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 Interpretation
Claims in this application are not interpreted under 35 USC §112(f).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13, 15-19 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “the first and second portions of the TCM, that are in contact with the side walls of the set of memory components and the processing device,”. However, grammatically, there is no reason in this case to offset a clause that beings with “that” with commas from its antecedent. Accordingly, the commas should be removed before “that “ and after “device”.
Claim 1, in one subordinate clause, introduces a TCM and then includes multiple descriptive clauses afterward, in the same subordinate clause, which begin with “the TCM” and further define the TCM. However, in the same subordinate clause the introduces the TCM, claim then introduces a “heights” limitation and then, disconnected from the introduction of “first and second portions of the TCM”, further defines “the first portion of the TCM” and “the second portion of the TCM” with the requirements that the first and second portions comprising a first and second type of thermally conductive material, respectively, which are different from each other. These limitations would be more appropriately defined in separate subordinate clauses within a “wherein” clause, which would improve the grammar and readability of the claim. For example:
…a thermally conductive material (TCM) surrounding the set of memory components and the processing device, the TCM configured to dissipate heat from the processing device and the set of memory components, the TCM being deposited on a surface of a printed circuit board (PCB) on which the set of memory components and the processing device are placed, the TCM encapsulating completely one or more components on the PCB having heights lower than heights of the set of memory components and the processing device, the TCM comprising first and second portions that are in contact with and only cover side walls of the set of memory components and the processing device leaving exposed to air at least portions of respective surfaces of the set of memory components and the processing device;
wherein:
heights of the first and second portions of the TCM that are in contact with the side walls of the set of memory components and the processing device are lower than a height of the set of memory components and the processing device,
the at least portions of the respective surfaces of the set of memory components and the processing device not being covered at all, and
the first portion of the TCM that is in contact with the side walls of the set of memory components comprising a first type of thermally conductive material that is different from a second type of thermally conductive material that comprises the second portion of the TCM that is in contact with the side walls of the processing device,
the processing device is programmed to perform operations comprising:…
The readability of claim 17 would be improved by separating out the limitations into more subordinate clauses, such as similar to that indicated for claim 1 above.
The readability of claim 21 would be improved by separating out the limitations into more subordinate clauses, such as similar to that indicated for claim 1 above.
Claims 2-13, 15-16 and 18-19 are objected to for failing to correct the deficiencies of a base claim from which they depend.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-13, 15-19 and 21 are 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.
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 recites that the first and second portions of the TCM “cover side walls” of the set of memory components and the processing device, while also reciting that “heights of the first and second portions of the TCM” are “lower than a height of the set of memory components and the processing device”. It is unclear how the first and second portions of the TCM could cover the side walls of the memory components and processing device while also having heights lowers than the heights of those components. If the TCM portions “cover side walls”, that language reasonably appears to require the TCM portions to extend along the side walls to the height of the components, as shown for example in [Fig. 3] of Applicant’s drawings. Conversely, if the TCM portions have heights lowers than the heights of the components, the TCM portions would seem to be able to cover only lower portions of the side walls to a point lower than the height of the component and therefore not cover the side walls themselves. The claim therefore does not make clear whether “cover side walls” requires full-height side wall coverage or only partial side wall coverage as it appears to inconsistently require both mutually exclusive scenarios. Accordingly, the scope of the claim cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
Claim 1 recites, “the TCM comprising first and second portions that are in contact with and only cover side walls of the set of memory components and the processing device”, which appears to indicate that the first and second portions are each in contact with and cover the side walls of both the set of memory components and the processing device. However, the claim later recites, “the first portion of the TCM that is in contact with the side walls of the set of memory components” without mentioning the processing device and then “the second portion of the TCM that is in contact with the side walls of the processing device”, which appears to indicate that the first and second portions cover the side walls of the set of memory components and the processing device, respectively, rather than each doing so individually. Therefore, it is unclear whether the first and second portions each contact and cover both the set of memory components and the processing device, or whether the first and second portions each contact and cover the set of memory components and the processing device, respectively. Due to this ambiguity, “the first portion of the TCM that is in contact with the side walls of the set of memory components” could refer to only a subpart of the previously recited first portion, since the previously recited first portion appears to also contact the processing device. Likewise, “the second portion of the TCM that is in contact with the side walls of the processing device” could refer to only a subpart of the previously recited second portion, since the previously recited second portion would also contact the set of memory components. Accordingly, due to the aforementioned multiple, distinct and reasonable interpretations, the scope of the claim cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite. For the purposes of applying prior art, the claim will be interpreted as reciting that the first and second portions of the TCM collectively are in contact with and cover the side walls of the set of memory components and the processing device, and the recitations of “the first portion f the TCM that is in contact with the side walls of the set of memory components” and “the second portion of the TCM that is in contact with the side walls of the processing device” refer to only the sub-parts of the different portions of the TCM that contact the respective portions.
