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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 29 January 2026 and 23 February 2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Claims in this application are not interpreted under 35 USC §112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 17 and 21:
Claims 1, 17 and 21 recite, “a height of the TCM being lower than a height of the set of memory components and the processing device”. However, the specification does not disclose the TCM having a height lower than the set of memory components or the processing device. Instead, the specification, at most, appears to disclose that the heights are the same, as shown in [Fig. 3]. Furthermore, as discussed in [0054], the control component 210 and the memory component 230 have the TCM cover the side walls while leaving the top surface exposed. Coverage of the side walls while leaving the top surface exposed only indicates that the TCM extends to approximately the same height as the control component (210) and the memory component (230), and does not indicate that a height of the TCM is lower than the height of the memory components or processing device as claimed [0054]. Additionally, the specification describes the TCM as “fully encapsulating” or “completely encapsulating” all components that are lower than a maximum height restriction (or lower than the control component (210) or memory component (230)), which again appears to indicate that the TCM is applied up to the maximum height restriction rather than at a height lower than the processing device or memory component, as recited in the claims [Fig. 3] [0012] [0041] [0048]. Finally, the Applicant provides no citation to written description support for the amendment. Accordingly, the limitation is regarded as new matter.
Regarding claims 2-16 and 18-19:
Claims 2-16 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, 14, 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, a height of the TCM 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 covering only sidewalls leaving exposed to air at least portions of respective surfaces 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 (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) 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] (a height of the TCM being lower than a height of the set of memory components and the processing device)).
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 as taught by Korczak to be a heat-dissipating resin layer 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, and can reduce errors in an inspection stage because the mounting position of the semiconductor chips can be clearly seen as taught by Kang [Kang, translation, pgs. 3, 5 and 9].
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 as taught by Korczak to be a heat-dissipating resin layer that contains an additional 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 as taught by Kang [Kang, translation, pgs. 3, 5 and 9].
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)
Regarding claim 14:
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 first type of material and a second type of material, the first type of material surrounding the processing device and the second type of material surrounding the set of memory components (through the analysis performed for claim 2).
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 claim 21, the claim is no longer interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) and accordingly, the previous 35 USC §112(b) and 35 USC §112(a) rejections based on the 35 USC §112(f) interpretation have been withdrawn.
In response to the amendments to the claims, a new 35 USC §112(a) rejection has been made to claims 1-19 and 21 as the specification does not provide written description support for “a height of the TCM being lower than a height of the set of memory components and the processing device” as newly recited by the claims.
Applicant argues that Kirsch does not teach “the TCM covering side walls of the set of memory components and the processing device leaving exposed to air at least portions of the set of memory components and the processing device, a height of the TCM 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” [Remarks dated 29 January 2026, pg. 7, last ¶ - continued onto pg. 8]. However Kirsch does teach “the TCM covering the side walls of the set of memory components and the processing device” because the TCM taught by Kirsch completely covers all of the components. Furthermore, Kirsch teaches “a height of the TCM being lower than a height of the set of memory components and the processing device” because as seen in [Kirsch, pg. 2, all Figs], the height of the TCM where it covers only the PCB or covers some of the smaller components is shorter than a height of the memory component or processing device. Accordingly, while Kirsch may not teach the limitation noted by Applicant in its entirety, Kirsch does teach portions of the limitation. Furthermore, the deficiencies of Kirsch, as acknowledged in the rejection above, are cured by Kang (i.e., Kang teaches “leaving exposed to air at least portions 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 portions not taught by Kirsch). Applicant provides no particular arguments against Kang because it is a newly cited reference as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is moot and the claims are not indicated as allowable.
Conclusion
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