CTNF 18/624,320 CTNF 87428 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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. Claims 1-10, 12, 13, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 1-2, 12 recite in the last line “ the first orifice” has antecedent issues which should be “the first orifices”. Claims 3, 5, 13, 15 recite “the value” which should be “a value”. Claims 7, 17 recite “the plane” should be “a plane. Claims 2-10 are also rejected being dependent on rejected claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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 1-6, 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Labanok et al (US 2004/0190259 A1) in view of Refai et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0092619 A1) Regarding claims 1, 11: Labanok teaches in Fig. 4A about an integrated circuit package, comprising: PNG media_image1.png 437 761 media_image1.png Greyscale a support substrate 414; and a heat sink 422 + 424+426 including a lateral wall 424/426 fastened on a mounting face (upper surface of 414) of the support substrate by fastening devices 442; wherein the fastening devices are accommodated in compartments (where 442 passing area) of the lateral wall and cross the support substrate through first orifices (as marked); and wherein the fastening devices and the first orifices are configured to enable fastening of the lateral wall on the mounting face (as shown) and a relative movement of the fastening devices relative to the first orifice [0036]. Labanok does not explicitly show compartments of the lateral wall. Refai shows in Fig. 1A compartments of the lateral wall. PNG media_image2.png 568 808 media_image2.png Greyscale Thus, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the application was filed, to have the feature as claimed according to the teaching Refai in Labanok’s fastening mechanism and thereby to have a chip package having a lid that includes improved features for temperature control (Refai, [0004-[0005]) The recitation of “a relative movement of the fastening devices relative to the first orifice” does not distinguish the present invention over the prior art of Labanok in view of Refai who teaches the structure as claimed. The Examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Pearson , 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA); In re Minks , 169 USPQ 120 (Bd Appeals); In re Casey , 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP §2114. Regarding claims 2, 12: Labanok teaches in Fig. 4A as marked above wherein the support substrate includes a lower face opposite to the mounting face and wherein the fastening devices comprise rivets, each rivet comprising a first end accommodated in a corresponding compartment and a second end under the lower face of the support substrate, wherein a distance between the first end and the second end is equal to a thickness of the support substrate increased by a clearance enabling both holding of the lateral wall fastened to the mounting face of the support substrate and movement of each rivet in the first orifice. Labanok does not explicitly show wherein a distance between the first end and the second end is equal to a thickness of the support substrate increased by a clearance enabling both holding of the lateral wall fastened to the mounting face of the support substrate and movement of each rivet in the first orifice. Refai teaches in Fig. 1A as marked above, wherein a distance between the first end and the second end is equal to a thickness of the support substrate increased by a clearance enabling both holding of the lateral wall fastened to the mounting face of the support substrate and movement of each rivet in the first orifice. Thus, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the application was filed, to have the feature as claimed according to the teaching Refai in Labanok’s fastening mechanism and thereby to have a chip package having a lid that includes improved features for temperature control (Refai, [0004-[0005]). Regarding claims 3, 5, 13, 15: Labanok in view of Refai does not explicitly talk about wherein the value of the clearance is comprised between 10 and 20 µm. However Refai teaches in [0055] about a spring 624 or other resilient object may be disposed between the fastener 622 and the printed circuit board 136 to provide force that the heat sink 600 exerts on the lid 150. Advantageously, the force provided by the heat sink 600 allows the lid 150 to maintain good thermal contact with the dies 114, while remaining floating on the stiffener 154. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a appropriate size spring or other resilient objects to have the allowance as claimed with routine experiment and optimization since force can vary depending on the temperature according to the teaching of Refai ([0005]). In re Woodruff , 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch , 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious). Regarding claims 4, 14: Labanok teaches wherein the support substrate includes a lower face opposite to the mounting face and wherein the compartments are threaded and the fastening devices comprise screws configured to be screwed into the threaded compartments [0037] while leaving a clearance between the screw heads and the lower face of the support substrate. Labanok does not explicitly show while leaving a clearance between the screw heads and the lower face of the support substrate. Refai teaches in Fig. 1A as marked above, wherein leaving a clearance between the screw heads and the lower face of the support substrate. Thus, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the application was filed, to have the feature as claimed according to the teaching Refai in Labanok’s fastening mechanism and thereby to have a chip package having a lid that includes improved features for temperature control (Refai, [0004-[0005]). Regarding claims 6, 16: Labanok teaches in Fig. 5A and Refai in Fig. Fig. 1A wherein the first orifices have an oblong shape. Claims 7-8, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Labanok et al (US 2004/0190259 A1) in view of Refai et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0092619 A1) and further in view of Dolbear et al. (US Patent 5,926,371) Regarding claims 7, 17: Labanok in view of Refai does not explicitly talk about wherein an axis of each first orifice with the oblong shape in the plane of the mounting face forms a 45° angle with respect to the direction of the two edges of the lateral wall adjacent to this first orifice. Dolber teaches in Fig. 2 as marked wherein an axis of each first orifice with the oblong shape in the plane of the mounting face forms a 45° angle with respect to the direction of the two edges of the lateral wall adjacent to this first orifice. PNG media_image3.png 240 570 media_image3.png Greyscale Thus, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the application was filed, to have the feature as claimed according to the teaching of Dolbear in Labanok’s fastening mechanism and thereby Mechanical stress relaxation of the spacers is carried out after fixing the chip (Dolbear, Abstract). Regarding claims 8, 18: Dolbear teaches in Fig. 2 wherein the lateral wall of the heat sink has an annular shape with a square or rectangular section, and the support substrate includes four first orifices respectively located opposite four corner areas (64a, 64b, 64c, 64d) of the lateral wall. Claims 9, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Labanok et al (US 2004/0190259 A1) in view of Refai et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0092619 A1) and further in view of Refai-Ahmed et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0308783 A1) Regarding claims 9, 19: Labanok in view of Refai does not explicitly talk about wherein the fastening devices are thermally-conductive. Refai-Ahmed teaches in [0059 about wherein the fastening devices are thermally-conductive. Thus, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the application was filed, to have the feature as claimed according to the teaching of Refai-Ahmed in Labanok’s fastening mechanism and thereby enhances the heat removal process from the package (Refai-Ahmed, [0059]) Claims 10, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Labanok et al (US 2004/0190259 A1) in view of Refai et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0092619 A1) and further in view of AAPA (Applicant Admitted Prior Art) Regarding claims 10, 20: Labanok in view of Refai does not explicitly talk about wherein the support substrate has a thermal expansion coefficient comprised between 10×10 -6 K -1 and 12×10 -6 K -1 and the heat sink has a thermal expansion coefficient comprised between 15×10 -6 K -1 and 17×10 -6 K -1 . AAPA (applicant’s para [0006]) teaches about the claimed thermal expansion coefficient depending on the materials of the heat sink and the support substrate In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED SHAMSUZZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 am -4 pm 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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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. /Mohammed Shamsuzzaman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/624,320 Page 2 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/624,320 Page 3 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/624,320 Page 4 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/624,320 Page 5 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/624,320 Page 6 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/624,320 Page 7 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/624,320 Page 8 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/624,320 Page 9 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/624,320 Page 10 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/624,320 Page 11 Art Unit: 2897
Prosecution Insights