Regarding claim 2:
Claim 2 recites, “the first type of thermally conductive material” and “the second type of thermally conductive material”. However, claim 1 already recites “a first type of thermally conductive material” and “a second type of thermally conductive material” and then claim 2 reintroduces “a first type of thermally conductive material” and “a second thermally conductive material”. Accordingly, the antecedent basis of the limitation is unclear as it could refer to either “a first type” and “a second type” from claims 1 or 2, or they could refer to the same “first typeand “second type” and accordingly the scope of the claim cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 3:
Claim 3 recites, “the height of the TCM”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims as claim 1 only previously recites, “heights of the first and second portions of the TCM”. Accordingly, it is unclear if “the height” is supposed to refer back to one of the “heights” of the first and second TCM or a different heigh altogether and the scope of the claim cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
Claim 3 also recites, “the height of the TCM is less than or equal to the height of the physical chip”. However, it is unclear how the full scope of the limitation could be realized, namely, how the height of the TCM could be equal to the specified height of the physical chip, if the “heights of the first and second portions of the TCM… being lower than a height of the set of memory components and the processing device” as required in claim 1. Accordingly, the scope of the claim cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
Regarding claims 4 and 18:
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected according to an analogous analysis as that performed in claim 3 for reciting “a height of the TCM is less than or equal to the specified height of the physical chip” which appears to contradict the requirement from the independent claim that “heights of the first and second portions of the TCM… being lower than a height of the set of memory components and the processing device”.
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 14 is rejected for reasons analogous to those indicated for claim 1 for reciting analogous limitations.
Regarding claim 21:
Claim 21 is rejected for reasons analogous to those indicated for claim 1 for reciting analogous limitations.
Regarding claims 2-13, 15-16, and 18-19:
Claims 2-13, 15-16 and 18-19 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiencies of a rejected base claim from which they depend.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-10, 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the review by Nathan Kirsch of the Micron 1100 512GB M.2 SATA SSD w/ FIPS 140-2, as preserved by the Internet Archive on 14 October 2019 (Kirsch) as evidenced by the SSD Database maintained by Gabriel Ferraz on Tech Power Up, with the entry titled “Kingston UV400 960 GB” as preserved by the Internet Archive on 18 July 2023 (Ferraz) in view of the webpage on the Hotline Computers website by Janusz Korczak titled “Upgrading of SSD”, as preserved by the Internet Archive on 21 October 2021 (Korczak) in further view of US Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0181961 A1 (Sloat) in further view of Korean Patent Application Publication KR 10-1461197 B1 (Kang).
