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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 6-10, 15-16 and 19-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Haba (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0222226).
Regarding claim 1, Haba teaches a device comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 3B, substrate 302);
a first die (die 304) physically and electrically connected to the substrate (Fig. 3B);
a manifold (306), wherein the manifold includes a first surface (bottom surface), an inlet port (306A) configured as an entry for fluid into a chamber (chamber 310) formed between the first die and the manifold (Fig. 3B), and an outlet port (also labeled 306A) configured to provide an exit from the chamber for the fluid (Fig. 3B); and
a sealant (sealant 334/336) connecting the first die to the first surface of the manifold to form a seal between the first die and the manifold (Fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 6, Haba teaches the device of claim 1, wherein walls of the chamber include a first wall and second walls of the manifold (Fig. 3B, walls of chamber 310).
Regarding claim 7, Haba teaches a system comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 3B, substrate 302);
a first die (304) physically and electrically connected to the substrate (Fig. 3B);
a manifold (306), wherein the manifold includes an inlet port (306A) configured as an entry for fluid into a chamber formed between the first die and the manifold (Fig. 3B), and wherein the manifold includes an outlet port (also labeled 306A) configured to provide an exit from the chamber for the fluid (Fig. 3B);
a seal (seal 334/336) for the chamber between the first die and the manifold (Fig. 3B); and
a lid (308) coupled to the substrate, wherein the inlet port and the outlet port extend through openings in the lid (Fig. 3B, openings 312 are part of inlet/outlet port).
Regarding claim 8, Haba teaches the system of claim 7, further comprising one or more second dies coupled to the substrate and enclosed by the lid (see Fig. 6, die 604).
Regarding claim 9, Haba teaches the system of claim 8, further comprising thermal interface material (Fig. 6, TIM 616) coupled to at least one of the one or more second dies and coupled to the lid (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Haba teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the lid is adhered to the manifold (Fig. 3B, adhered by 322).
Regarding claim 15, Haba teaches a method of forming an integrated circuit device, the method comprising:
connecting a manifold to a first die (Fig. 3B, manifold 306 connected to die 304) using a sealant (sealant 334/336) to form a seal between the manifold and the first die (Fig. 3B), wherein the first die is electrically connected to a substrate (302), wherein the manifold includes an inlet port (306A) to a chamber between the manifold and the first die formed by the seal (Fig. 3B), and wherein the manifold includes an outlet port from the chamber (also labeled 306A); and
coupling a lid (lid 308) to the substrate to enclose the first die and the manifold (Fig. 3B), wherein the inlet port and the outlet port extend through openings in the lid (openings 312 are part of the inlet/outlet).
Regarding claim 16, Haba teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising:
coupling a first coolant line of a coolant system to the inlet port (see Fig. 8, coolant line 108); and
coupling a second coolant line of the coolant system to the outlet port (Fig. 8, coolant line 108), wherein the coolant system is configured to flow coolant fluid through the chamber to exchange heat with the first die (see Fig. 8, coolant flow path shown in arrows).
Regarding claim 19, Haba teaches the method of claim 15, wherein said coupling the lid to the substrate further comprises adhering the lid to the manifold (Fig. 3B, adhered via 322).
Regarding claim 20, Haba teaches the method of claim 15, wherein said coupling the lid to the substrate further comprises thermally coupling, via thermal interface material, one or more second dies to the lid (see Fig. 6, second die 604 adhered to lid via TIM 616).
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 2, 11, 13-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haba in view of Wu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0066164)
Regarding claim 2, Haba teaches the device of claim 1, but does not teach wherein a portion of the first die includes a plurality of fins to increase a surface area of the first die.
However, Wu teaches a similar device in which the die has a plurality of fins (see Wu Fig. 8A and 7A, fins 117). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that fins could have been formed in the top of the die because this allows for further cooling channels and higher surface area on the die.
Regarding claim 11, Haba teaches the system of claim 7, but does not teach wherein a portion of the first die includes a plurality of fins to increase a surface area of the first die.
However, Wu teaches a similar device in which the die has a plurality of fins (see Wu Fig. 8A and 7A, fins 117). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that fins could have been formed in the top of the die because this allows for further cooling channels and higher surface area on the die.
Regarding claim 13, Haba teaches the system of claim 7, but does not teach wherein the seal comprises sealant and a tongue and groove connection between the first die and the manifold.
However, Wu teaches that the seal between a manifold and chip can be a sealant (sealant 700, paragraph [0042]) in a tongue and groove formation (see Fig. 8, tongue 700 goes into groove 640). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the sealing method of Haba could have been replaced by the sealing method of Wu because this creates only a single periphery sealant, allowing for more complete contact between the die and liquid coolant (see Wu Fig. 8A, entire top surface of die is in contact with coolant compared to Haba which is limited to channels).
Regarding claim 14, Haba in view of Wu teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the manifold includes a channel (Wu Fig. 8A, channel 640) that forms a groove of the tongue and groove connection, and wherein the first die includes a protrusion (protrusion 700) that forms a tongue of the tongue and groove connection.
Regarding claim 17, Haba teaches the method of claim 15, but does not teach wherein a portion of the first die includes a plurality of fins to increase a surface area of the first die, and wherein the portion is located in the chamber.
However, Wu teaches a similar device in which the die has a plurality of fins in the chamber (see Wu Fig. 8A and 7A, fins 117). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that fins could have been formed in the top of the die because this allows for further cooling channels and higher surface area on the die.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haba in view of Haba et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,176,264)(“Haba2”)
Regarding claim 3, Haba teaches the device of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the manifold is formed of a polymer material.
However, Haba2 teaches that a similar manifold can be a polymer (Haba2 Col. 5, lines 55-56). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the manifold of Haba could have been a polymer because it would have been a simple substitution of one known manifold material for another with predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, Haba teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the manifold is formed of plastic and the lid is formed of metal.
However, Haba2 teaches that a similar manifold can be a polymer (Haba2 Col. 5, lines 55-56) and the lid can be metal (Haba2 Col. 8, lines 20-21). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the manifold of Haba could have been a polymer and the lid could have been a metal because it would have been a simple substitution of one known manifold material and lid material for another with predictable results.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haba in view of Lunsman et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0092869).
Regarding claim 4, Haba teaches the device of claim 3, wherein the manifold is a unitary, molded member.
However, Lunsman teaches that a cold plate can be injected molded (see Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the cold plate/manifold of Haba in view of Haba2 could have been injection molded because Lunsman teaches that their method of making them allows for the use of thermally conductive plastics without forming voids (Lunsman Title).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 18 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest wherein the first die includes a recess that forms a groove of a tongue and groove connection, and wherein the manifold includes a protrusion that forms a tongue of the tongue and groove connection.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest applying the sealant on a support area of the first die, to a portion of the manifold, or both, wherein the support area includes a recess and the manifold includes a protrusion; and placing the protrusion in the recess to couple the manifold to the first die via the sealant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Evan G Clinton whose telephone number is (571)270-0525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday at 8:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Zandra Smith can be reached at 571-272-2429. 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.
/EVAN G CLINTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights