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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of claims 1-18 in the reply filed on July 06th, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 19-20 have been cancelled. New claims 21-22 have been added. Claims 1-18 and 21-22 are pending.
Action on merits of claims 1-18 and 21-22 follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 23rd, 2026 and November 17th, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 04/23/2024 are acceptable.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(f)/sixth paragraph
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a plurality of TEC units configured in an array” as recited in claim 1. And “the cooling liquid driving device configured to therein…” as recited in claims 2, 17 and 21; And “the liquid outlet are configured on diagonal corners…” as recited in claims 6; And “first, second and third fans configured in the first, second and third liquid channels, respectively” as recited in claims 9 and 22; And “each of the first, second and third fans is configured with a rotation axis perpendicular to the first and second directions” as recited in claims 10 and 22; And “the TEC units… configured in the array with n column and m rows…” as recited in claims 13, 16 and 21; And “an edge frame configured on the substrate …” as recited in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (KR 2011/0051930, hereinafter as Seo ‘930) in view of Prasher (US 2010/0046167, hereinafter as Pras ‘167).
Regarding Claim 1, Seo ‘930 teaches an integrated circuit (IC) structure, comprising:
an IC packaging structure (200) having an IC chip (Fig. 1, (210); pp. 7); and
a thermoelectric self-cooling device (TESCD) (400; pp. 6) integrated with the IC packaging structure, wherein the TESCD further includes: a thermoelectric cooling (TEC) device (400; pp. 8) having a plurality of TEC units configured in an array and electrically connected to provide cooling effect to the IC packaging structure, and
a generator (10; pp. 7) coupled with the cooling liquid driving device to collectively generate an electrical power supplied to the TEC device with self-cooling function to the IC packaging structure.
Thus, Seo ‘930 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a liquid cooling module having a cooling liquid driving device”.
However, Pras ‘167 teaches a liquid cooling module (Fig. 3, (48); [0021]) having a cooling liquid driving device (54; [0022]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Seo ‘930 by having a liquid cooling module having a cooling liquid driving device for the purpose of achieving a lower average temperature for the IC die than is achieved by conventional die cooling arrangements (see para. [0028]) as suggested by Pras ‘167.
PNG
media_image1.png
336
469
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 (Seo ‘930)
Regarding Claim 2, Seo ‘930 teaches the liquid cooling module (48) further includes liquid channels (30; [0011]) with the cooling liquid driving device configured therein (see para. [0024]);
a liquid inlet coupled to the liquid channels to provide a cooling liquid (see para. [0013]); and
a liquid outlet coupled to the liquid channels for exhausting the cooling liquid (see Fig. 2; [0013]).
Claims 3 and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo ‘930 and Pras ‘167 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Gao (US 2021/0385977, hereinafter as Gao ‘977).
Regarding Claim 3, Seo ‘930 and Pras ‘167 discloses substantially the limitations of claim 2, as showed above, except for the limitations: “a controller coupled with the cooling liquid driving device and the generator to control a flow speed of the cooling liquid in the liquid channels, thereby adjusting the electrical power supplied to the TEC device”.
Gao ‘977 teaches a controller (201; [0041]) coupled with the cooling liquid driving device and the generator to control a flow speed of the cooling liquid in the liquid channels, thereby adjusting the electrical power supplied to the TEC device.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Seo ‘930 and Pras ‘167 by having a controller coupled with the cooling liquid driving device and the generator for the purpose of controlling a liquid flow rate of cooling liquid supplied to the liquid manifold (see para. [0041]) as suggested by Gao ‘977.
Examiner notes that claim 3 contains functional limitation “to control a flow speed of the cooling liquid in the liquid channels, thereby adjusting the electrical power supplied to the TEC device” (emphasis added). According to MPEP 2173(05) g. " the use of functional language in a claim may fail “to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim” and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2008)”. In the instant case, “to control a flow speed of the cooling liquid in the liquid channels, thereby adjusting the electrical power supplied to the TEC device” is nothing else than the result achieved by the invention.
Regarding Claim 5, Gao ‘977 teaches the liquid channels include first, second and third liquid channels distanced from each other along a first direction and longitudinally oriented along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Gao ‘977 teaches the liquid inlet and the liquid outlet are configured on diagonal corners (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Gao ‘977 teaches the liquid inlet and the liquid outlet are distanced along the second direction and are directly connected to the first liquid channel (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Gao ‘977 teaches the liquid inlet and the liquid outlet are distanced along the second direction and are directly connected to the second liquid channel (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Gao ‘977 teaches the first, second and third fans configured in the first, second and third liquid channels, respectively (see Figs. 1-2; [0034]).
Regarding Claim 10, Seo ‘930, Pras ‘167 and Gao ‘977 disclose substantially the limitations of claim 9, as showed above, except for the limitations: “each of the first, second and third fans is configured with a rotation axis perpendicular to the first and second directions”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select each of the first, second and third fans is configured with a rotation axis perpendicular to the first and second directions on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have each of the first, second and third fans is configured with a rotation axis perpendicular to the first and second directions in order to improve the performance of the cooling system.
Regarding Claim 11, Gao ‘977 teaches the first liquid channel spans a first width W1 along the first direction; the second liquid channel spans a second width W2 along the first direction;the third liquid channel spans a third width W3 along the first direction (see Fig. 1).
Thus, Seo ‘930, Pras ‘167 and Gao ‘977 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “W1 is greater than W2, and W2 is greater than W3”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select W1 is greater than W2, and W2 is greater than W3 on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have W1 is greater than W2, and W2 is greater than W3 in order to improve the performance of the cooling system.
Regarding Claim 12, Pras ‘167 teaches a first constant cross-sectional area along the second direction (see Fig. 1).
Thus, Seo ‘930, Pras ‘167 and Gao ‘977 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the second liquid channel includes a second cross-sectional area decreased along a flow direction of the cooling liquid; and the third liquid channel includes a third cross-sectional area increased along the flow direction of the cooling liquid”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the second liquid channel includes a second cross-sectional area decreased along a flow direction of the cooling liquid; and the third liquid channel includes a third cross-sectional area increased along the flow direction of the cooling liquid on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the second liquid channel includes a second cross-sectional area decreased along a flow direction of the cooling liquid; and the third liquid channel includes a third cross-sectional area increased along the flow direction of the cooling liquid in order to improve the performance of the cooling system.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo ‘930 and Pras ‘167 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Shah (US 2011/0029154, hereinafter as Shah ‘154).
Regarding Claim 4, Seo ‘930 and Pras ‘167 discloses substantially the limitations of claim 2, as showed above, except for the limitations: “a jet impingement system; and nozzles coupled with the jet impingement system to provide the cooling liquid to the liquid channels”.
Shah ‘154 teaches a jet impingement system (see Fig. 2B); and nozzles (260; [0045]) coupled with the jet impingement system to provide the cooling liquid to the liquid channels.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Seo ‘930 and Pras ‘167 by having a jet impingement system; and nozzles coupled with the jet impingement system to provide the cooling liquid to the liquid channels for the purpose of supplying cooling fluid to one or more of the 3D packages (see para. [0045]) as suggested by Shah ‘154.
Claims 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo ‘930 and Pras ‘167 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2013/0139524, hereinafter as Kim ‘524).
Regarding Claim 13, Seo ‘930 and Pras ‘167 disclose substantially the limitations of claim 1, as showed above, except for the limitations: “the TEC units include n*m TEC units configured in the array with n column and m rows, n and m being proper integers; each column includes m TEC units electrically connected in series; and each row includes n TEC units electrically connected with other rows in parallel”.
Kim ‘524 teaches the TEC units include n*m TEC units (12) configured in the array with n column and m rows, n and m being proper integers; each column includes m TEC units electrically connected in series; and each row includes n TEC units electrically connected with other rows in parallel (see Figs. 2A-B and 4A-C; [0081]-[0089]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Seo ‘930 and Pras ‘167 by having n*m TEC units configured in the array with n column and m rows, n and m being proper integers; each column includes m TEC units electrically connected in series; and each row includes n TEC units electrically connected with other rows in parallel in order to provide thermoelectric cooling packages capable of radiating heat without degradation of performance (see para. [0005]) as suggested by Kim ‘524.
Regarding Claim 14, Kim ‘524 teaches a substrate (Fig. 5A, (20); [0076]); an edge frame (38; [0096]) configured on the substrate (20), wherein the IC chip (32; [0096]) is attached to the substrate (20); and a thermal interface material layer (60; [0098]) and a heat spreader (70; [0098]) over the thermal interface material layer (60).
Regarding Claim 16, Seo ‘930 teaches an integrated circuit (IC) structure, comprising:
an IC packaging structure (200) having an IC chip (Fig. 1, (210); pp. 7); and
a thermoelectric self-cooling device (TESCD) (400; pp. 6) integrated with and providing cooling effect to the IC packaging structure, wherein the TESCD further includes: a thermoelectric cooling (TEC) device (400; pp. 8) having a plurality of TEC units configured in an array and electrically connected to provide cooling effect to the IC packaging structure, and
a generator (10; pp. 7) coupled with the cooling liquid driving device to collectively generate an electrical power supplied to the TEC device with self-cooling function to the IC packaging structure.
Thus, Seo ‘930 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a liquid cooling module having a cooling liquid driving device”.
However, Pras ‘167 teaches a liquid cooling module (Fig. 3, (48); [0021]) having a cooling liquid driving device (54; [0022]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Seo ‘930 by having a liquid cooling module having a cooling liquid driving device for the purpose of achieving a lower average temperature for the IC die than is achieved by conventional die cooling arrangements (see para. [0028]) as suggested by Pras ‘167.
Seo ‘930 and Pras ‘167 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the TEC units include n*m TEC units configured in the array with n column and m rows, n and m being proper integers; each column includes m TEC units electrically connected in series; and each row includes n TEC units electrically connected with other rows in parallel”.
Kim ‘524 teaches the TEC units include n*m TEC units (12) configured in the array with n column and m rows, n and m being proper integers; each column includes m TEC units electrically connected in series; and each row includes n TEC units electrically connected with other rows in parallel (see Figs. 2A-B and 4A-C; [0081]-[0089]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Seo ‘930 and Pras ‘167 by having n*m TEC units configured in the array with n column and m rows, n and m being proper integers; each column includes m TEC units electrically connected in series; and each row includes n TEC units electrically connected with other rows in parallel in order to provide thermoelectric cooling packages capable of radiating heat without degradation of performance (see para. [0005]) as suggested by Kim ‘524.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo ‘930, Pras ‘167 and Kim ‘524 as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Katka (US 2015/0255429, hereinafter as Kat ‘429).
Regarding Claim 15, Seo ‘930, Pras ‘167 and Kim ‘524 disclose substantially the limitations of claim 14, as showed above, except for the limitations: “a second IC chip attached to the substrate and next to the first IC chip; and a third IC chip stacked on and electrically connected to the first IC chip, wherein the first, second and third IC chips are sealed in a same packaging”.
Kat ‘429 teaches a second IC chip (Fig. 2B, (IC Die 10-4); [0044]) attached to the substrate and next to the first IC chip (IC Die 10-3); and a third IC chip (IC Die 10-2) stacked on and electrically connected to the first IC chip, wherein the first, second and third IC chips are sealed in a same packaging (see Fig. 2B).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Seo ‘930, Pras ‘167 and Kim ‘524 by having a second IC chip attached to the substrate and next to the first IC chip; and a third IC chip stacked on and electrically connected to the first IC chip, wherein the first, second and third IC chips are sealed in a same packaging in order to provide a three-dimensional stacked integrated circuit (see para. [0005]) as suggested by Kat ‘429.
Claims 17-18, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo ‘930, Pras ‘167 and Kim ‘524 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Gao (US 2021/0385977, hereinafter as Gao ‘977).
Regarding Claim 17, Seo ‘930 teaches the liquid cooling module (48) further includes liquid channels (30; [0011]) with the cooling liquid driving device configured therein (see para. [0024]);
a liquid inlet coupled to the liquid channels to provide a cooling liquid (see para. [0013]); and
a liquid outlet coupled to the liquid channels for exhausting the cooling liquid (see Fig. 2; [0013]).
Seo ‘930, Pras ‘167 and Kim ‘524 disclose substantially the limitations of claim 2, as showed above, except for the limitations: “a controller coupled with the cooling liquid driving device and the generator to control a flow speed of the cooling liquid in the liquid channels, thereby adjusting the electrical power supplied to the TEC device”.
Gao ‘977 teaches a controller (201; [0041]) coupled with the cooling liquid driving device and the generator to control a flow speed of the cooling liquid in the liquid channels, thereby adjusting the electrical power supplied to the TEC device.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Seo ‘930, Pras ‘167 and Kim ‘524 by having a controller coupled with the cooling liquid driving device and the generator for the purpose of controlling a liquid flow rate of cooling liquid supplied to the liquid manifold (see para. [0041]) as suggested by Gao ‘977.
Examiner notes that claim 17 contains functional limitation “to control a flow speed of the cooling liquid in the liquid channels, thereby adjusting the electrical power supplied to the TEC device” (emphasis added). According to MPEP 2173(05) g. " the use of functional language in a claim may fail “to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim” and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2008)”. In the instant case, “to control a flow speed of the cooling liquid in the liquid channels, thereby adjusting the electrical power supplied to the TEC device” is nothing else than the result achieved by the invention.
Regarding Claim 18, Pras ‘167 teaches a first constant cross-sectional area along a flow direction of the cooling liquid (see Fig. 1).
Thus, Seo ‘930, Pras ‘167, Kim ‘524 and Gao ‘977 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the second liquid channel includes a second cross-sectional area decreased along a flow direction of the cooling liquid; and the third liquid channel includes a third cross-sectional area increased along the flow direction of the cooling liquid”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have the second liquid channel includes a second cross-sectional area decreased along a flow direction of the cooling liquid; and the third liquid channel includes a third cross-sectional area increased along the flow direction of the cooling liquid on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the second liquid channel includes a second cross-sectional area decreased along a flow direction of the cooling liquid; and the third liquid channel includes a third cross-sectional area increased along the flow direction of the cooling liquid in order to improve the performance of the cooling system.
Regarding Claim 21, Seo ‘930 teaches an integrated circuit (IC) structure, comprising:
an IC packaging structure (200) having an IC chip (Fig. 1, (210); pp. 7); and
a thermoelectric self-cooling device (TESCD) (400; pp. 6) integrated with and providing cooling effect to the IC packaging structure, wherein the TESCD further includes: a thermoelectric cooling (TEC) device (400; pp. 8) having a plurality of TEC units configured in an array and electrically connected to provide cooling effect to the IC packaging structure, and
a generator (10; pp. 7) coupled with the cooling liquid driving device to collectively generate an electrical power supplied to the TEC device with self-cooling function to the IC packaging structure;
the liquid cooling module (48) further includes liquid channels (30; [0011]) with the cooling liquid driving device configured therein (see para. [0024]);
a liquid inlet coupled to the liquid channels to provide a cooling liquid (see para. [0013]); and
a liquid outlet coupled to the liquid channels for exhausting the cooling liquid (see Fig. 2; [0013]).
Thus, Seo ‘930 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a liquid cooling module having a cooling liquid driving device”.
However, Pras ‘167 teaches a liquid cooling module (Fig. 3, (48); [0021]) having a cooling liquid driving device (54; [0022]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Seo ‘930 by having a liquid cooling module having a cooling liquid driving device for the purpose of achieving a lower average temperature for the IC die than is achieved by conventional die cooling arrangements (see para. [0028]) as suggested by Pras ‘167.
Seo ‘930 and Pras ‘167 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the TEC units include n*m TEC units configured in the array with n column and m rows, n and m being proper integers; each column includes m TEC units electrically connected in series; and each row includes n TEC units electrically connected with other rows in parallel”.
Kim ‘524 teaches the TEC units include n*m TEC units (12) configured in the array with n column and m rows, n and m being proper integers; each column includes m TEC units electrically connected in series; and each row includes n TEC units electrically connected with other rows in parallel (see Figs. 2A-B and 4A-C; [0081]-[0089]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Seo ‘930 and Pras ‘167 by having n*m TEC units configured in the array with n column and m rows, n and m being proper integers; each column includes m TEC units electrically connected in series; and each row includes n TEC units electrically connected with other rows in parallel in order to provide thermoelectric cooling packages capable of radiating heat without degradation of performance (see para. [0005]) as suggested by Kim ‘524.
Seo ‘930, Pras ‘167 and Kim ‘524 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the liquid channels include first and second liquid channels distanced from each other along a first direction, longitudinally oriented along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction”.
Gao ‘977 teaches the liquid channels include first and second liquid channels distanced from each other along a first direction, longitudinally oriented along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (see Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Seo ‘930, Pras ‘167 and Kim ‘524 by having the liquid channels include first and second liquid channels distanced from each other along a first direction, longitudinally oriented along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction for the purpose of controlling a liquid flow rate of cooling liquid supplied to the liquid manifold (see para. [0041]) as suggested by Gao ‘977.
Seo ‘930, Pras ‘167, Kim ‘524 and Gao ‘977are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “spanning different widths along the first direction”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have the spanning different widths along the first direction on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have spanning different widths along the first direction in order to improve the performance of the cooling system.
Regarding Claim 22, Gao ‘977 teaches a third liquid channel distanced from the first liquid channel and the second liquid channel along the first direction, longitudinally oriented along the second direction (see Fig. 1); the cooling liquid driving device includes first, second and third fans configured in the first, second and third liquid channels, respectively (see Figs. 1-2; [0034]).
Seo ‘930, Pras ‘167, Kim ‘524 and Gao ‘977are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the third liquid channel spanning a width along the first direction, the width being different from each of the widths of the first liquid channel and the second liquid channel; and each of the first, second and third fans is configured with a rotation axis perpendicular to the first and second directions”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the third liquid channel spanning a width along the first direction, the width being different from each of the widths of the first liquid channel and the second liquid channel; and each of the first, second and third fans is configured with a rotation axis perpendicular to the first and second directionson the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the third liquid channel spanning a width along the first direction, the width being different from each of the widths of the first liquid channel and the second liquid channel; and each of the first, second and third fans is configured with a rotation axis perpendicular to the first and second directions in order to improve the performance of the cooling system.
Examiner’s Note
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to semiconductor devices:
Liu et al. (US 2009/0014860 A1)
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DZUNG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue Purvis can be reached on (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 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.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights