's thermal interface design”.
2. The rejection does not suggest modifying the structure of figure 4. The structure of figure 4 reads on the limitations recited in claim 1.
3. Applicants argue that “Because Bet-Shliemoun neither teaches the specific structural geometry recited in claim 1, nor provides any suggestion to modify its expansive thermal interface layer into the constrained abutting member geometry claimed by Applicant, the rejection of independent claim 1 is improper”.
3. Bet-Shliemoun teaches the specific structural geometry recited in claim 1. As discussed above, Bet-Shliemoun may not teach the limitations alleged by applicants since they are not recited in claim 1.
4. Applicants argue that “dependent claims 11 and 13 respectively require the specific use of "an elastic phase-change metal sheet or a silicone gasket" and "a silicone layer or a graphene thermal pad". The Examiner concedes that Bet-Shliemoun does not teach these specific elements. However, the Examiner makes the conclusory assertion that it would have been obvious to utilize these structures simply because they are allegedly "conventional materials".
Applicant respectfully traverses this conclusion. It is well established that an Examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. The Examiner has cited no secondary reference or documentary evidence establishing that elastic phase-change metal sheets, silicone gaskets, or graphene thermal pads are known or conventional substitutes for the liquid coolants, thermal epoxies, or metal thermal interfaces explicitly described in Bet- Shliemoun. An assertion of obviousness cannot be sustained on unsupported statements of conventionality”.
4. Regarding the claimed limitations of using specific materials, it is noted that substitution of materials is not patentable even when the substitution is new and useful. Safetran Systems Corp. v. Federal Sign & Signal Corp. (DC NIII, 1981) 215 USPQ 979. It is further held that it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
When an Examiner relies on official notice, in order to adequately traverse the finding Appellants “must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art.” MPEP § 2144.03(C).
If applicants traverse the assertion that the claimed materials are within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, applicants will receive evidence in the next office action of the suitability of said materials.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ORI NADAV whose telephone number is 571-272-1660. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 7 AM to 4 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
O.N. /ORI NADAV/
6/28/2026 PRIMARY EXAMINER
TECHNOLOGY CENTER 2800
Prosecution Insights