Regarding claims 1 and analogous claims 17 and 21:
Kirsch discloses a system (the 1100 FIPS M.2 Form Factor 3D NAND SSD as seen in the pictures on [pgs. 1-2]) comprising: a set of memory components of a memory sub-system (enough of Microns 384 gigabit (~48 GB) 32 Layer TLC NAND flash chips for 512 GB of usable capacity [see pictures and pg. 1, ¶1]) a processing device operatively coupled to the set of memory components (the M.2 drive is controlled with a Marvell 88SS1074 controller (which includes a dual-core 32-bit ARM processor as evidenced by Ferraz in [Ferraz, §Controller, pg. 2]); and a thermally conductive material (TCM) surrounding the set of memory components and the processing device (by disclosing the epoxy conformal coating covering the drive as seen in the pictures [pgs. 1-2]), the TCM being deposited on a surface of a printed circuit board (PCB) on which the set of memory components and the processing device are placed, the TCM encapsulating completely one or more components on the PCM having heights lower than heights of the set of memory components and the processing device, the TCM covering side walls of the set of memory components and the processing device, heights of the TCM, that are in contact with the side walls of the set of memory components and the processing device, being lower than a height of the set of memory components and the processing device (see the pictures where the black opaque conformal coating covers everything including the small resistors and capacitors on the PCB, which are smaller than the memory or controller (processor) chips [pgs. 1-2, pictures] [pg. 2, ¶2]. Furthermore, a top surface of the TCM where it covers only the PCB and not any components (i.e., a height of the TCM) is lower than a height of the set of memory components or the processing device [pgs. 1-2, pictures] [pg. 2, ¶2]. Of note, most consumers will never need the FIPS 140-2 compliance provided by the coating [pg. 2, ¶2]).
Kirsch does not explicitly disclose, but Korczak teaches, the TCM configured to dissipate heat from the processing device and the set of memory components (by teaching an SSD may be potted with a thermally conductive compound to turn the entire surface of the SSD into a heatsink (dissipate heat from the processing device and the set of memory components), provide protection against environmental influences, and protection against mechanical damage from falls and impacts, etc. [pg. 1]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the black, opaque, epoxy conformal coating applied for security reasons that most consumers will never need as taught by Kirsch to alternatively/additionally include the similar black opaque coating that is a thermally conductive compound that turns the entire surface of the disk into a heatsink as taught by Korczak.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it provides ideal cooling, full protection from environmental influences, and protection against mechanical damage as taught by Korczak in [pg. 1].
Kirsch in view of Korczak does not explicitly disclose, but Sloat teaches wherein the processing device is programmed to perform operations comprising: measuring temperature of at least one of the processing device or the set of memory components (by teaching that a memory sub-system controller including a processor (117) configured to execute instructions stored in local memory (119) (i.e., programmed) may sensor or monitor a temperature of the memory sub-system controller (115) and a temperature of the memory device (130) [0037] [0039] [0056]); accessing a reference temperature for controlling a data transfer rate between a host and the set of memory components; comparing the measured temperature with the reference temperature and adjusting the data transfer rate based on the comparing the measured temperature with the reference temperature (by teaching that a measured temperature can be compared to a threshold temperature, and the data transfer rate can be decreased if the temperature comparison indicates the measured temperature is getting closer, too close to, or exceeds the threshold temperature [0058] [0060] [0069] [0071]. The data transfer rate can be controlled with a delay [0060]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processor of the controller of the potted M.2 drive as taught by Kirsch in view of Korczak to additionally be configured to perform thermal throttling in response to a temperature measurement of the processor or memory exceeding a threshold or getting too close to a temperature threshold to maintain a temperature of the memory or processor below the threshold as taught by Sloat.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the temperature of a system exceeding a threshold can effect cooling costs and damage to the memory, and controlling the data transfer rate can be used to keep a temperature of a memory within a threshold temperature as taught by Sloat in [0015-0017].
Kirsch in view of Korczak does not explicitly disclose, but Kang teaches the TCM comprising first and second portions that are in contact with and only cover sidewalls leaving exposed to air at least portions of respective surfaces of the set of memory components and the processing device, heights of the first and second portions of the TCM, that are in contact with the side walls of the set of memory components and the processing device, being lower than a height of the set of memory components and the processing device, and the at least portions of the respective surfaces of the set of memory components and the processing device not being covered at all, the first portion of the TCM that is in contact with the side walls of the set of memory components comprising a first type of thermally conductive material that is different from a second type of thermally conductive material that comprises the second portion of the TCM that is in contact with the sidewalls of the processing device (by teaching that a heat-dissipating resin layer (120) may be applied so as to be in contact with a side surface of a semiconductor chip (50) (including a processor and a set of memory components as taught by Kirsch in view of Korczak in further view of Sloat) and so as to expose an upper surface of the semiconductor chip (50) directly to the air [Kang, translation, pgs. 4 & 9]. Furthermore, a height of the resin layer may step-down farther away from the side surface of the semiconductor chip (50) as can be seen in the only Figure in Kang, for example, as see in [Kang, original publication, pg. 1] (heights of the TCM being lower than a height of the set of memory components and the processing device)). The heat-dissipating resin layer (120) may comprise a resin (120) – (i.e., a first portion of the TCM that is in contact with the side walls of semiconductor chips (i.e., including a processor and a set of memory components as taught by Kirsch in view of Korczak in further view of Sloat). The heat dissipating resin layer (120) may also comprise a thermally conductive material such as Al or Cu (i.e., a second portion of the TCM that is in contact with the side walls of semiconductor chips (i.e., including a processor and a set of memory components as taught by Kirsch in view of Korczak in further view of Sloat) comprising a second type of thermally conductive material that is different from the first type of thermally conductive material). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the Al or Cu contacts the side walls of the semiconductor chips (i.e., including a processor and a set of memory components as taught by Kirsch in view of Korczak in further view of Sloat), because Kang teaches if it was applied to the bottom of the chip (like resin layer (110)) it could cause electrical short circuits (i.e., because the Al or Cu would come into contact the surfaces of the materials the resin layer 110 is in contact with) [Kang, translation, pgs. 4-5 and 11]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thermally conductive epoxy resin material (i.e., a first portion comprising a first thermally conductive material) as taught by Kirsch as evidenced by Ferraz in view of Korczak to be formed like the heat-dissipating resin layer (i.e., not covering the top or bottom surfaces (i.e., only cover side walls)) and to additionally include an additional thermally conductive material, such as Al or Cu (i.e., a second portion comprising a second type of thermally conductive material), with the thermally conductive epoxy/resin material (i.e., as taught by Kirsch as evidenced by Ferraz in view of Korczak) and that is in contact with the side surface of the semiconductor chips (i.e., the flash chips and processing device on the PCB shown in Kirsch) while leaving the upper surface of the semiconductor chips exposed directly to the air.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because not covering the upper surface of the semiconductor chips can increase a heat dissipation of the semiconductor chips, can ensure heat dissipation is possible in the high-heat side area of the chip, can maximize the heat dissipation effect, and can reduce errors in an inspection stage because the mounting position of the semiconductor chips can be clearly seen, and because including Al or Cu can maximize the heat radiating effect, while avoiding short circuits by not being place below the chip as taught by Kang [Kang, translation, pgs. 3, 5, 9 and 11].
Regarding claim 2:
The system of claim 1 is made obvious by Kirsch as evidenced by Ferraz in view of Korczak in further view of Sloat in further view of Kang (Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang).
Kirsch does not explicitly disclose, but Kang teaches, wherein the TCM comprises: a first portion comprising a first type of thermally conductive material physically surrounding at least a portion of the processing device (by teaching that the material used to surround the sides of the semiconductor chips (including a processor as taught by Kirsch in view of Korczak in further view of Sloat) is a heat-dissipation resin (a first portion comprising a first type surrounding a portion of the processing device) [Kang, translation, pg. 5]); and a second portion comprising a second type of thermally conductive material surrounding at least a portion of the set of memory components (by teaching that the material used to surround the sides of the semiconductor chips (including a processor as taught by Kirsch in view of Korczak in further view of Sloat) is a heat-dissipation resin that contains a thermally conductive material such as aluminum or copper (second portion comprising a second type of thermally conductive material) [Kang, translation, pg. 5]) wherein the first type of thermally conductive material has a first thermal property different from a second thermal property of the second type of thermally conductive material (by teaching that adding the thermally conductive material such as aluminum or copper maximizes the heat dissipating effect (i.e., the resin has a first thermal property different from the aluminum or copper, which has a second thermal property) [Kang, translation, pg. 5]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thermally conductive material (i.e., a first portion comprising a first thermally conductive material) as taught by Korczak to be a heat-dissipating resin layer that contains an additional thermally conductive material (i.e., a second portion comprising a second type of thermally conductive material) that is in contact with the side surface of the semiconductor chips (i.e., the flash chips and processing device on the PCB shown in Kirsch) while leaving the upper surface of the semiconductor chips exposed directly to the air as taught by Kang in [Kang, translation, pg. 4].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because not covering the upper surface of the semiconductor chips can increase a heat dissipation of the semiconductor chips, can ensure heat dissipation is possible in the high-heat side area of the chip, can maximize the heat dissipation effect, and can reduce errors in an inspection stage because the mounting position of the semiconductor chips can be clearly seen, and because including Al or Cu can maximize the heat radiating effect as taught by Kang [Kang, translation, pgs. 3, 5, 9 and 11].
Regarding claim 6:
The system of claim 1 is made obvious by Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang.
Kirsch further discloses, wherein the PCB comprises an M.2 interface through which the set of memory components and the processing device communicate with a host, the TCM being deposited on the PCB (by teaching the M.2 SSD as seen in the pictures and discussed on [pgs. 1-2]).
Regarding claim 7:
The system of claim 6 is made obvious by Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang.
Kirsch further discloses, wherein the PCB comprises one or more passive or active components; and wherein the TCM encapsulates the one or more passive or active components (by teaching the M.2 SSD covered in the epoxy that includes the other components, such as resistors and capacitors as seen in the pictures on [pgs. 1-2]).
Regarding claim 8:
The system of claim 1 is made obvious by Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang.
Kirsch does not explicitly disclose, but Korczak teaches, wherein the TCM comprises a heat sink (by teaching that the results of potting the SSD with the thermally conductive compound is that the entire surface of the SSD is turned into a heatsink [pg. 1]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the black, opaque, epoxy conformal coating applied for security reasons that most consumers will never need as taught by Kirsch to alternatively/additionally include the similar black opaque coating that covers the entire surface of the drive with a thermally conductive compound that turns the entire surface of the disk into a heatsink as taught by Korczak.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it provides ideal cooling, full protection from environmental influences, and protection against mechanical damage as taught by Korczak in [pg. 1].
Regarding claim 9:
The system of claim 1 is made obvious by Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang.
Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang further make obvious wherein the TCM is thermally coupled to walls of physical chips that implement the processing device and the set of memory components (through the analysis performed for claim 1 (Kirsch teaches everything is coated, Korczak teaches it is performed to create a heat sink, and Kang teaches it covers the sides, but not the surface of the semiconductor chips, to dissipate heat through the high-heat concentration sides of the semiconductor chips).
Regarding claim 10:
The system of claim 1 is made obvious by Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang.
Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang further make obvious wherein the TCM comprises a potting material comprising thermal epoxy (through the analysis performed for claim 1 (i.e. potting with epoxy to make a heat-sink (thermal epoxy) as taught by Korczak)
Claims 3-5 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang in further view of the revision of the Wikipedia page titled “M.2” from 23 May 2023 (M.2).
Regarding claim 3 and analogous claim 18:
The system of claim 1 is made obvious by Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang.
Kirsch teaches that the memory device is an M.2 memory device with an M.2 connector, but does not explicitly disclose, but M.2 teaches, wherein the processing device is implemented by a physical chip having a specified height relative to a top layer of the PCB (by teaching that the maximum component thickness (specified height) on the top side of an M.2 module is 1.5mm [pg. 5, Table 2]. The specified thickness is to allow the PCB to be connected to the connector on a host motherboard and have enough space to fit into the connector and run into fit/interference problems with the host’s PCB [pg. 4, ¶1]]) and wherein the height of the TCM is less than or equal to the specified height of the physical chip (one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the thermal coating taught by Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang could also not exceed the specified thickness of 1.5mm because it is a component on the M.2 PCB, and exceeding the specified thickness would cause problems with allowing the PCB to be connected to a host motherboard and have enough space to fit into the connector on the host motherboard without running into fit/interference problems with the host’s PCB [pg. 4, ¶1] [pg. 5, Table 2] [pg. 6, ¶1]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processor, memory devices, and thermally conductive coating on the M.2 memory device as taught by Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang to be within the maximum specified height of components on an M.2 PCB as taught by M.2.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it would allow the memory module to conform with the M.2 specifications and fit within a host’s connector interface on the host motherboard without interfering with the host’s PCB as taught by M.2 in [pg. 4, ¶1] [pg. 5, Table 2] [pg. 6, ¶1].
Regarding claim 4 and analogous claim 19:
The system of claim 2 is made obvious by Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang.
Kirsch teaches that the memory device is an M.2 memory device with an M.2 connector, but does not explicitly disclose, but M.2 teaches, wherein the set of memory components is implemented by one or more physical chips having a specified height relative to the top layer of the PCB (by teaching that the maximum component thickness (specified height) on the top side of an M.2 module is 1.5mm [pg. 5, Table 2]. The specified thickness is to allow the PCB to be connected to the connector on a host motherboard and have enough space to fit into the connector and run into fit/interference problems with the host’s PCB [pg. 4, ¶1]]) and wherein a height of the TCM is less than or equal to the specified height of the one or more physical chips (one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the thermal coating taught by Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang could also not exceed the specified thickness of 1.5mm because it is a component on the M.2 PCB, and exceeding the specified thickness would cause problems with allowing the PCB to be connected to a host motherboard and have enough space to fit into the connector on the host motherboard without running into fit/interference problems with the host’s PCB [pg. 4, ¶1] [pg. 5, Table 2] [pg. 6, ¶1]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processor, memory devices, and thermally conductive coating on the M.2 memory device as taught by Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang to be within the maximum specified height of components on an M.2 PCB as taught by M.2.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it would allow the memory module to conform with the M.2 specifications and fit within a host’s connector interface on the host motherboard without interfering with the host’s PCB as taught by M.2 in [pg. 4, ¶1] [pg. 5, Table 2] [pg. 6, ¶1].
Regarding claim 5:
The system of claim 4 is made obvious by Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang in further view of M.2.
Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang in further view of M.2 makes obvious wherein the specified height comprises 1.5mm (through the analysis provided for claims 3-4).
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang in further view of the product brochure for Farnell’s epoxy resin dated 29 March 2018 (Farnell).
Regarding claim 11:
The system of claim 10 is made obvious by Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang.
Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang does not explicitly disclose, but Farnell teaches wherein the thermal epoxy comprises a 1 W/m-K thermal conductivity (by teaching a two part epoxy resin that is cost effective and thermally conductive including a 1 W/m-k thermal conductivity [pg. 1]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the epoxy as taught by Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang to be the two part epoxy resin as taught by Farnell.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it’s a two part thermally conductive epoxy designed for potting and encapsulation that is cost effective and thermally conductive, as well as RoHS and UL94 V-0 compliant as taught by Farnell in [pg. 1].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang in further view of US Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0002998 A1 (Pidwerbecki).
Regarding claim 12:
The system of claim 1 is made obvious by Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang.
