DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the applicant's amendment filed July 1st, 2026. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-9, 12-16, 19, and 20 are currently presented in the instant application.
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 § 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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 requires “a layer of dielectric material” at line 2. It is unclear whether this is intended to refer back to the “a dielectric material” at line 9 of claim 1 or to set forth another and additional dielectric material. For the purposes of examination of claim 7, this limitation is understood to be --the dielectric 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.
Claims 1-9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gandhi et al. (US 2020/0105642 A1; hereinafter Gandhi) in view of Cui et al. (US 2025/0098122 A1; hereinafter Cui).
With respect to claim 1, Gandhi discloses a structure 150 in at least Figs. 1-6 comprising:
at least one chiplet 106 (see Figs. 1, 2, and paragraphs 21-23);
a heat spreader 102 located over the at least one chiplet 106 (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 21, 23-25);
a laminate 104 located under the at least one chiplet 106 (see Figs. 1, 2, and paragraphs 2, 21, 23, 26); and
a plurality of pins 110 extending between the heat spreader 102 and the laminate 104 and located around the at least one chiplet 106 (see Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 21, 24, 30-34),
wherein the plurality of pins 110 are positioned such that the plurality of pins 110 rest on the laminate 104, the plurality of pins 110 are surrounded by a dielectric material 112 configured to prevent electrical interaction with conductive features in the laminate 104, and the plurality of pins 110 are configured to accommodate thermal-mechanical stress while conducting heat from the at least one chiplet 106 to the heat spreader 102 (see Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 20, 21, 24, 28, 30, 63).
Gandhi does not disclose wherein the plurality of pins are compliant and include a spring.
Cui discloses a structure in at least Fig. 7 wherein a plurality of pins 103 are compliant and include a spring 1032 (see Fig. 7 and paragraphs 122-126).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the plurality of pins of Gandhi would be compliant and include a spring as taught by Cui because the elastic member can stably provide an elastic force toward the heat sink for the circuit board. According to the solution provided in the foregoing implementation, the chip located in the chip mounting region is further stably attached to the heat sink, so that heat dissipation efficiency is improved (see Cui: paragraph 123).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Gandhi and Cui discloses the structure of claim 1, wherein a first end of the plurality of pins 110 is connected to the heat spreader 102 (see Gandhi: Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 21, 24, 30, 32-34) and a second end of the plurality of pins 103 is inserted into the laminate 102 (see Cui: Fig. 7 and paragraphs 122-126).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a second end of the plurality of pins of Gandhi would be inserted into the laminate as taught by Cui so that the elastic member (equivalent to claimed pin) can stably provide an elastic force toward the heat sink for the circuit board. According to the solution provided in the foregoing implementation, the chip located in the chip mounting region is further stably attached to the heat sink, so that heat dissipation efficiency is improved (see Cui: paragraph 123).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Gandhi and Cui discloses the structure of claim 1, wherein the plurality of pins 110 surround the at least one chiplet 106 (see Gandhi: Figs. 1, 2, and paragraphs 21, 24, 30-33).
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Gandhi and Cui discloses the structure of claim 1, wherein the heat spreader 102 is thermally coupled to the at least one chiplet 106 by the plurality of pins 110 (see Gandhi: Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 20, 21, 24, 30, 63).
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Gandhi and Cui discloses the structure of claim 1, wherein the plurality of pins 110 are adapted to remove heat from the at least one chiplet 106 (see Gandhi: Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 20, 21, 24, 30-33, 63).
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Gandhi and Cui discloses the structure of claim 1, wherein the plurality of pins 110 contact the at least one chiplet 106 (see Gandhi: Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 20, 21, 24, 30, 63; 110 and 106 in thermal contact; 110 and 106 in contact by way of 112 and also by way of 118 and 104).
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Gandhi and Cui discloses the structure of claim 1, further comprising: the dielectric material 112 surrounding each of the plurality of pins 110 (see Gandhi: Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 28-30, 33).
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Gandhi and Cui discloses the structure of claim 1, wherein a first end of the plurality of pins 110 is connected to the heat spreader 102 and a second end of the plurality of pins 110 sits on top of the laminate 104 (see Gandhi: Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 21, 24, 30, 32-34).
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Gandhi and Cui discloses the structure of claim 1, wherein locations of the plurality of pins 110 are optimized considering one or more hot spots in the at least one chiplet 106 (see Gandhi: Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 20, 21, 24, 30-33, 63; note extra-die heat transfer posts arranged for reducing hot spots).
With respect to claim 12, the combination of Gandhi and Cui discloses the structure of claim 1, wherein the plurality of pins 110 include a material selected from a group consisting of copper, tungsten, molybdenum, or silicon (see Gandhi: Figs. 3-5 and paragraphs 34, 40).
With respect to claim 13, the combination of Gandhi and Cui discloses the structure of claim 1, wherein a cross-sectional shape of the plurality of pins 110 is square or circular (see Gandhi: Figs. 1, 2, and paragraph 30; note sectional profile is circular).
With respect to claim 15, Gandhi discloses a system 150 in at least Figs. 1-6 comprising:
a plurality of chiplets 106 (see Figs. 1, 2 and paragraphs 21-23);
a heat spreader 102 located over the plurality of chiplets 106 (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 21, 23-25);
a laminate 104 located under the plurality of chiplets 106 (see Figs. 1, 2, and paragraphs 2, 21, 23, 26);
a heat sink (heat sink) located over the heat spreader 102 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 24; heat sink mounted to top surface of 102); and
a plurality of pins 110 extending between the heat spreader 102 and the laminate 104 and located near the plurality of chiplets 106 (see Figs. 1-5, and paragraphs 21, 24, 30, 32-34),
wherein the plurality of pins 110 are positioned such that the plurality of pins 110 rest on the laminate 104, the plurality of pins 110 are surrounded by a dielectric material 112 configured to prevent electrical interaction with conductive features in the laminate 104, and the plurality of pins 110 are configured to accommodate thermal-mechanical stress while conducting heat from the plurality of chiplets 106 to the heat spreader 102 (see Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 20, 21, 24, 28, 30, 63).
Gandhi does not disclose wherein the plurality of pins are compliant and include a spring.
Cui discloses a system in at least Fig. 7 wherein a plurality of pins 103 are compliant and include a spring 1032 (see Fig. 7 and paragraphs 122-126).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the plurality of pins of Gandhi would be compliant and include a spring as taught by Cui because the elastic member can stably provide an elastic force toward the heat sink for the circuit board. According to the solution provided in the foregoing implementation, the chip located in the chip mounting region is further stably attached to the heat sink, so that heat dissipation efficiency is improved (see Cui: paragraph 123).
With respect to claim 16, the combination of Gandhi and Cui discloses the system of claim 15, wherein each of the plurality of pins 110 contacts one of the plurality of chiplets 106 (see Gandhi: Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 20, 21, 24, 30, 63; 110 and 106 in thermal contact; 110 and 106 in contact by way of 112 and also by way of 118 and 104).
With respect to claim 19, Gandhi discloses a method in at least Figs. 1-6 comprising:
providing a heat spreader 102 (see Figs. 1 and paragraphs 21, 23-25);
providing a laminate layer 104 including a plurality of chiplets 106 (see Figs. 1, 2, and paragraphs 2, 21, 23, 26);
attaching a first end of a plurality of pins 110 to a lower surface of the heat spreader 102 (see Figs. 1-5, and paragraphs 21, 24, 30, 32-34); and
contacting a second end of the plurality of pins 110 to the laminate layer 104 surrounding the plurality of chiplets 106 (see Figs. 1-5, and paragraphs 21, 24, 30, 32-34),
wherein the plurality of pins 110 are positioned such that the plurality of pins 110 rest on the laminate layer 104, the plurality of pins 110 are surrounded by a dielectric material 112 configured to prevent electrical interaction with conductive features in the laminate layer 104, and the plurality of pins 110 are configured to accommodate thermal-mechanical stress while conducting heat from the plurality of chiplets 106 to the heat spreader 102 (see Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 20, 21, 24, 28, 30, 63).
Gandhi does not disclose wherein the plurality of pins are compliant and include a spring.
Cui discloses a method in at least Fig. 7 wherein a plurality of pins 103 are compliant and include a spring 1032 (see Fig. 7 and paragraphs 122-126).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the plurality of pins of Gandhi would be compliant and include a spring as taught by Cui because the elastic member can stably provide an elastic force toward the heat sink for the circuit board. According to the solution provided in the foregoing implementation, the chip located in the chip mounting region is further stably attached to the heat sink, so that heat dissipation efficiency is improved (see Cui: paragraph 123).
With respect to claim 20, the combination of Gandhi and Cui discloses the method of claim 19, further comprising: providing a heat sink (heat sink); and contacting the heat sink (heat sink) with an upper surface 146 of the heat spreader 102 (see Gandhi: Fig. 1 and paragraph 24).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gandhi et al. (US 2020/0105642 A1; hereinafter Gandhi) in view of Cui et al. (US 2025/0098122 A1; hereinafter Cui) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of England et al. (US 2018/0233488 A1; hereinafter England).
With respect to claim 14, the combination of Gandhi and Cui discloses the structure of claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly disclose wherein a diameter of the plurality of pins is in a range of 0.1 millimeters (mm) to 10 mm.
England discloses a structure in at least Figs. 6-8 wherein a diameter of a plurality of pins 120 is in a range of 0.1 millimeters (mm) to 10 mm (see Fig. 6 and paragraph 28; note the 1-to-1 diameter-to-height ratio and values 250 µm and 300 µm equal to 0.25 mm and 0.3 mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a diameter of the plurality of pins of the combination of Gandhi and Cui would be in a range of 0.1 millimeters (mm) to 10 mm as taught by England because the combination of Gandhi, Cui, and England teaches the general conditions of the claims and it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Additionally, it is noted that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical (see MPEP 2144.05 III A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 1st, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to independent claim 1, 15, and 19, the applicant argues that “Gandhi does not teach the amended claims” as well as that “Cui does not remedy the shortcomings of Gandhi” and that “England does not remedy the shortcomings of Gandhi.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Additionally, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. The claims remain rejected as outlined above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN M KLEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7544. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/J.M.K/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights