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 .
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.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file, as electronically retrieved 01/06/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/10/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-12, 14, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (PG Pub 2021/0020505; hereinafter Jang) and Arnold et al. (PG Pub 2017/0170441; hereinafter Arnold).
PNG
media_image1.png
700
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1 and claim 3, refer to Fig. 3 and Fig. 5 (primary emphasis on Fig. 5) provided above, Jang teaches an electronic device 2, comprising:
at least one chip unit (annotated “chip unit”);
a circuit structure 100 electrically connected to the at least one chip unit (see Fig. 5); and
a heat dissipation layer 103/f1 disposed at a side (e.g. top side) of the at least one chip unit opposite to the circuit structure (see Fig. 3 and Fig. 5),
wherein the heat dissipation layer comprises an insulating material layer 103 and a plurality of silicon carbide particles f1, the insulating material layer clads the plurality of silicon carbide particles (see Fig. 3).
Although, Jang teaches the heat dissipation layer comprises an “insulating material layer and a plurality of silicon carbide particles, he does not teach (Regarding claim 1) the plurality of silicon carbide particles have rounded-corner structures; (Regarding claim 3) wherein the heat dissipation layer further comprises a plurality of silicon dioxide particles, and the insulating material layer clads the plurality of silicon dioxide particles.
PNG
media_image2.png
248
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the same field of endeavor, refer to Fig. 1 provided above, Arnold teaches a heat dissipation material composition 5,6 comprising:
(Regarding claim 1) an insulating material 6 layer and a plurality of silicon carbide particles 5; wherein the plurality of silicon carbide particles have rounded-corner structures (para [0102]; “Examples of ceramic particle shapes usable in various embodiments include, but are not limited to, a simple sphere or a more complicated shape such as a zeolite.”);
(Regarding claim 3) wherein the heat dissipation layer further comprises a plurality of silicon dioxide particles, and the insulating material layer clads the plurality of silicon dioxide particles (para [0031]; see below).
Para [0031]; “distributed uniformly throughout the UV or EB cured matrix, and includes at least one thermally conductive material that is electrically insulating. In some embodiments, the ceramic particulate material is an aluminum oxide (e.g., aluminum oxide (Al.sub.2O.sub.3), aluminum oxide hydroxide, etc.), aluminum trihydroxide, silicon oxide, silicon carbide, titanium dioxide, magnesium oxide, boron nitride, magnesium silicate hydroxide, or a combination thereof, and the one or more precursors include a UV water-based mixture, UV curable epoxy, UV curable silicone, UV curable urethane, UV curable rubber, UV curable thioester, acrylated water based resin blend, acrylated polyurethane, acrylated rubber, acrylated monomer, cycloaliphatic epoxy terminated oligomers, cycloaliphatic epoxy terminated monomers, acrylated terminated oligomers, acrylated terminated monomers, or a combination thereof.”
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the heat dissipation member of Jang comprise both a plurality of silicon carbide particles and a plurality of silicon dioxide particles, as taught by Arnold, to provide an electrically insulating material composition capable of providing increased strength and protection to the device.
Regarding claim 2, refer to the figures cites above, Jang and Arnold teach the insulating material layer (103-Jang = 6-Arnold) comprises organic materials (para [0031]).
Regarding claim 4, refer to the figures cites above, in the combination of Jang and Arnold, Arnold teaches a ratio of a solid content of the plurality of silicon dioxide particles to a solid content of the plurality of silicon carbide particles ranges from 0 to 0.4 (para [0025]-Arnold).
Regarding claim 5, refer to the figures cites above, Jang and Arnold teach the heat dissipation layer; wherein a thermal expansion coefficient of the heat dissipation layer ranges from 3 to 15 ppm/°C.
The recitations to “a thermal expansion coefficient of the heat dissipation layer ranges from 3 to 15 ppm/°C” are properties and/or characteristics or the material compositions. The applied prior art, teaching a substantially identical apparatus, renders the claimed apparatus unpatentable because the claimed properties and characteristics (i.e., the thermal expansion coefficient of the heat dissipation layer) are presumed inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.
