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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/20/24 was/were received by the Examiner before the issuance/mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered (except for anything in foreign language non-accompanied by an English translation) by the Examiner.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US 2021/0327787).
a. Re claim 14, Yang et al. disclose an assembly for dissipating heat from a semiconductor die, the assembly comprising: a semiconductor die (silicon die on fig. 3a and related text; see remaining of disclosure for more details); a protective lid 304 thermally coupled to the semiconductor die, the protective lid comprising a surface (top surface) “to expose to a coolant liquid” (the limitation “to expose to a coolant liquid” merely conveys an intent, does not require the presence of a coolant liquid and does not structurally distinguish over the art of Yang et al. ‘787; in fact, the quoted limitation is basically an intended use of the surface that does not provide any structural distinction over the top surface of lid 304; 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); and a boiling enhancement coating 306 disposed on the surface, wherein the boiling enhancement coating comprises: a first layer of metallic mesh (bottom one of the five copper meshes stacked in fig. 3a; see [0025]) or metallic wool bonded to the surface; and a second layer of metallic mesh (the one directly above the bottom copper mesh in order ) or metallic wool bonded to the first layer of metallic mesh or metallic wool.
b. Re claim 16, the first layer of metallic mesh or metallic wool is bonded to the surface by solder (see [0026]) or sintering.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2023/0137864).
a. Re claim 1, Yang et al. disclose an assembly to dissipate heat from a semiconductor die, the assembly comprising: a die 220 (see fig. 1 and related text; see [0039] and remaining of disclosure for more details); a protective lid 260 ([0042] thermally coupled to the semiconductor die, the protective lid comprising a surface 266 to expose to a coolant liquid 120 ([0047]); and a boiling enhancement coating 330&310 (figs. 1&7, [0048]-[0052], [0053], [0058], [0069]) disposed on the surface, wherein the boiling enhancement coating comprises: an adhesive 310 contacting the surface; and particles, a wool, or a mesh (310 is a metal mesh as per at least [0053] and [0069]) bonded by the adhesive to the surface, “wherein the adhesive has been etched to remove the adhesive from regions of the surface not covered by the particles” (the Examiner notes that the quoted limitation only applies when the boiling enhancement coating comprises particles among the three possible options of particles, wool or mesh stated above). But Yang et al. do not appear to explicitly disclose the die 220 being a semiconductor die. However, the type of dies disclosed in [0039] for die 220 are conventionally made of silicon, and as such, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided die 220 made of silicon, and this, as a non-inventive step of using a known material for the type of dies listed in [0039] (see MPEP 2144.07) and also in order to benefit from the low-cost and high integration capability of silicon (see MPEP 2144.I&II).
b. Re claim 2, the assembly of claim 1 is mounted on a printed circuit board 210 in a package 100.
c. Re claim 3, the Examiner notes that the process limitations of “the adhesive has been etched to remove the adhesive from regions of the surface not covered by the particles, the wool, or the mesh” found in product claim(s) # invoke the product-by-process doctrine. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP § 2113). For example, anticipation of claim 3 does not require that “the adhesive has been etched to remove the adhesive from regions of the surface not covered by the particles, the wool, or the mesh” but only the structural configuration of the adhesive not being present in regions of the surface not covered by the particles, the wool, or the mesh, and this is at least partly the case for peripheral regions of surface 266 not covered by the mesh 330 on fig. 1.
d. Re claim 4, the adhesive is an acrylic ([0049]).
e. Re claim 5, the adhesive is a thermally-conductive epoxy (the epoxy resin listed in [0049] is necessarily at least partially thermally conductive as any material).
f. Re claim 6, [0049] states that adhesive 310 can be any type of adhesive, and can be laminated and this implicitly means that it is under the form of a laminate (i.e. a tape). In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the adhesive 310 as a tape in order to laminate it as disclosed in [0049].
g. Re claim 13, Yang et al. do not appear to explicitly disclose that the surface is dimpled or corrugated. However, it is conventionally known in the art to roughen a surface (resulting in corrugated or dimpled surface) to be attached via an adhesive layer in order to increase to contact area between said adhesive and said surface, and as such, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the surface 266 to be roughened (resulting in a corrugated or dimpled surface) in order to at least increase the adhesion with adhesive 310, thus also the adhesion between the metal mesh 330 and lid 260 (see MPE 2144.I&II).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-29 are allowed.
Claims 7-12 and 15 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 Examiner notes that for independent claim 1 to be allowable by incorporation of any dependent claims 7-12, independent claim 1 must be restricted only to the particles since the said particles are one option among 3 to be chosen from in claim 1, and the Yang reference with its metal mesh will still apply to claim 1 even if anyone of dependent claims 7-12 in canceled and inserted into claim 1 while the mesh limitation or even wool (which the metal foam disclosed by Yang ‘684 in at least [0053] as an option for element 330 can be reasonably interpreted to be).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PENIEL M GUMEDZOE whose telephone number is (571)270-3041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM - 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, Dale Page can be reached at 5712707877. 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.
/PENIEL M GUMEDZOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights