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
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 10, 13, 15-16, 18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ge (US 20250095902 A1) and further evidenced by Trento (What Metal is a Good Conductor of Heat, 2025).
Regarding Claim 1, Ge teaches a packaged integrated circuit (IC) (20, see Figs. 2 and 4) comprising:
a package substrate (201);
an integrated circuit (IC) (202-1) on the package substrate;
a first material (material of 202, see also [0043] which describes discrete components 202-p being molded together within the device substrate 202) on the package substrate and encapsulating the IC (shown Fig. 4);
an inductor (203-1) coupled to the package substrate (shown Fig. 4);
a heat sink (203-3) including a second material (copper, see also [0041]), the heat sink coupled to the IC (coupled via 204 and 202-7, see also [0041]); and
a third material (203-5, see described materials in [0061])) on the first material and encapsulating the inductor and at least part of the heat sink (shown Fig. 4), in which the second material has a higher thermal conductivity than the first and third materials (copper being known in the art as having a high thermal conductivity, especially compared to the magnetic alloys listed in paragraph [0061] and common mold materials used in packaging, see also Trento: “Summary Table: Common Metals with Good Thermal Conductivity”).
Regarding Claim 2, Ge teaches the packaged IC of claim 1, wherein the second material is free of resin (described as copper metal, see also [0041]).
Regarding Claim 5, Ge teaches the packaged IC of claim 1, wherein the second material includes Copper (see [0041]).
Regarding Claim 6, Ge teaches the packaged IC of claim 1, wherein the heat sink includes a first portion attached to the IC (203-3b, shown Figs. 4-5,) and a second portion (203-3c) that protrudes from the first portion (shown Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 7, Ge teaches the packaged IC of claim 6, wherein the inductor includes a coil (203-1 and 203-2, described as a first and second winding in [0035]) surrounding a core region (portion of 203-5, shown Fig. 4), and the first portion extends within the core region (shown Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 10, Ge teaches the packaged IC of claim 6, wherein the first portion and second portion include the second material (see [0041]).
Regarding Claim 13, Ge teaches the packaged IC of claim 1, wherein the heat sink is laterally adjacent to the inductor (shown Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 15, Ge teaches the packaged IC of claim 1, wherein the first and third materials are different materials.
Regarding Claim 16, Ge teaches the packaged IC of claim 1, wherein the first material is an insulation material (see [0047] which describes molding conductive elements together, in which it is understood in the art that the molding material would be insulating to prevent shorting between conductive components), and the third material is a magnetic material (see [0061]).
Regarding Claim 18, Ge teaches the packaged IC of claim 1, wherein the inductor is a first inductor (203-1, see Fig. 3), and the packaged IC comprises a second inductor (203-2) coupled to the package substrate, and the third material encapsulates the second inductor (shown Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 21, Ge teaches a method comprising:
encapsulating an integrated circuit (IC) (202-1, encapsulated within 202, see also [0043] describing the components as molded together) attached to a package substrate (201) with an insulation material (see [0047] which describes molding conductive elements together, in which it is understood in the art that the molding material would be insulating to prevent shorting between conductive components);
forming solder (shown Fig. 4, see also [0040]) on first and second metal posts (202-3 and 202-4, see also [0034]) attached to the package substrate and surrounded by the insulation material (shown Fig. 4);
attaching a heat sink (203-3) to the IC (attached via 202-8 and 204 which are heat conductive portions);
attaching an inductor (203) to the solder on the first and second metal posts (shown Fig. 4); and
encapsulating the inductor and the heat sink with a magnetic material (203-5, shown Fig. 4, see also [0035]).
Regarding Claim 22, Ge teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the inductor includes a coil portion (203-1, see [0035] which describes a “winding”), and the heat sink includes a first portion (203-3b, shown Fig. 4) and a second portion (203-3c, shown Fig. 3), and wherein:
attaching the heat sink to the IC includes attaching the first portion to the IC (shown Fig. 4, wherein portion 203-3b is attached to the IC via conductive portions 202-8 and 204); and
attaching the inductor to the solder on the first and second metal posts includes placing the coil portion over the first portion (shown Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stemmermann (US 20210222043 A1).
Regarding Claim 24, Stemmermann teaches a heat sink (210, shown Fig. 2) comprising:
a first portion (central portion) including a magnetic material (see described in [0063-0065] which lists ferromagnetic alloys) the first portion attachable to a surface of an integrated circuit (220); and
a second portion (portions extending laterally outside the central portion) including the magnetic material and protruding away from the first portion (shown Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 25, Stemmermann teaches the heat sink of claim 24, wherein the magnetic material is free of resin (see [0065], wherein the magnetic material is interpreted as the ferromagnetic alloy material).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3-4, 8, 11-12 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge (US 20250095902 A1) in further view of Stemmermann (US 20210222043 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Ge teaches the packaged IC of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the second material includes metal particles each coated with an insulation layer.
Stemmermann teaches a heat sink material composition (see [0064-0068]) comprising metal particles (see [0065]) each coated with an insulation layer (see [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the material of Ge, specifically by implementing a material including a ferromagnetic core coated with a non-conductive coating as this would provide high thermal conductivity while ‘eliminating risk of shorts’ (see Stemmermann: [0060], [0066], [0102]) and further enable the material to be ‘directly applicable to a component’ (see also Stemmermann: [0085]).
As applied to Ge, this modification would teach the second material including metal particles each coated with an insulation layer.
Regarding Claim 4, Ge as modified by Stemmermann teaches the packaged IC of claim 3, wherein the metal particles include at least one of:
iron particles, aluminum particles, or chromium particles (see [0065]).
Regarding Claim 8, Ge teaches the packaged IC of claim 7, but does not explicitly teach wherein the second material includes a magnetic material.
Stemmermann teaches a heat sink material composition (see [0064-0068]) comprising metal particles (see [0065]) each coated with an insulation layer (see [0068]), wherein the metal particles are magnetic (see also [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the material of Ge, specifically by implementing a material including a ferromagnetic core coated with a non-conductive coating as this would provide high thermal conductivity while ‘eliminating risk of shorts’ (see Stemmermann: [0060], [0066], [0102]) and further enable the material to be ‘directly applicable to a component’ (see also Stemmermann: [0085]).
As applied to Ge, this modification would teach the second material including a magnetic material.
Regarding Claim 11, Ge teaches the packaged IC of claim 6, wherein the second portion includes a fourth material (copper, see [0041]) having a higher thermal conductivity than each of the first and third materials, but does not explicitly teach a fourth material including a different material than a second material.
Stemmermann teaches a heat sink material composition (see [0064-0068]) comprising metal particles (see [0065]) each coated with an insulation layer (see [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the heat sink of Ge by implementing multiple materials as suggested by Stemmermann, specifically by modifying the first portion to comprise a ferromagnetic core coated with a non-conductive coating as this would provide high thermal conductivity while ‘eliminating risk of shorts’ (see Stemmermann: [0060], [0066], [0102]) and further enable the material to be ‘directly applicable to a component’ (see also Stemmermann: [0085]) while retaining optimal bulk heat dissipation of Ge’s copper heat sink in the second protruding portion.
As applied to Ge, this modification would teach that a fourth material (copper) includes a different material than a second material (ferromagnetic core coated with a non-conductive coating).
Regarding Claim 12, Ge as modified by Stemmermann teaches the packaged IC of claim 11, wherein the fourth material includes Copper.
Regarding Claim 23, Ge teaches the method of claim 21, but does not explicitly teach wherein the heat sink includes a material having a higher magnetic permeability than the insulation material.
Stemmermann teaches a heat sink material composition (see [0064-0068]) comprising metal particles (see [0065]) each coated with an insulation layer (see [0068]), wherein the metal particles are magnetic (see also [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the heat sink of Ge by implementing multiple materials as suggested by Stemmermann, specifically by modifying a first portion to comprise a ferromagnetic core coated with a non-conductive coating as this would provide high thermal conductivity while ‘eliminating risk of shorts’ (see Stemmermann: [0060], [0066], [0102]) and further enable the material to be ‘directly applicable to a component’ (see also Stemmermann: [0085]) while retaining optimal bulk heat dissipation of Ge’s copper heat sink in a second protruding portion.
As applied to Ge, this modification would teach that the heat sink includes a material (ferromagnetic metal particles) having a higher magnetic permeability than the insulation material (wherein ferromagnetic metals are known to have high relative magnetic permeability orders of magnitude greater than that of an insulator).
Claim(s) 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge (US 20250095902 A1) in further view of Zhang (US 20200373217 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Ge teaches the packaged IC of claim 6, wherein the inductor includes a coil surrounding a core region extending away from the IC (shown Fig. 4), but does not explicitly teach the second portion extending within the core region.
Zhang teaches an inductor assembly (100, shown Fig. 1A) being integrated with a heat transfer portion wherein a conductor (160) is provided between separate magnetic cores (120) of an inductor assembly which advantageously improves heat dissipation (see [0031]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to further extend a portion of the heat sink of Ge to extend within the core region and between adjacent inductor assemblies as this would improve heat removal efficiency (see also Zhang: [0031]).
Regarding Claim 19, Ge teaches the packaged IC of claim 18, wherein the heat sink includes a first portion (203-3b and 203-4b)) attached to the IC (shown Figs. 3-4), a second portion (203-3c) orthogonal to the first portion and extending away from the IC, and a third portion (203-4c) orthogonal to the first portion.
Ge does not explicitly teach the second portion extending between the first and second inductors.
Zhang teaches an inductor assembly (100, shown Fig. 1A) being integrated with a heat transfer portion wherein a conductor (160) is provided between separate magnetic cores (120) of an inductor assembly which advantageously improves heat dissipation (see [0031]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to further extend a portion of the heat sink of Ge to extend within the core region and between adjacent inductor assemblies as this would improve heat removal efficiency (see also Zhang: [0031]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge (US 20250095902 A1) in further view of Li (US 20220418174 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Ge teaches the packaged IC of claim 1, wherein a third material includes a FeNi powder material (see [0061]) but is silent regarding a material selection used to mold components 202-p together.
Li teaches a package (shown Fig. 4) wherein a mold material consists of a resin and a shielding material, such as metal particles (see Li: [0013], which lists a nickel-iron alloy particle) each coated with an insulating layer (see Li: [0015]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to implement the mold composition described by Li to be the first material of Ge as this would improve shielding of the integrated circuit (see also Li: [0042]).
As applied to Ge, this modification would teach wherein the first and third materials are the same material.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge (US 20250095902 A1) in further view of Li (US 20220418174 A1) and further in view of Ravichandran (US 20230395305 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Ge teaches the packaged IC of claim 16, wherein the magnetic material includes metal particles (see [0061]). Ge is silent regarding a material selection of the first material.
Li teaches a package (shown Fig. 4) wherein a mold material consists of a resin and a shielding material, such as metal particles (see Li: [0013], which lists a nickel-iron alloy particle) each coated with an insulating layer (see Li: [0015]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to implement the mold composition described by Li to be the first material of Ge as this would improve shielding of the integrated circuit (see also Li: [0042]).
As applied to Ge, this would teach wherein the insulation material includes non-electrically conductive particles and a first epoxy resin in which the non-electrically conductive particles are suspended.
Ge and Li do not explicitly teach the magnetic material including a second epoxy resin in which the metal particles are suspended.
Ravichandran teaches a magnetic core of an inductor including metal particles which are suspended in a polymer matrix (i.e., an epoxy resin, see also Ravichandran: [0059] and Ravichandran: [0076]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to implement the metal particles of Ge to be suspended within a polymer matrix epoxy resin as disclosed by Ravichandran as this would provide a binding material to suspend the magnetic particles (see also Ravichandran: [0059]).
As applied to Ge, this modification would teach the magnetic material including a second epoxy resin in which the metal particles are suspended.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge (US 20250095902 A1) in view of Zhang (US 20200373217 A1) and further in view of Stemmermann (US 20210222043 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Ge as modified by Zhang teaches the packaged IC of claim 19, but does not explicitly teach wherein the first portion of the heat sink has a higher magnetic permeability than the first material.
Stemmermann teaches a heat sink material composition (see [0064-0068]) comprising metal particles (see [0065]) each coated with an insulation layer (see [0068]), wherein the metal particles are magnetic (see also [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the heat sink of Ge by implementing multiple materials as suggested by Stemmermann, specifically by modifying a first portion to comprise a ferromagnetic core coated with a non-conductive coating as this would provide high thermal conductivity while ‘eliminating risk of shorts’ (see Stemmermann: [0060], [0066], [0102]) and further enable the material to be ‘directly applicable to a component’ (see also Stemmermann: [0085]) while retaining optimal bulk heat dissipation of Ge’s copper heat sink in a second protruding portion.
As applied to Ge, this modification would teach that the heat sink includes a material (ferromagnetic metal particles) having a higher magnetic permeability than the insulation material (wherein ferromagnetic metals are known to have high relative magnetic permeability orders of magnitude greater than that of an insulator).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY PAUL BOATMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4778. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM ET.
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, Britt Hanley can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/C.P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/Britt Hanley/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights