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 .
Prior art of Record
The prior art made of record in this office action shall be referred to as follows;
U.S. 2012/0049341 Bezama et al. (‘Bezama hereafter), App 13/290824 Filed 11/07/2011; Para 0057; #123 coper, #122 (chip),
U.S. 5,847,929 Bernier et al. (‘Bernier hereafter), Filed 06/28/1996;
The above references will be referred to hereafter by the names or numbers indicated above.
Claim status:
Claims 1 - 12 are currently being examined.
No Claims have been canceled.
No Claims are allowed or objected to for allowable subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “welded” in claim 10 is used by the claim to mean “bonded,” while the accepted meaning is “a fabrication process that permanently joins materials by melting the parts and allowing them to fuse.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
It is unclear what the term “package of a (the) chip” refers to. In claims 1, 7, 9 & 10 the package is understood to mean the system of the IC chip and the Thermal Insulation Material (TIM1). However, in claim 11, “package of a (the) chip” means only the IC chip. All claims shall be examined as best understood.
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 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) 1 - 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2012/0049341 Bezama et al. (‘Bezama hereafter).
Regarding Claim[s] 1, ‘Bezama discloses all the claim limitations including: A heat dissipation apparatus (‘Bezama, Para 0015, “The cooling device (40) may be an air cooled heat sink or a liquid cooler device having a plurality of thermal fins ( 41) that define open channels ( 42) through which air or liquid may flow to remove heat from the thermal fins (41).”), comprising:
a heat spreading structure (‘Bezama, Fig 4A, #123 (cooler device)) and a first surface heat dissipation structure; wherein, the heat spreading structure at least comprises a first surface and a second surface which are oppositely arranged (‘Bezama, Fig 4A, #123 (cooler device), bottom surface/ first surface near #122 (IC chip), #123 (cooler device) top surface/ second surface is opposite the bottom surface/ first surface),
the first surface is connected with a package of a chip to be heat dissipated (‘Bezama, Fig 4A, #123 (cooler device), bottom surface near #122 (IC chip), #123 is indirectly connected to #122. However, #122 (IC chip) and #127 (TIM1 layer) are considered the system of the “package of the chip.” Para 0013, “In the exemplary framework of FIGS. 1A-B, the package lid (33) functions as a mechanical stiffener member and a heat spreader.”); and
the first surface heat dissipation structure is formed on the second surface by using a copper powder spraying process (‘Bezama, top and bottom surfaces share the same body of #123 (cooler device), Para 0025, “State of the art chip packaging technologies typically utilize metallic material such as copper to construct chip package cooler devices (e.g., liquid coolers) or heat sink structures because copper has a very high thermal conductivity, and can be readily achined/etched/formed into fine features and dimensions (e.g., micro channel cooler devices) with low manufacturing costs. Typically, copper liquid cooler devices are used for cooling chips mounted on ceramic multichip modules (MCMs). However, in each of the conventional frameworks discussed above, the cooler (40) is physically attached to the circuit board (20), the footprint of the cooler (40) must be larger than the footprint of the chip (32) and extend past the outer periphery of the chip (32) so as to connect to the board (20).” Cooler is made of copper.
“by using a copper powder spraying process” is considered a “product by process” limitation (see below)).
A recitation of “product by process” claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself.
The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113(I).
Since there is no structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, the apparatus of ‘Bezama meets the claim.
Regarding Claim[s] 2, ‘Bezama discloses all the claim limitations including: the heat spreading structure further comprises a third surface (‘Bezama, Fig 4A, third surface is shown adjacent to #134 (layer of adhesive) on the right side), and
the heat dissipation apparatus further comprises a second surface heat dissipation structure (‘Bezama, Fig 4A, #123 (cooler device) top surface/ second surface is opposite the bottom surface/ first surface),
wherein the third surface is connected with the first surface and the second surface (‘Bezama, Fig 4A, third surface connects to the first surface by sharing an edge and connects to the second surfaces by sharing an edge, and is therefore connected to the first and second surfaces);
the second surface heat dissipation structure is formed on the third surface (‘Bezama, Fig 4A, the second surfaces shares an edge with the third surface and the second surface is shown to be formed on the third surface. “forming” is considered a “product by process” limitation, (See Above)).
The limitation: “the second surface heat dissipation structure is formed on the third surface by using a copper powder spraying process.” Is considered a “product by process” limitation (See Above).
Regarding Claim[s] 3 & 4, ‘Bezama discloses all the claim limitations including: a spraying thickness used in the copper powder spraying process is 0.05-0.15 mm.
Cooler is made of copper, Para 0025, the powdered metallurgy process of spraying using a thickness is considered a “product by process” limitation (See Above). There is no structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, the apparatus of ‘Bezama meets the claim.
