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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I and Species B in the reply filed on 2026 Feb 25 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no burden to search each species. This is not found persuasive. The current search to the elected embodiment includes over fifty-thousand documents considered. The current prior art of record does not include many of the exclusive feature of non-elected embodiments. Additional searching drawn to the features of the non-elected embodiments would require reviewing thousands of additional documents.
Applicant states that Fig. 8 should be included in Species B. Originally presented independent claims 1 and 17 recited the first and second layers having substantially planar top and bottom surfaces, thereby excluding embodiments with non-planar surfaces from being include in the listing of Species.
Note that features such as the vias recited in claim 10, which are not shown in Fig. 2A, are still considered to be drawn to the elected species and have been examined.
Regarding amended claims 20-27, claim 20 is still an independent method claim. Method claim 20 referencing apparatus claim 1 does not overcome the restriction requirement.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 16 and 20-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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 1-9, 12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2023/0073259 A1 (herein “LAM”).
Regarding independent claim 1.
LAM discloses a thermal leveler blank (Fig. 2) comprising:
a first encapsulating layer (204);
a second encapsulating layer (208) arranged over the first encapsulating layer; and
a thermal spreader layer (212) between the first encapsulating layer and the second encapsulating layer, wherein each of the first and second encapsulating layers have outermost surfaces that are free of thermal control structures (shown in Fig. 2), wherein the first encapsulating layer has a first thickness arranged directly above the thermal spreader layer, and wherein the second encapsulating layer has a second thickness arranged directly below the thermal spreader layer, the second thickness being greater than the first thickness (Fig. 2 shows layer 208 has a greater thickness than layer 204).
Regarding claim 2.
LAM discloses the thermal leveler blank of claim 1, wherein the first encapsulating layer and the second encapsulating layer have a lower thermal conductivity than the thermal spreader layer ([0034], [0037]).
Regarding claim 3.
LAM discloses the thermal leveler blank of claim 1, wherein the first encapsulating layer and the second encapsulating layer are made of a plurality of layers bonded together ([0027]). Additionally, the layers are not claimed as being different materials or having other structural features that would differentiate the final bonded structure from a monolithic element. The bonded layers appears to be more relevant to the process of making the structure rather than to the final structure. Therefore, the structure disclosed by LAM appears to be substantially identical to the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4.
LAM discloses the thermal leveler blank of claim 1, wherein the first encapsulating layer and the second encapsulating layer comprise at least one of: stainless steel, nickel or a nickel alloy, or aluminum or an aluminum alloy ([0034] comprises aluminum).
Regarding claim 5.
LAM discloses the thermal leveler blank of claim 1, wherein the thermal spreader layer comprises at least one of: graphite, diamond, or copper ([0034] diamond).
Regarding claim 6.
LAM discloses the thermal leveler blank of claim 1, wherein outermost surfaces of each of the first and second encapsulating layers are substantially planar (shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7.
This claim contains a product by process limitation (i.e. attached at a bonding interface by way of diffusion bonding). The layers are not disclosed as being different materials or having other structural features that would differentiate the final bonded structure from a monolithic element. Additionally, diffusion bonding is known for providing a nearly monolithic result. Therefore, the final bonded structure of the claimed invention appears to be substantially identical to the structure disclosed by LAM. A product by process limitation does not limit the claim to recite the step, just the structure obtained by performing the step. Further, in product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 8.
This claim contains a product by process limitation (i.e. is permanently bonded at a bonding interface). The layers are not claimed as being different materials or having other structural features that would differentiate the final bonded structure from a monolithic element. Therefore, the structure disclosed by LAM appears to be substantially identical to the final product of the claimed invention. A product by process limitation does not limit the claim to recite the step, just the structure obtained by performing the step. Further, in product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 9.
The layers are not claimed as being different materials or having other structural features that would differentiate the final bonded structure from a monolithic element. The bonding interface appears to be more relevant to the process of making the structure rather than to the final structure. Therefore, the structure disclosed by LAM appears to be substantially identical to the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12.
LAM discloses the thermal leveler blank of claim 1, further comprising an interface layer that separates the thermal spreader layer from the first encapsulating layer and the second encapsulating layer (220/224) ([0035] one or more layers surround 216).
Regarding claim 14.
LAM discloses the thermal leveler blank of claim 12, wherein the interface layer comprises molybdenum ([0035] outer layer of molybdenum).
Regarding claim 15.
LAM discloses the thermal leveler blank of claim 12, wherein the interface layer is absent from between the direct connection of the first encapsulating layer and the second encapsulating layer. The layers are not claimed as being different materials or having other structural features that would differentiate the final bonded structure from a monolithic element. The bonding interface appears to be more relevant to the process of making the structure rather than to the final structure. Therefore, the structure disclosed by LAM appears to be substantially identical to the claimed invention.
Regarding independent claim 17.
LAM discloses a thermal leveler blank (Fig. 2) comprising:
a first encapsulating layer (204);
a second encapsulating (208) layer arranged over the first encapsulating layer having a bottommost surface that is substantially planar (shown in Fig. 2); and
a thermal spreader layer (212) sandwiched between the first encapsulating layer and the second encapsulating layer, wherein the first encapsulating layer arranged above the thermal spreader layer is thinner than the second encapsulating layer arranged below the thermal spreader layer (shown in Fig. 2), and wherein outer sidewalls of the thermal spreader layer are surrounding by at least one of the first or second encapsulating layers (shown in Fig. 2; sidewalls surround 212).
Regarding claim 18.
LAM discloses the thermal leveler blank of claim 17, wherein the second encapsulating layer is thicker than each of the first encapsulating layer and the thermal spreader layer (shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19.
This claim contains a product by process limitation (i.e. is permanently bonded at a bonding interface). The layers are not claimed as being different materials or having other structural features that would differentiate the final bonded structure from a monolithic element. Therefore, the structure disclosed by LAM appears to be substantially identical to the final product of the claimed invention. A product by process limitation does not limit the claim to recite the step, just the structure obtained by performing the step. Further, in product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LAM in view of US 2014/0209242 A1 (herein “SUN”).
LAM does not disclose that the device has support vias extending between the encapsulating layers.
Sun discloses a thermal leveler blank having (Fig. 1A) having top and bottom layers encapsulating a thermal spreader layer, and having vias (108) extending between the top and bottom layers through the thermal spreader layer and is diffusion bonded ([0017]).
Sun discloses that the vias 108 provides improved temperature uniformity as well as electrical uniformity ([0016]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of LAM with the teachings of Sun.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LAM in view of US 2015/0253089 A1 (herein “Fan”).
LAM does not disclose the claimed ratio between the first thickness and the third thickness.
Fan discloses a thermal leveler (Fig. 3) having a top encapsulating first layer (320) and a thermal spreader third layer (310), wherein the a ratio between the first layer thickness and the third layer thickness is between 0.5 and 4 (first layer 320 has a thickness of 0.05 mm to 2 mm [0033], and third layer 310 has a thickness from 0.001 mm to 5 mm [0026], representing a range of ratios that fall within the claimed range).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LAM in view of US 2024/0121879 A1 (herein “Marshall”).
LAM does not disclose that the interface layer comprises chromium.
Marshall discloses a thermal level blank having a thermal spreader layer, and provides a list of suitable metals useful for the thermal spreader layer ([0041]) which includes chromium.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of LAM with the material teachings of Marshall.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jon T. Schermerhorn Jr. whose telephone number is (571)270-5283. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/JON T. SCHERMERHORN JR./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763