According to the MPEP 2112.01(I) (Product and Apparatus Claims --- When the Structure Recited in the Reference is Substantially Identical to that of the Claims, Claimed Properties or Functions Are Presumed to be Inherent):
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252,1255,195 USPQ 430,433 (CCPA1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709,15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Applicant may rebut this finding by proving the prior art apparatus and the claimed apparatus are not substantially identical or by proving the prior art apparatus does not possess the claimed properties and characteristics. See esp. In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971) (holding a claim anticipated, even though the claimed panels were limited by properties and functions not within the prior art, because appellants failed to show the prior art did not possess the characteristics claimed); see also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (a claimed compound’s claimed property, albeit the property newly discovered, did not patentably distinguish from the prior art compound that met the claimed compound); see also, MPEP 2112.01(II). Applicant is reminded that argument of counsel is not evidence. MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 6, refer to the figures cites above, Jang and Arnold teach the heat dissipation layer; wherein thermal conductivity of the heat dissipation layer ranges from 50 to 300 W/mK..
The recitations to “a thermal conductivity of the heat dissipation layer ranges from 50 to 300 W/mK.” are properties and/or characteristics or the material compositions. The applied prior art, teaching a substantially identical apparatus, renders the claimed apparatus unpatentable because the claimed properties and characteristics (i.e., the thermal expansion coefficient of the heat dissipation layer) are presumed inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.
According to the MPEP 2112.01(I) (Product and Apparatus Claims --- When the Structure Recited in the Reference is Substantially Identical to that of the Claims, Claimed Properties or Functions Are Presumed to be Inherent):
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252,1255,195 USPQ 430,433 (CCPA1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709,15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Applicant may rebut this finding by proving the prior art apparatus and the claimed apparatus are not substantially identical or by proving the prior art apparatus does not possess the claimed properties and characteristics. See esp. In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971) (holding a claim anticipated, even though the claimed panels were limited by properties and functions not within the prior art, because appellants failed to show the prior art did not possess the characteristics claimed); see also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (a claimed compound’s claimed property, albeit the property newly discovered, did not patentably distinguish from the prior art compound that met the claimed compound); see also, MPEP 2112.01(II). Applicant is reminded that argument of counsel is not evidence. MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 9, refer to the figures cites above, in the combination of Jang and Arnold, Jang teaches the heat dissipation layer (“heat dissipate”) surrounds the at least one chip unit (“chip unit”).
Regarding claim 10, refer to the figures cites above, in the combination of Jang and Arnold, Arnold teaches a particle size of the plurality of silicon carbide particles is greater than or equal to 0.02 micrometers and less than or equal to 55 micrometers (para [0030]; “…particles do not contain any particles having a size larger than 10 μm.”).
Regarding claim 11, refer to the figures cites above, in the combination of Jang and Arnold, Jang teaches a bonding pad 111 electrically connected to the at least one chip unit (“chip unit”) through the circuit structure 100 (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 12, refer to the figures cites above, in the combination of Jang and Arnold, Jang teaches the at least one chip unit (“chip unit”) includes a chip 101, a first insulating layer 101a and a second insulating layer 112, and the first insulating layer is disposed between the chip and the second insulating layer (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 14, refer to the figures cites above, in the combination of Jang and Arnold, Jang teaches a thickness of the first insulating layer 101a is less than a thickness of the second insulating layer 112 (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 17, refer to the figures cites above, in the combination of Jang and Arnold, Jang teaches at least one heat dissipation element 205, wherein the heat dissipation layer (“heat dissipate”) is disposed between the at least one heat dissipation element and the circuit structure 100 (see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 20, refer to the figures cites above, in the combination of Jang and Arnold, Jang teaches the at least one heat dissipation element 205 includes heat sink (para [0075]).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang and Arnold, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Komori et al. (PG Pub 2006/0068159; hereinafter Komori).
Regarding claim 7, refer to the figures cites above, in the combination of Jang and Arnold, Jang teaches the plurality of silicon carbide particles f1, he does not explicitly teach the structure of the silicon carbide particles such that they have monocrystal structures.
In the same field of endeavor, Komori teaches a monocrystal silicon carbide powder having a mean particle size of 4µm (para [0213]).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the silicon carbide particles comprise monocrystal structures, as taught by Komori, as a common and well understood silicon carbide structure.
Claim(s) 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang and Arnold, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Nakamura et al. (PG Pub 2014/0021625; hereinafter Nakamura).
Regarding claim 13, refer to the figures cites above, in the combination of Jang and Arnold, Jang teaches the stacked first and second insulating layers, Jang does not explicitly teach “a thermal expansion coefficient of the first insulating layer is less than a thermal expansion coefficient of the second insulating layer.
PNG
media_image3.png
258
472
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In the same field of endeavor, refer to Fig. 1-provided above, Nakamura teaches a wiring substrate 10 comprising: a thermal expansion coefficient of a first insulating layer 19 is less than a thermal expansion coefficient of a second insulating layer 17 (para [0043]; “Accordingly, the thermal expansion coefficients of the insulating layers 15, 17 (insulating layers having the first insulating material as the main component) are set to be larger than the thermal expansion coefficients of the insulating layers 19, 21 (insulating layers having the second insulating material as the main component”).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the thermal expansion coefficients of the first and second insulating layers of Jang, such the thermal expansion coefficient of a first insulating layer is less than a thermal expansion coefficient of a second insulating layer, as taught by Nakamura, to reduce warping of the wiring substrate (para [0012]).
Regarding claim 16, refer to the figures cites above, in the combination of Jang and Arnold, Jang teaches the stacked first and second insulating layers, Jang does not explicitly teach “the thickness of the second insulating layer ranges from 5 micrometers to 30 micrometers.”
In the same field of endeavor, refer to Fig. 1-provided above, Nakamura teaches a wiring substrate 10 comprising: a thickness of a second insulating layer 15 ranges from 20-40 µm (para [0022]); which overlaps the claimed range of 5 micrometers to 30 micrometers.
According to MPEP § 2144.05 a prima facie case of Obviousness exists where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art." Further support for overlapping ranges can be found in In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and support for ranges that lie completely inside the claimed range can be found in In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify thickness of Jang’s first insulating layer to 5-30 µms, as taught by Nakamura, for the purpose of choosing a suitable and well recognized insulating thickness.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang and Arnold, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Hong et al. (PG Pub 2021/0225753; hereinafter Hong).
Regarding claim 15, refer to the figures cites above, in the combination of Jang and Arnold, Jang teaches the first insulating layer 101a has a thickness (see Fig. 5). Jang does not explicitly teach the thickness of the first insulating layer ranges from 0.5 micrometers to 3 micrometers.
In the same field of endeavor, refer to Fig. xxx-provided above, Lin teaches a semiconductor device comprising: a first insulating layer 20; wherein a thickness of the first insulating layer ranges from 0.5 micrometers to 3 micrometers (para [0081]).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the thickness of the first insulating layer ranges from 0.5 micrometers to 3 micrometers, as taught by Lin, to provide a suitable and well known insulating thickness.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang and Arnold, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Im et al. (PG Pub 2021/0296198; hereinafter Im).
Regarding claim 18, refer to the figures cites above, in the combination of Jang and Arnold, Jang teaches the at least one heat dissipation element 205; Jang does not each the heat dissipation element includes a plurality of silicon carbide particles.
In the same field of endeavor, Im teaches a heat dissipation layer may include a plurality of particles, and the particles may include silicon carbide (SiC) (para [0007]).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the heat dissipation element include a plurality of silicon carbide particles, as taught by Im, for the purpose of choosing a suitable and well-recognized heat dissipating material composition.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang and Arnold, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Hong et al. (PG Pub 2021/0225753; hereinafter Hong).
Regarding claim 19, refer to the figures cites above, in the combination of Jang and Arnold, Jang teaches the at least one heat dissipation element 205 includes heat sink (para [0075]). Jang does not teach the at least one heat dissipation element includes water-cooling system.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hong teaches/recognizes a heat dissipation element may include, a heat sink or a water-cooling heat sink (para [0080]); which are art recognized equivalents.
According to MPEP 2144.06 (II), "In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art" In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958); wherein an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). (see also Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980 and 209 USPQ at 759.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to substitute the heat sink of Jang with the water cooling heat sink of Hong, to obtain the same desired outcome.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 8 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:
Claim 8 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 8, one of the plurality of silicon carbide particles has a long axis and a short axis, and a ratio of a length of the short axis to a length of the long axis ranges from 0.8 to 1. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Prior Art
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a. Kao et al. (PG Pub 2024/0237195) teaches an electronic device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christina A Sylvia whose telephone number is (571)272-7474. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm (M-F).
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached on 571-272-2063. 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.
/CHRISTINA A SYLVIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/MARLON T FLETCHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights