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 .
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, 502.05.
Claim Objections
The objections to claims 5 and 12 are withdrawn in view of the amendments thereto.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 13-16, 19-21, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Son et al. (US 2025/0105093 – hereinafter, “Son”).
With respect to claim 1, Son teaches (In Fig 6) a semiconductor product (1) comprising at least one channel (Portion between 30b and 2) and at least one nozzle (51) formed on or within a surface (Top surface of 30b) thereof (Of the semiconductor product) and associated with an enclosure (9) over the surface (See Fig 6), the at least one channel to allow flow of a liquid therethrough (See Fig 6, the arrow shows how the liquid moves through the channel), the at least one nozzle (51) to allow ejection of the liquid to the surface or to an area above the surface to provide at least part of a cooling for the semiconductor product, based in part on heat absorbed to the liquid which creates a vacuum to enable the flow (See the below response to arguments), and the enclosure to at least retain partly the liquid in support of the cooling of the semiconductor product (See Fig 6, see also ¶ 0073-0074, the liquid picks up heat from an active chip (2) and then is ejected via the nozzle 51, the fluid then gives up its heat to the enclosure and is recycled back to the channel.).
With respect to claim 2, Son further teaches that the ejection maintains the liquid in liquid form or supports vaporization of the liquid to the surface or to the area above the surface to provide the cooling (¶ 0056, “When liquid coolant receives heat from the heat radiation part 20, the phase may change into gaseous coolant”, ¶ 0051, “The coolant may provide cooling to the heat radiation part 20 through phase change. However, the cooling provided by the coolant to the semiconductor chip 2 or the semiconductor device 1 is not limited to the above description.”, where here Son teaches that the liquid coolant can remain a liquid or change phase into a gas which means that the ejection maintains the liquid in liquid form or supports vaporization, as claimed).
With respect to claim 6, Son further teaches that the enclosure allows condensation of a vapor form of the liquid (When the vapor flows along the bottom of 9, it can condense along this bottom) or allows redirection of a liquid form of the liquid, the enclosure further to enable the liquid to be reused (As shown in Fig 6, the liquid is shown in a closed loop system and is thus reused) or to exchange heat with a heat exchanger that is external relative to the semiconductor product.
With respect to claim 7, Son further teaches that the heat absorbed to the liquid is based in part on a byproduct of device activity within the semiconductor product (¶ 0050. “The semiconductor chip 2 may generate heat when receiving power or while operating.”).
With respect to claim 8, Son teaches (In Fig 6) a liquid cooling loop to circulate liquid through a semiconductor product (1) comprising at least one channel (Portion between 30b and 2) and at least one nozzle (51) formed on or within a surface thereof and associated with an enclosure (9) over the surface (See Fig 6), the at least one channel to allow flow of the liquid therethrough, the at least one nozzle to allow ejection of the liquid to the surface or to an area above the surface to provide at least part of a cooling for the semiconductor product, based in part on heat absorbed to the liquid which creates a vacuum to enable the flow (See the below response to arguments), and the enclosure to at least partly retain the liquid in support of the cooling of the semiconductor product, wherein the liquid cooling loop is a closed loop (See Fig 6, the liquid cooling loop is shown as a closed loop) or is an open loop with a heat exchanger.
With respect to claim 9, Son further teaches that the ejection maintains the liquid in liquid form or supports vaporization of the liquid to the surface or to the area above the surface to provide the cooling (¶ 0056, “When liquid coolant receives heat from the heat radiation part 20, the phase may change into gaseous coolant”, ¶ 0051, “The coolant may provide cooling to the heat radiation part 20 through phase change. However, the cooling provided by the coolant to the semiconductor chip 2 or the semiconductor device 1 is not limited to the above description.”, where here Son teaches that the liquid coolant can remain a liquid or change phase into a gas which means that the ejection maintains the liquid in liquid form or supports vaporization, as claimed).
With respect to claim 13, Son further teaches that the enclosure allows condensation of a vapor form of the liquid (When the vapor flows along the bottom of 9, it can condense along this bottom) or allows redirection of a liquid form of the liquid, the enclosure further to enable the liquid to be reused (As shown in Fig 6, the liquid is shown in a closed loop system and is thus reused) or to exchange heat with a heat exchanger that is external relative to the semiconductor product.
With respect to claim 14, Son further teaches that the heat absorbed to the liquid is based in part on a byproduct of device activity within the semiconductor product (¶ 0050. “The semiconductor chip 2 may generate heat when receiving power or while operating.”).
With respect to method claims 15-16, 19-21, 24 the method steps recited in the claims are inherently necessitated by the device structure as taught by the Son reference.
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, 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.
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.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Campbell et al. (US 2010/0328890 – hereinafter, “Campbell”).
With respect to claims 5 and 12, Son teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest the enclosure is associated with a heat exchanger to exchange the heat absorbed by the liquid with the heat exchanger.
Campbell, however, teaches (In Fig 5) an enclosure (530) is associated with a heat exchanger (520) to exchange the heat absorbed by a fluid with the heat exchanger (¶ 0045, “Upon reaching the upper portion of the sealed compartment, the dielectric fluid vapor contacts the cool surfaces of the condenser fins, which are cooled, for example, by means of a thermal conduction coupling to liquid-cooled cold plate 520, and more particularly, to system coolant passing via inlet 521 and outlet 522 through the liquid-cooled cold plate.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Campbell with that of Son, such that the enclosure of Son is associated with a heat exchanger to exchange the heat absorbed by the liquid with the heat exchanger, as taught by Campbell, since doing so would allow for greater quantities of heat to be moved from the semiconductor product.
