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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the Invention I, Species I, claims 1-9 and 11 in the reply filed on 01/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that, allegedly, “it would not require serious burden to examine” all inventions and species. This is not found persuasive because the aforementioned statement is conclusory. On the other hand the Office has provided detailed explanation why the inventions and species would require a serious search and/or examination burden (e.g., see pp. 4-7 of the Restriction-Election requirement of 11/24/2025). Also, the Restriction-Election requirement clearly states that should the Applicant traverse then “applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them (species) to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case” and “should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case.” (emphasis in the original).
However, the Applicant has failed to do so. Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The nonelected claims 10 and 12-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration on the merits. The Office action on elected claims 1-9 and 11 follows.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitations: “at least one heat dissipation element, wherein the heat dissipation layer is disposed between the at least one heat dissipation element and the circuit structure”. These limitations render the claim indefinite, since they contradict the disclosure’s Fig. 1 (elected species), which depicts that the heat dissipation layer (HD) is disposed between the chip unit (CU) and the heat dissipation adhesive (HDL).
Since dependent claim 9 inherits the aforementioned problem(s) of the parent claim 8, it was also rejected along with said claim 8.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0125822 to Adebiyi et al. (hereafter “Adebiyi”) taken alone, or alternatively, in view of US 2011/0044004 to Garosshen et al. (hereafter “Garosshen”), CN 108206178A to Cheng et al. (hereafter “Cheng”, cited in IDS), scientific publication “The role of chemical disorder and structural freedom in radiation-induced amorphization of silicon carbide deduced from electron spectroscopy and ab initio simulations” to Leide et al. (hereafter “Leide”), and scientific publication "Silicon Carbide Technology", NASA Glenn Research Center to Philip G. Neudeck (hereafter Neudeck).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Adebiyi discloses (Figs. 1 and 2) an electronic device, comprising: at least one chip unit (210, 220, 222, 242); a circuit structure (116) electrically connected to the at least one chip unit; and a heat dissipation layer (254) disposed at a side of the at least one chip unit opposite to the circuit structure, wherein the heat dissipation layer (254) includes an organic insulating material layer (par. [0040]) and a plurality of silicon [particles (par. [0040]).
Adebiyi does not disclose that the particles are silicon carbide particles having monocrystal structures.
Since monocrystal silicon carbide has been notoriously known in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as material having excellent thermal conduction and high thermal stability, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any suitable known material, including as claimed, for the particles of Adebiyi, in order to predictably implement the heat dissipation layer of Adebiyi having excellent thermal conduction and high thermal stability, since it has been held to be 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. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Alternatively, Garosshen discloses (Fig. 1) a thermal interface material (26) having an insulating material layer (30) that clads the monocrystal silicon carbide particles (28) (pars. [0004], [0012]-[0013]) to facilitate heat transfer (par. [0011]).
Further, Cheng discloses a semiconductor package (Fig. 2) comprising heat transfer members (400) made of silicon monocrystal (single crystal) block bodies (401) with excellent thermal conductivity of 149 W/mK (see p. 6, 2nd paragraph of the English translation of record).
Furter, Leide discloses that monocrystal silicon carbide has excellent strength, corrosion resistance, high thermal conductivity, and very high thermal endurance of 2970 K (p. 2, left column, sections 1 and 1.1 under “Introduction”).
Furter, Neudeck discloses that monocrystal silicon carbide has high thermal conductivity (3-5 W/cm-K vs 1.5 W/cm-K for Si), improving heat dissipation and enabling higher power densities (p. 3, Table 5.1; p. 4, section 5.3.2) and superior suitability for harsh environments (p. 3-4, sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2; p. 1, introduction).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the monocrystal silicon carbide for making the particles of Adebiyi, according to the combined teachings of Garosshen, Cheng, Leide, and Neudeck, in order to predictably implement the heat dissipation layer of Adebiyi having excellent thermal conductivity, high thermal stability, excellent strength, and corrosion resistance. Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Adebiyi discloses that 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 (par. [0053] - “the conductive particles may have an average diameter between about 1 and 20 microns”).
Regarding claim 3, Adebiyi discloses a bonding pad (inherently present on the surface (112) of (110) and disposed under and electrically connected to (116)) electrically connected to the at least one chip unit (210, 220, 222, 242) through the circuit structure (116).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Adebiyi discloses the at least one chip unit (210, 220, 222, 242) includes a chip (220), a first insulating layer (242) and a second insulating layer (210), and the first insulating layer (242) is disposed between the chip (220) and the second insulating layer (210), (Fig. 1), wherein a thickness of the first insulating layer (242) is less than a thickness of the second insulating layer (210), (Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Adebiyi discloses that the first insulating layer (242) comprises inorganic insulating material (par. [0043]) and the second insulating layer (210) comprises organic insulating material (pars. [0032], [0035]).
Alternatively, since organic and inorganic insulating materials have been notoriously known and widely used in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any suitable known material, including as claimed, for the first and second insulating layers of Adebiyi, in order to predictably achieve desired electrical and mechanical characteristics of the device, while not exceeding its targeted production costs, since it has been held to be 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. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Adebiyi discloses at least one heat dissipation element (260), wherein the heat dissipation layer (254) is disposed between the at least one heat dissipation element (260) and the circuit structure (116), (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Adebiyi discloses that the at least one heat dissipation element includes a liquid-cooling system (par. [0044]), but does not disclose that said cooling system is a water-cooling system.
Since water has been notoriously known and widely used in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as a coolant in liquid cooling systems, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any suitable known material, including water as claimed, as a coolant in the cooling system of Adebiyi, in order to predictably achieve desired cooling characteristics of device of Adebiyi, while not exceeding targeted production costs thereof, since it has been held to be 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. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
The additional prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: US 11721607 teaches a thermal interface material (170) that may be any appropriate, thermally conductive material, including, but not limited to, a thermal grease, a thermal gap pads, a polymer, an epoxy filled with high thermal conductivity fillers, such as metal particles or silicon particles. Furter, the US 3998659, US 5155058, US 5420048, US 5539244, and US 5783849 teach monocrystal silicon carbide components used in semiconductor devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is (571)272-2047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 pm.
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, Jayprakash N. Gandhi can be reached at 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 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.
/Anatoly Vortman/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2835