Regarding Claim[s] 5 & 6, ‘Bezama discloses all the claim limitations including: a spraying pressure used in the copper powder spraying process is 0.2-1 MPa.
Cooler is made of copper, Para 0025, the powdered metallurgy process of spraying and with any specific pressure is considered a “product by process” limitation (See Above). There is no structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, the apparatus of ‘Bezama meets the claim.
Regarding Claim[s] 7, ‘Bezama discloses all the claim limitations including: the heat spreading structure further comprises at least one heat spreading block (‘Bezama, Fig 4A, #123 (cooler device)), and
the at least one heat spreading block is provided above the package of the chip to be heat dissipated (‘Bezama, Fig 4A, heat is dissipated from #122 (IC chip) to #123, #127 and #122 are considered the system of the “package of the chip.”); and a bottom surface of the at least one heat spreading block constitutes the first surface (‘Bezama, Fig 4A, #123 (cooler device), bottom surface/ first surface), and
a top surface of the at least one heat spreading block constitutes the second surface (‘Bezama, Fig 4A, #123 (cooler device) top surface/ second surface).
Regarding Claim[s] 8, ‘Bezama discloses all the claim limitations including: a shape of the heat spreading block is one of the following: cuboid, cube, frustum and cylinder(‘Bezama, Fig 4A, shows #123 (cooler device) to be a cuboid shape).
Regarding Claim[s] 9, ‘Bezama discloses all the claim limitations including: the first surface is connected with the package of the chip to be heat dissipated (‘Bezama, Fig 4A, #122 (IC chip) is connected to #123 (cooler device) indirectly through #127 (TIM1 layer), #127 and #122 are considered the system of the “package of the chip.”).
Regarding Claim[s] 10, ‘Bezama discloses all the claim limitations including: the package of the chip to be heat dissipated is welded to the first surface (‘Bezama, Fig 4A, #127 and #122 are considered the system of the “package of the chip.” Abst, “The liquid cooler device is mechanically coupled to the package substrate through a metallic stiffener structure that is bonded to the flexible package substrate to
provide mechanical rigidity to the flexible package substrate.” Examiner understands the term “welded” to mean “bonded.” Further, “welding” is a product by process limitation (See Above)).
Regarding Claim[s] 11, ‘Bezama discloses all the claim limitations including: a heat conducting medium layer is filled between the package of the chip to be heat dissipated and the first surface (‘Bezama, Fig 4A, #127 and #122 are considered the system of the “package of the chip.” However, #127 (Thermal Interface Material) is a conductive medium layer between the IC chip and the first surface.
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2012/0049341 Bezama et al. (‘Bezama hereafter), and in view of U.S. 5,847,929 Bernier et al. (‘Bernier hereafter).
Regarding Claim[s] 12, ‘Bezama discloses all the claim limitations except is silent regarding: a surface of the first surface heat dissipation structure has a rough pattern.
However, ‘Bernier teaches: Col. 10, ln 18 - 22, “Modules 362 and 386 share the same aluminum or copper heat sink. The high compliance of silicone adhesives allow multiple components to share the heat sink regardless of the substantial difference between the CTE of epoxy circuit board 374 and aluminum or copper heat sink plate 388.” Heat sink can be Aluminum or Copper. Clm 9, “a heat sink including a copper alloy and a nickel plated connection surface coated with amino silane or epoxy silane coupler.” Clm 11, “heat sink includes an aluminum metal connection surface which is roughened. An Aluminum or Copper heat sink is roughed. Col. 6, ln 59 - 63, “The surface of the aluminum is preferably treated to increase adhesion with the flexible-epoxy. For example the surface can be roughened by vapor blasting, grit blasting, etching or a similar roughening finishing can be used to increase adhesion of flexible-epoxy to aluminum.”
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ‘Bezama with a “roughened surface” as taught by ‘Bernier in order to provide an increased adhesion with the epoxy (‘Bernier, Col. 6, ln 59 – 63).
Prior Art also considered
U.S. 2004/0118500 Sung-Fei Wang (‘Wang hereafter), Para 0026, Fig 2, #300 (heat sink is made of copper)
U.S. 2006/0128068 Murray et al. (‘Murray hereafter), Paras 0073 & 0074, teaches: copper heat sink, Para 0002, teaches: heat sinks used to dissipate the heat from IC chips.
U.S. 2007/0092996 Lo et al. (‘Lo hereafter), Para 0020, teaches: Copper Heat sink mounted to IC chip.
Conclusion
Examiner encourages Applicant to fill out and submit form PTO-SB-439 to allow internet communications in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 (MPEP 02.03). Should the need arise to perfect applicant-proposed or examiner’s amendments, authorization for e-mail correspondence would have already been authorized and would save time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE AVERICK whose telephone number is (571)270-7565. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 3:00PM M- F ET.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/LAWRENCE AVERICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
07/14/2026
Prosecution Insights