Email Communication
Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502.02, 502.03.
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant's submission filed on 02/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Applicant originally submitted Claims 1-13 in the application. In the previous response, the Applicant amended Claims 1 and 9, and cancelled Claim 8. In the present response, the Applicant amended Claims 1 and 2. Accordingly, Claims 1-7 and 9-13 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filled 02/25/2026, with respect to rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive, therefore the rejection has been withdrawn, however upon further search and consideration a new grounds of rejection has been set forth below necessitated by Applicant’s amendment to Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With respect to Claim 1, Term limitation “wherein the encapsulant has a third height, and the third height is greater than or equal to the first height and the second height” in Claim 1 renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear whether the third height being greater than or equal to the first height plus the second height or the third height being greater than or equal to the first height or the second height.
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 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Otsubo et al (US 2022/0159825) in view of Mishrikey et al (US 2014/0211421).
Regarding Claim 1, Otsubo (In Fig 4) discloses a package structure (101), comprising:
a substrate (1), having a bearing surface (Fig 4);
an electronic component (41), disposed on the bearing surface (Fig 4), and substrate pads (7) on the bearing surface (Fig 4); wherein the electronic component (41) has a first height (Fig 4);
at least one heat conductor (9), disposed on the bearing surface (Fig 4), wherein the at least one heat conductor (9) has a second height (Fig 4);
an encapsulant (6a), disposed on the bearing surface, and having a side covering the electronic component (41) and the at least one heat conductor (9), (Fig 4), wherein the encapsulant (6a) has a third height (Fig 4), and the third height is greater than or equal to the first height and the second height (Fig 4); and
a heat dissipation structure (8), disposed on the encapsulant (6a), (Fig 4),
wherein a surrounding area where the substrate is in contact with the electronic component defines a heat-generating area (upper surface of 1), and the at least one heat conductor (9) is disposed in the heat- generating area (upper surface of 1), (Fig 4), and the at least one heat conductor (9) is fixed on another portion of the substrate pads (7) through connectors (via conductors, ¶ 32, II. 5-12), wherein an orthogonal projection of the another portion of the substrate pads (7) on the substrate (1) is overlapped with an orthogonal projection of the heat conductor (9) on the substrate (1) but not overlapped with an orthogonal projection of the electronic component (41) on the substrate (1), (Fig 4), however Otsubo does not disclose wherein the at least one heat conductor comprises a ceramic material.
Instead, Mishrikey (In Fig 1) teaches wherein the at least one heat conductor (18) comprises a ceramic material (¶ 32, II. 1-15).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Otsubo with Mishrikey with the at least one heat conductor comprising a ceramic material to benefit from being configured to dissipate heat from the electronic device via the thermal pathway between circuit boards (Mishrikey, ¶ 20, II. 12-14).
Regarding Claim 2, Otsubo in view of Mishrikey discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Otsubo (In Fig 4) further discloses wherein a ratio of the second height to the third height is not less than 0.6 and not greater than or equal to 1 (Fig 4).
Regarding Claim 3, Otsubo in view of Mishrikey discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however where Otsubo (In Fig 4) teaches the first and third height, however Otsubo is silent with respect to wherein a difference between the third height and the first height is less than 0.3 mm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to design a difference between the third height and the first height being less than 0.3 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change.in the size of a component, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
In re.Rose, 105 USPQ 237. (CCP A 1955).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Otsubo in view of Mishrikey and further in view of Lin et al (US 2021/0193544).
Regarding Claim 4, Otsubo in view of Mishrikey discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Otsubo as modified does not disclose wherein a top surface of the encapsulant is substantially aligned with a top surface of the at least one heat conductor.
Instead Lin (In Fig 3) teaches wherein a top surface of the encapsulant (MUF) is substantially aligned with a top surface of the at least one heat conductor (40), (Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Otsubo with Mishrikey and further with Lin with a top surface of the encapsulant being substantially aligned with a top surface of the at least one heat conductor to benefit from improving in integration density having come from successive reductions in minimum feature size, which allows more components to be integrated into a given area (Lin, ¶ 1, II. 1-7).
Regarding Claim 5, Otsubo in view of Mishrikey discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Otsubo as modified does not disclose wherein the package structure further comprising: a heat interface material, disposed between the heat dissipation structure and the encapsulant.
Instead Lin (In Fig 3) teaches wherein the package structure (2) further comprising: a heat interface material (52), disposed between the heat dissipation structure (50) and the encapsulant (MUF), (Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Otsubo with Mishrikey and further with Lin with the package structure further comprising: a heat interface material, disposed between the heat dissipation structure and the encapsulant to benefit from increasing heat dissipation and thereby reducing package warpage (Lin, ¶ 30, II. 2-4).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Otsubo in view of Mishrikey and further in view of Choi et al (US 2009/0273076).
Regarding Claim 9, Otsubo in view of Mishrikey discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Otsubo as modified does not disclose wherein the ceramic material comprises aluminum nitride, boron nitride, indium nitride, or boron arsenide.
Instead Choi (In Fig 12) teaches wherein the ceramic material comprises aluminum nitride, boron nitride, indium nitride, or boron arsenide (¶ 70, II. 1-8).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Otsubo with Mishrikey and further with Choi with the ceramic material comprises aluminum nitride, boron nitride, indium nitride, or boron arsenide to benefit from improving heat dissipation (Choi, ¶ 70, II. 5-6).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Otsubo in view of Mishrikey and further in view of Wan et al (US 9,633,919).
Regarding Claim 6, Otsubo in view of Mishrikey discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Otsubo as modified does not discloses wherein the substrate comprises a printed circuit board or a low temperature co-fired ceramic circuit board.
Instead, Wan (In Fig 2) teaches wherein the substrate (3) comprises a printed circuit board (Col 3, II. 46-51), (Fig 2) or a low temperature co-fired ceramic circuit board.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Otsubo with Mishrikey and further with Wan with the substrate comprising a printed circuit board to benefit from physically support and electrically connect electronic components by providing a durable, reliable and compact platform for complex circuits, eliminating the need for messy wires and simplifying assembly, maintenance and mass production of electronic devices.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Otsubo in view of Mishrikey and further in view of Choi et al (US 2017/0164460 “Kang”).
Regarding Claim 7, Otsubo in view of Mishrikey discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Otsubo as modified does not discloses wherein the substrate comprises an air gap, and an orthographic projection of the air gap on the substrate overlaps an orthographic projection of the electronic component on the substrate.
Instead, Kang (In Fig 1) teaches wherein the substrate (120) comprises an air gap (AG), (Fig 1) and an orthographic projection of the air gap (AG) on the substrate (120) overlaps an orthographic projection of the electronic component (200) on the substrate (120), (Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Otsubo with Mishrikey and further with Kang with an air gap and orthographic projection of the air gap on the substrate overlapping an orthographic projection of the electronic component on the substrate to benefit from improving heat-blocking effect from heat emitted from the electronic element to the PCB (Kang, ¶ 70, II. 1-9).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Otsubo in view of Mishrikey and further in view of Kubo (US 2025/0071906).
Regarding Claim 10, Otsubo in view of Mishrikey discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Otsubo as modified does not discloses wherein a ratio of a sum of an orthographic projection area of the at least one heat conductor on the substrate to a sum of an orthographic projection area of the electronic component on the substrate is 0.4 or more in the heat-generating area.
Instead, Kubo (In Fig 1) teaches wherein a ratio of a sum of an orthographic projection area of the at least one heat conductor (90) on the substrate (70) to a sum of an orthographic projection area of the electronic component (20) on the substrate (70) is 0.4 or more in the heat-generating area (upper surface of 70).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to design a ratio of a sum of an orthographic projection area of the at least one heat conductor on the substrate to a sum of an orthographic projection area of the electronic component on the substrate being 0.4 or more in the heat-generating area, since such a modification would have involved a mere change.in the size of a component, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
In re.Rose, 105 USPQ 237. (CCP A 1955).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Otsubo in view of Mishrikey and further in view of Wei et al (US 2022/0338369).
Regarding Claim 11, Otsubo in view of Mishrikey discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Lin as modified does not discloses wherein the electronic component is provided in plurality, and the at least one heat conductor is disposed between the adjacent electronic components.
Instead, Wei (In Fig 14) teaches wherein the electronic component (20) is provided in plurality (Fig 14), and the at least one heat conductor (50) is disposed between the adjacent electronic components (20), (Fig 14).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Otsubo with Mishrikey and further with Wei with the electronic component being provided in plurality and at least one heat conductor being disposed between the adjacent electronic components to benefit from providing a heat dissipation apparatus, a circuit board assembly, and an electronic device, to achieve relatively high heat dissipation efficiency of the heat dissipation apparatus (Wei, ¶ 6, II. 1-4).
Regarding Claim 12, Otsubo in view of Mishrikey discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Otsubo as modified does not discloses wherein the at least one heat conductor is provided in plurality, and the plurality of heat conductors are disposed around the electronic component.
Instead, Wei (In Fig 14) teaches wherein the at least one heat conductor (50) is provided in plurality (Fig 14), and the plurality of heat conductors (50) are disposed around the electronic component (20), (Fig 140.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Otsubo with Mishrikey and further with Wei with the at least one heat conductor being provided in plurality, and the plurality of heat conductors being disposed around the electronic component to benefit from providing a heat dissipation apparatus, a circuit board assembly, and an electronic device, to achieve relatively high heat dissipation efficiency of the heat dissipation apparatus (Wei, ¶ 6, II. 1-4).
Regarding Claim 13, Otsubo in view of Mishrikey discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Otsubo as modified does not discloses wherein the at least one heat conductor is integrally formed with the heat dissipation structure.
Instead Wei (In Fig 14) teaches wherein the at least one heat conductor (50) is integrally formed with the heat dissipation structure (30/31), (¶ 144, II. 1-4), (Fig 14).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Otsubo with Mishrikey and further with Wei with the at least one heat conductor being integrally formed with the heat dissipation structure to benefit from further improving the heat transfer efficiency (Wei, ¶ 144, II. 1-4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR JALALI whose telephone number is (303)297-4308. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm, Mountain Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached on 571-272-3740. 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.
/AMIR A JALALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835