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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the remarks on 3/30/26, with respect to the argument of rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn. The new rejection has been applied over US11852678 (Ranganatham)
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-5, 9, 11-12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ranganathan et al. US11852678B2 (hereinafter Ranganathan).
As to claim 1, Ranganathan discloses in Figs. 1A, 2, 3, 4, and 7: A thermal head for controlling one or more temperatures of one or more devices under test (DUTs), the thermal head comprising: (“thermal management head” comprising active thermal interposer device 120 thermally coupled to DUT 110 as shown in Fig. 1A; “Active thermal interposer device 720 is thermally coupled to device under test 710” as shown in Fig. 7);
a plurality of adapters thermally coupled to a plurality of components of the one or more DUTs, (“Active thermal interposer device 200 may comprise a plurality of active thermal regions or zones 210, 215, 220, 225, 230” as shown in Fig. 2; each zone thermally coupled to a respective component/module of the DUT);
wherein at least two of the plurality of adapters thermally couple to at least two of the plurality of component at surfaces, the surfaces having surface areas different from each other. (“Each thermal region may correspond to a region of a device under test. For example, active thermal region 210 may correspond to a large die of a multi-chip module, which active thermal regions 215, 220, 225, and 230 correspond to other and/or smaller chips of the multi-chip module” as shown in Fig. 2; “Active thermal interposer device 400 is configured to mechanically and thermally couple to a multi-chip module comprising integrated circuit devices of differing heights or thickness” as shown in Fig. 4; different zone sizes and thermal stacks provide surfaces with different surface areas thermally coupled to components).
As to claim 2, Ranganathan discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above.
Ranganathan further discloses: The thermal head of claim 1, wherein the at least two of the plurality of components surface areas are different from each other. (“active thermal region 210 may correspond to a large die of a multi-chip module, which active thermal regions 215, 220, 225, and 230 correspond to other and/or smaller chips of the multi-chip module” as shown in Fig. 2).
As to claim 4, Ranganathan discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above.
Ranganathan further discloses: The thermal head of claim 1, wherein the at least two of the plurality of components have different heights. (“Active thermal interposer device 400 is configured to mechanically and thermally couple to a multi-chip module comprising integrated circuit devices of differing heights or thickness” as shown in Fig. 4; “some heating and/or cooling zones of active thermal interposer device 720 may be mounted on buttons to account for different heights of the multiple zones of device under test 710” as shown in Fig. 7).
As to claim 5, Ranganathan further discloses: The thermal head of claim 1, wherein the at least two of the plurality of adapters have different heights. (“a single active thermal interposer device may comprise multiple thermal stacks on multiple buttons at different heights” as shown in Fig. 4; zones mounted on buttons of different heights as shown in Fig. 7).
As to claim 9, Ranganathan discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Ranganathan further discloses: wherein the at least two of the plurality of adapters are each thermally coupled to independently controllable heaters. (“each zone of the plurality of zones of the active thermal interposer device is further controlled (742 of Fig. 7) by individually controlling heating and/or cooling of each zone”).
As to claim 11, Ranganathan discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Ranganathan further discloses: wherein each of the at least two of the plurality of adapters is thermally coupled to a unique heater. (each zone has its own heating element controlled at 742 of Fig. 7).
As to claim 12, Ranganathan discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Ranganathan further discloses: wherein the plurality of components include a high-power component and a low-power component. (large die zone 210 vs. smaller chip zones 215–230 as shown in Fig. 2, with control based on power consumption).
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) 3, 8, 13-14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranganathan et al. US11852678B2 (hereinafter Ranganathan).
As to claims 3, 8, 13-14, 20, Ranganathan discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above.
Ranganathan discloses all except for wherein the at least two of the plurality of adapters have different thermal masses, and the other features as claims above. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to have wherein the at least two of the plurality of adapters have different thermal masses since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 10, 15--19 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.
As to the claims 6-7, 10, 15-19, the prior art in record does not disclose the all of the limitations as recited in the claims above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUNG X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1967. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30am-6:30pm M-F.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-2258. 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.
/TUNG X NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 6/13/26
Prosecution Insights