Claims 4, 11, 18, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Peterson et al. (US 2022/0248559 – hereinafter, “Peterson”).
With respect to claims 4 and 11, Son teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein the flow is enabled, in part, by a pump, and wherein the flow is supported by an inlet and an outlet to allow exchange of the heat absorbed to the liquid with a heat exchanger that is external to the semiconductor product.
Peterson, however, teaches (In Fig 4) wherein a flow of a fluid is enabled, in part, by a pump (432), and wherein the flow is supported by an inlet (Structure where fluid enters the conduit 426) and an outlet (Structure where the fluid exits the conduit 428) to allow exchange of the heat absorbed to the liquid with a heat exchanger (442) that is external to a semiconductor product (402).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Peterson with that of Son, such that, in Son the flow is enabled, in part, by a pump, and wherein the flow is supported by an inlet and an outlet to allow exchange of the heat absorbed to the liquid with a heat exchanger that is external to the semiconductor product, as taught by Peterson, since doing so would allow for additional external cooling of the fluid of the semiconductor product.
With respect to method claims 18 and 23 the method steps recited in the claims are inherently necessitated by the device structure as taught by the Son and Peterson references.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 10, 17 and 22 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to claim 3, the allowability resides in the overall structure of the device as recited in dependent claim 3 and at least in part because claim 3 recites, “wherein the flow is enabled, in part, by a further cooling of the semiconductor product that causes a temperature differential in the at least one channel”.
The aforementioned limitations in combination with all remaining limitations of claim 3 are believed to render said claim 3 patentable over the art of record.
While Son teaches many of the limitations of claim 3 as per the above rejection to claim 1, neither Son nor any other art of record – either alone or in combination – teach or suggest the above-mentioned limitations of claim 3.
With respect to claims 10, 17, and 22, the Examiner notes that these claims recite limitations similar to those noted above with respect to claim 3 and are allowable for at least the same reasons.
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.”
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s remarks to claim 1 that, “Specifically, the Office Action cites Fig. 6 and paragraphs [0073]-[0074] of Son as stating: the liquid picks up heat from an active chip (2) and then is ejected via the nozzle 51, the fluid then gives up its heat to the enclosure and is recycled back to the channel.
Therefore, Son only arguably discloses passive atmospheric cooling to drive fluid, however, and is silent toward vacuum creation to enable the flow, as recited by currently amended claim 1.” (Present remarks page 9) the Examiner respectfully disagrees. While there is no explicit recitation in Son that heat absorbed by the liquid creates a vacuum to enable the flow, this can be properly inferred by the teachings of Son. Son teaches, at least in part, a portion (40) with a relatively high pressure within the vapor chamber (¶ 0055, “The pressure chamber 40 may be a portion with a high pressure in the cooling channel 3.”). When taken in view of Fig 6, the cited embodiment by the Examiner, it is clear that the chamber (40), which is beneath the nozzle 51, is at a relatively high pressure compared to the at least one channel (Portion between 61 and 2 in Fig 6). Because the chamber is at a relatively high pressure compared to the channel, the channel can be said to be at a relative vacuum within the system. Because this vacuum is created by the relative high pressure within the chamber which, in turn, is caused by the heat absorbed by the liquid, it can be fairly said that the heat absorbed by the liquid creates a vacuum to enable the flow, as claimed.
Accordingly, the rejection to claim 1 in view of Son is maintained.
With respect to the Applicant’s additional remarks to claims 8, 15, and 20 (Present remarks pages 10-11) the Examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the reasons noted above with respect to claim 1.
Accordingly, the rejections to claims 8, 15, and 20 in view of Son are maintained.
With respect to the Applicant’s remarks to claims, 3, 10, 17 and 21 that, “Additionally, regarding claims 3, 10, 17, and 21, the Office Action cites Son for allegedly disclosing, essentially:
... wherein the flow is enabled, in part, by a further cooling of the semiconductor product that causes a temperature differential in the at least one channel.
as recited by the claims. Specifically, the Office Action cites Son, stating:
While not explicitly disclosed, the liquid is cooled by the atmosphere surrounding the enclosure (9) and this causes there to be a temperature differential between the space within the channel (which is warmer due to the heat produced by the active
chip 2) and the space outside the channel and it is this temperature differential
that, in part, enables the flow. In simpler terms, it is the heat from the component
which causes the flow within the product.
Therefore, Son only arguably discloses "a temperature differential between the space within the channel ... and the space outside the channel," however, and is silent toward "a temperature differential in the at least one channel," of a semiconductor, as recited by the claims. Applicant respectfully submits that the remaining cited references fail to cure this deficiency.” (Present remarks page 11) the Examiner initially notes that it appears the Applicant intended to draw this argument to claim 22 instead of claim 21. Further, the Examiner agrees with the Applicant and notes that the rejections to claims 3, 10, 17 and 22 have been withdrawn.
With respect to the Applicant’s remaining remarks with respect to any remaining dependent claims, the Examiner notes, since the remarks regarding independent claims 1, 8, 15 and 20 are not found to be persuasive, and since there are no additional persuasive remarks provided with respect to these dependent claims, these dependent claims are believed to be properly rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2009/0242174 to McCutchen et al. which teaches a vapor vortex heat sink which, via a heat generating device (1), creates a vacuum in a channel (¶ 0130, “ The heat sink 8 causes the turbine exhaust from the vapor chamber 5 to become liquid, thereby reducing the volume of the turbine exhaust so as to create a vacuum in the condensation chamber 7 which sucks more vapor through the turbine, which is the vortex organizer 4.” (emphasis added)).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY M PAPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2201. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am - 6pm EST.
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 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.
/ZACHARY PAPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights