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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the filing of the Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment on 02/25/2026. Currently, claims 1-15 are pending in the application.
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.
Claim 1-15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hung et al (US 20230071418 A1) in view of Andry et al (US 20060180924 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
270
495
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Figure 66 (please see the annotated Figure above for the Labels) of Hung discloses a microchannel structure ([0171]) comprising:
a plate layer (PL, 920a ) formed of a first material (metal, [0191]); and
a plurality of heatsink structures (vertical pillar structures on PL) vertically extending from the plate layer, each of the plurality of heatsink structures comprising:
a bottom structure (BL) disposed on the plate layer (PL) and formed of the first material ([0191], metal);
a buried structure (JL, 920d, connector, [0191]) disposed on the bottom structure and formed of a second material (solder material, [0191]), wherein the second material has etching selectivity with respect to the first material (one is solder material and the other one is metal and the selectivity is different since the materials are different, [0191]); and
a top structure (TL) disposed on the buried structure and formed of the first material, wherein a plurality of microchannels (TR, spaces between the vertical structure) are formed between the plurality of heatsink structures.
Hund does not teach that the first material (PL or BL or TL) comprises silicon.
However, Andry is a pertinent art which teaches an apparatus and methods are provided for integrating microchannel cooling modules within high-density electronic modules (e.g., chip packages, system-on-a-package modules, etc.,) comprising multiple high-performance IC chips. Electronic modules are designed such that high-performance (high power) IC chips are disposed in close proximity to the integrated cooling module (or cooling plate) for effective heat extraction. Andry further teaches that the microchannel cooling device (505) extends over the IC chips and is approximately the same size, or slightly larger than, the intermediate carrier substrate (502). The microchannel and manifold plates (506) and (507) may be formed from silicon substrates, or other materials having TCE that matches the TCE of the material forming the IC chips (503) and (504) ([0042]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use silicon instead of metal as the first material in the structure of Hung according to the teaching of Andry in order to effectively cooling high-density and/or high-performance IC chip packages and modules ([0004] of Andry) with lower cost, and further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material such as silicon instead of metal on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Moreover, the court has held that a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Figure 66 (please see the annotated Figure above for the Labels) of Hung discloses that the microchannel structure of claim 1, wherein one of a depth, a width, or a shape of the plurality of microchannels (TR) is substantially uniform across the plurality of microchannels.
Regarding claim 3, Figure 66 (please see the annotated Figure above for the Labels) of Hung discloses that the microchannel structure of claim 1, wherein one of a depth, a width, or a shape of the plurality of heatsink structures is substantially uniform across the plurality of heatsink structures (structures above PL is uniform).
Regarding claim 4, Figure 66 (please see the annotated Figure above for the Labels) of Hung discloses that the microchannel structure of claim 1, wherein the buried structure (JL) is disposed at a first distance from the plate layer (PL).
Regarding claim 7, Figure 66 (please see the annotated Figure above for the Labels) of Hung discloses a structure comprising:
a plate layer (PL, 920a) formed of a first material ([0191], metal); and
a plurality of heatsink structures (BL+JL+TL, vertical pillar structures on PL) vertically extending from the plate layer (PL) and formed of the first material, each of the plurality of heatsink structures comprising a buried structure (JL) disposed therein at a first distance from the plate layer (PL), the buried structure formed of a second material (920d, solder material, [0191]), wherein the second material has etching selectivity with respect to the first material (one is solder material and the other one is metal and the selectivity is different since the materials are different, [0191]);
wherein a plurality of microchannels (TR, spaces between BL+JL+TL) are uniformly disposed between the plurality of heatsink structures.
Hund does not teach that the first material (PL or BL or TL) comprises silicon.
However, Andry is a pertinent art which teaches an apparatus and methods are provided for integrating microchannel cooling modules within high-density electronic modules (e.g., chip packages, system-on-a-package modules, etc.,) comprising multiple high-performance IC chips. Electronic modules are designed such that high-performance (high power) IC chips are disposed in close proximity to the integrated cooling module (or cooling plate) for effective heat extraction. Andry further teaches that the microchannel cooling device (505) extends over the IC chips and is approximately the same size, or slightly larger than, the intermediate carrier substrate (502). The microchannel and manifold plates (506) and (507) may be formed from silicon substrates, or other materials having TCE that matches the TCE of the material forming the IC chips (503) and (504) ([0042]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use silicon instead of metal as the first material in the structure of Hung according to the teaching of Andry in order to effectively cooling high-density and/or high-performance IC chip packages and modules ([0004] of Andry) with lower cost, and further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material such as silicon instead of metal on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Moreover, the court has held that a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Regarding claim 9, Figure 66 (please see the annotated Figure above for the Labels) of Hung discloses that the structure of claim 7, comprising a thermal interface material (horizontal bars 920a in the Figure) disposed above each of the plurality of heatsink structures.
Regarding claims 5-6, 8, 10-12, Figure 66 (please see the annotated Figure above for the Labels) of Hung does not teach that the microchannel structure of claim 4, wherein the first distance ranges from 50 μm to 200 μm. Or
The microchannel structure of claim 4, wherein the first distance is smaller than 50 μm. Or
The structure of claim 7, wherein: the first distance ranges from 50 μm to 200 μm, and the second material comprises one of silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, or gallium oxide; or the first distance is smaller than 50 μm, and the second material comprises metal ([0191], 902d is solder metal). Or
The structure of claim 7, wherein a height of the plurality of heatsink structures ranges from 500 μm to 800 μm. Or
The structure of claim 7, wherein a width of the plurality of heatsink structures ranges from 30 μm to 70 μm, and wherein a pitch of the plurality of heatsink structures ranges from 70 μm to 130 μm. Or
The structure of claim 7, wherein a thickness of the buried structure ranges from 0.5 μm to 3 μm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use the above claimed ranges in order to improve the heat dissipation with lower cost and further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 13, Figure 66 (please see the annotated Figure above for the Labels) of Hung discloses a structure comprising:
a plate layer (PL, 920a) formed of a first material ([0191], metal);
a buried layer (JL, 920d) disposed on the plate layer and formed of a second material ([0191], solder material), wherein the second material has etching selectivity with respect to the first material (one is solder material and the other one is metal and the selectivity is different since the materials are different, [0191]);
a top layer (TL, 920b) disposed on the buried layer and formed of the first material; and
a plurality of microchannels (TR, spaces between vertical pillar, [0178]), wherein one of a depth, a width, or a shape of the plurality of microchannels is substantially uniform across the plurality of microchannels.
Hung does not teach that the microchannels are formed by etching of a portion of the plate layer, a portion of the buried layer, or a portion of the top layer.
However, this above limitation is merely a product-by-process limitation that does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art of Hung who teaches the structure as claimed. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
Hund does not teach that the first material (PL or BL or TL) comprises silicon.
However, Andry is a pertinent art which teaches an apparatus and methods are provided for integrating microchannel cooling modules within high-density electronic modules (e.g., chip packages, system-on-a-package modules, etc.,) comprising multiple high-performance IC chips. Electronic modules are designed such that high-performance (high power) IC chips are disposed in close proximity to the integrated cooling module (or cooling plate) for effective heat extraction. Andry further teaches that the microchannel cooling device (505) extends over the IC chips and is approximately the same size, or slightly larger than, the intermediate carrier substrate (502). The microchannel and manifold plates (506) and (507) may be formed from silicon substrates, or other materials having TCE that matches the TCE of the material forming the IC chips (503) and (504) ([0042]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use silicon instead of metal as the first material in the structure of Hung according to the teaching of Andry in order to effectively cooling high-density and/or high-performance IC chip packages and modules ([0004] of Andry) with lower cost, and further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material such as silicon instead of metal on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Moreover, the court has held that a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Regarding claim 14, Figure 66 (please see the annotated Figure above for the Labels) of Hung discloses that the structure of claim 13, wherein the second material comprises one of silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, gallium oxide, or metal (JL, solder of metal, [0191]).
Regarding claim 15, Hung does not teach that the structure of claim 13, wherein the etching of a portion of the plate layer comprises first etching to etch the portion of the top layer and second etching to etch the portion of the plate layer.
However, this above limitation is merely a product-by-process limitation that does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art of Hung who teaches the structure as claimed. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s main argument regarding claims 1, 7 and 13 include: Figure 66 of Hung discloses a plate layer (PL, 920a) formed of a first material (metal) and a buried structure (JL, 920d, connector) formed of a second material (solder material). Hung's connectors 920d are solder joints used to mechanically connect pre- formed build-up layers (See Hung, paragraph [0191]). These solder connectors are not materials selected for etching selectivity with respect to silicon. Thus, Hung does not disclose a microchannel structure where the first material comprises silicon and the second material has etching selectivity with respect to the first material, Hung fails to anticipate claims 1, 7 or 13 as amended.
In response, the Examiner respectfully points out the first material and the second materials are different according to Hung and there will be inherent difference in etching selectivity due to the difference in material. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use silicon instead of metal as the first material in the structure of Hung (Figure 66) according to the teaching of Andry, wherein the first material comprises silicon and the second material (solder material, [0191] of Hung) has etching selectivity with respect to the first material.
Examiner Notes
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
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 extension fee 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 KHAJA AHMAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7991. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Time).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, GAUTHIER STEVEN B, can be reached on (571)270-0373. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KHAJA AHMAD/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813