Kirsch does not explicitly disclose, but Pidwerbecki teaches, wherein the TCM comprises a phase change material (PCM) (by teaching that the thermal coating may be an epoxy material with a microencapsulated energy storage material such as a micro phase change material dispersed within the epoxy matrix material [0024]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thermally conductive epoxy coating taught by Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang to additionally include a microencapsulated PCM as taught by Pidwerbecki.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it would cause the epoxy to have a higher heat capacity, such that it would slow the temperature increase of the heat-generating components, increasing the thermal-time-constant, allowing longer enhanced modes of operation and providing flexibility to the design of smaller devices that can operate for similar durations as larger devices that do not have the thermal coating with micro-PCM as taught by Pidwerbecki in [0024] [0049].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang in further view of Pidwerbecki in further view of the Technical Brief by Miksa de Sorgo titled “Understanding Phase Change Materials” published by Electronics Cooling as preserved by the Internet Archive on 15 March 2010 (Sorgo).
Regarding claim 13:
The system of claim 12 is made obvious by Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang in further view of Pidwerbecki.
Kirsch does not explicitly disclose, but Pidwerbecki teaches that the PCM material may be one of various materials including waxes, vegetable extracts, polyethylene glycol, hydrated salts, fatty acids, esters, ionic liquids, or certain polymers and combinations thereof [0033].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thermally conductive epoxy coating taught by Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang to additionally include a microencapsulated PCM as taught by Pidwerbecki.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it would cause the epoxy to have a higher heat capacity, such that it would slow the temperature increase of the heat-generating components, increasing the thermal-time-constant, allowing longer enhanced modes of operation and providing flexibility to the design of smaller devices that can operate for similar durations as larger devices that do not have the thermal coating with micro-PCM as taught by Pidwerbecki in [0024] [0049].
Pidwerbecki does not explicitly disclose, but Sorgo teaches wherein the PCM comprises 0.7 W/m-k thermal conductivity (by teaching that PCMs are composed of a mixture of organic binders and fine particle ceramic fillers for thermal enhancement. The organic binder may be wax [pg. 1, ¶2]. The thermal conductivity of the PCM is a function of the type and level of the ceramic filler in the formulation, and is typically between 0.7 and 1.5 W/m-k [pg. 2, ¶2]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wax PCM as taught by Pidwerbecki to include a ceramic filler to achieve a thermal conductivity of the PCM of 0.7 W/m-k as taught by Sorgo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the fine particle ceramic fillers provide for thermal enhancement as taught by Sorgo in [pg. 1, ¶2].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang in further view of Tech Tip 8, titled “Reworking, Removing and “Decapsulating Cured Epoxies” from Epotek.com, as preserved by the Internet Archive on 23 October 2014 (Epotek).
Regarding claim 15:
Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang teach that the TCM is a thermally conductive epoxy (as seen in the rejection of claim 1).
Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang do not explicitly disclose, but Epotek teaches wherein a portion of the TCM is removable by applying a debonding liquid to access one or more circuit components covered by the TCM for debugging the memory system (by teaching that Methylene choride, sulfuric acid, chlorinated solvends, toluene, NMP, MEK, and solvents from Dynaloy can be used to debond or decapsulate cured epoxy and remove it from the components (for failure analysis / debugging) [pg. 1]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a solvent to remove, rework, debond, or decapsulate the epoxy as taught by Epotek.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it can allow for removal of an otherwise “permanent” bond for reworking, removing, decapsulating, and allow failure analysis to be performed on components covered in epoxy as taught by Epotek in [pg. 1].
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang in further view of the webpage titled “Epoxies for flip chips” published by Gluespec as preserved by the Internet Archive on 29 May 2023 (Gluespec).
Regarding claim 16:
The system of claim 1 is made obvious by Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang.
Kirsch does not explicitly disclose, but Korczak teaches, wherein the TCM is configured to absorb physical shock to the memory sub-system to add stability to the memory sub-system (by teaching that it can provide protection against mechanical damage, such as falls and impact [pg. 1]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the black, opaque, epoxy conformal coating applied for security reasons that most consumers will never need as taught by Kirsch to alternatively/additionally include the similar black opaque coating that covers the entire surface of the drive with a thermally conductive compound that turns the entire surface of the disk into a heatsink as taught by Korczak.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it provides ideal cooling, full protection from environmental influences, and protection against mechanical damage as taught by Korczak in [pg. 1].
Korczak does not explicitly disclose, but Gluespec teaches, and wherein underfill material is excluded from being deposited underneath the set of memory components or the processing device (by teaching that flip chips are used to speed production of electronic devices, as well as increase performance [pg. 1, ¶1]. Flip chips are usually protected with underfill to prevent shock or thermal expansion from causing failure in the solder bonds, but edge bonded epoxies may also strengthen flip chips rather than underfilling the chip. Epoxy placed around the edges can provide resistance to physical and thermal shock. Edge bonding the epoxies can reduce cost and increase throughput as opposed to using underfill [pg. 2, ¶1-4]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processor and memory chips attached to the PCB and covered with thermal epoxy as taught by Kirsch-Ferraz-Korczak-Sloat-Kang to be flip chips installed without underfill epoxy as taught by Gluespec.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because edge bonded epoxy still provides resistance to physical and thermal shock, but speeds throughput and reduces cost without the need to use specialized underfill epoxies, as underfill epoxies and processes are the slowest and most difficult to process and increase rework costs as taught by Gluespec in [pg. 2, ¶3-4].
Response to Arguments/Amendments
In response to the amendments to the claims and arguments by the Applicant, the 35 USC §112(a) rejection has been withdrawn.
In response to the amendments to the claims, a new 35 USC §112(b) rejection has been made as seen in the corresponding rejection section above.
Applicant argues that Kang does not teach “the first portion of the TCM that is in contact with the side walls of the memory components comprising a first type of thermally conductive material that is different from a second type of thermally conductive material that comprises the second portion of the TCM that is in contact with the side walls of the processing device” because Kang discloses “the same resin-and-filler composition contacts the side walls of every semiconductor chip… without differentiation”. Applicant further argues that Kang does not teach two distinct portions of TCM having different material types respectively contacting the set of memory components and the processing device.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claim language. Claim 1 does not clearly require the first portion of the TCM to contact only the set of memory devices and not the processing device, nor does the claim clearly require the second portion of the TCM to contact only the processing device and not the set of memory components. Rather, claim 1 recites, “the TCM comprising first and second portions that are in contact with and only cover side walls of the set of memory components and the processing device leaving exposed to air at least portions of respective surfaces of the set of memory components and the processing device”, which reasonably reads on an arrangement in which each of the first and second portions contacts and covers side walls of both the set of memory components and the processing device.
Moreover, Applicant’s characterization of Kang as merely disclosing an undifferentiated “resin-and-filler composition” does not overcome the rejection. Kang expressly teaches that the heat-radiating resin layer is configured to contain a thermally conductive material, such as Al or Cu [Kang, translation pg. 4]. Therefore, Kang teaches a resin layer including different material types, the resin material and the aluminum or copper material. When Kang’s thermally conductive heat-radiating resin layer including the aluminum or copper is applied to the side walls of the processor and memory components of Kirsch as evidenced by Ferraz and in view of Korczak, the two types of material (resin and aluminum or copper) contact the side walls of both the set of memory components and the processing device.
Applicant’s argument that Kang contacts every chip “without differentiation” is not persuasive because the claim does not clearly require the TCM material types to be differentiated based on the type of chip contacted. Even if Kang’s heat-radiating resin layer with Al or Cu contacts side walls of every chip, that arrangement still meets the claim language as reasonably interpreted, because the claim does not require the first portion to contact only the set of memory components or the second portion to contact only the processing device. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is directed to limitations outside the scope of the claimed invention and the argument is not persuasive.
Therefore, as Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because it argues about limitations that outside the scope of the claims, claims 1-13, 15-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 USC §103 and are not indicated as allowable.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS JAMES KORTMAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4404. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7:30 AM through 4:00 PM MT.
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, Reginald Bragdon can be reached at (571) 272-4204. 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.
/CURTIS JAMES KORTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2139
Prosecution Insights