DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II and Species 1g, corresponding to claims 17-20, 23-28, and 30, in the reply filed on 3/9/26 and clarified on 6/1/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17-20, 28, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being clearly anticipated by Hsu et al., US 2021/0074608.
Regarding claim 17, Hsu (see marked up figure 2 below) teaches a device package comprising:
an integrated cooling assembly comprising a semiconductor device 20 and a cold plate 30 bonded (using 302) to the semiconductor device 20, wherein the cold plate 30 comprises:
a first side 312a;
a second side 312b opposite the first side 312a;
outer sidewalls 1 extending downwardly from the first side 312a to a backside 20b of the semiconductor device 20;
inner sidewalls 2 extending between the first side 312a and the second side 312b, wherein the outer sidewalls 1 and the inner sidewalls 2 define openings 320; and
one or more protrusions 3 extending downwardly from the second side 312b towards the backside 20a of the semiconductor device 20, wherein:
lower surfaces of the one or more protrusions 3 are bonded (using 302) to the backside 20a of the semiconductor device 20;
the second side 312a, the outer sidewalls 1, and the backside of the semiconductor device 20a collectively define a coolant chamber volume therebetween; and
wherein each of the inner sidewalls 2 and the outer sidewalls 1 includes a plurality of segments (324 and bulging section) having a plurality of different textures (324 and bulging section), respectively.
PNG
media_image1.png
462
823
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 18, Hsu (figure 2) teaches sidewalls of the one or more protrusions 324 slope away from the second side at an angle greater than 90 degrees. The first bend in 324 is greater than 90 degrees.
As to claim 19, Hsu (figure 2) teaches one or more segments of the plurality of segments of at least one of the inner sidewalls 2 and the outer sidewalls 1 slope towards the second side at an angle less than 90 degrees. The second bend in 324 is less than 90 degrees.
In re claim 20, Hsu (figure 2) teaches one or more segments of the plurality of segments of at least one of the inner sidewalls 2 and the outer sidewalls 1 slope towards the first side at an angle less than 90 degrees. The second bend in 324 is less than 90 degrees.
Concerning claim 28, though Hsu (see marked up figure 23 above) fails to teach the one or more protrusions 3, the outer sidewalls 1, and the inner sidewalls 2 are formed through a double-sided wet etch process that concurrently wet etches the first side and the second side, a double-sided wet etch process is process limitation in a product claim and therefore is a product-by-process limitation that isn’t given any patentable weight. the Even though 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)
Pertaining to claim 30, Hsu (see marked up figure 23 above) teaches the one or more protrusions 3 extend laterally along the second side 312b between the openings 322/324; and the one or more protrusions 3 are spaced apart to define coolant channels 320 therebetween.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 23-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al., US 2021/0074608, as applied to claim 17 above.
In claim 23, Hsu (see marked up figure 2 below) each protrusion comprises distal segments and a central segment extending between the distal segments; and though Hsu fails to teach a width of the distal segments between protrusion sidewalls of the protrusion is less than a width of the central segment between the protrusion sidewalls it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the relative widths through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
PNG
media_image2.png
530
291
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, though Hsu fails to specifically teach the cold plate is bonded to the semiconductor device by direct dielectric bonds, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use direct dielectric bonds in the invention of Hsu because Hsu teaches any means can be used to form the bond (paragraph 0050).
With respect to claim 25, though Hsu fails to specifically teach the cold plate is bonded to the semiconductor device by direct hybrid bonds, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use direct hybrid bonds in the invention of Hsu because Hsu teaches any means can be used to form the bond (paragraph 0050).
As to claim 26, though Hsu fails to specifically teach the lower surfaces of the one or more protrusions are bonded to the backside of the semiconductor device by direct dielectric bonds, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use direct dielectric bonds in the invention of Hsu because Hsu teaches any means can be used to form the bond (paragraph 0050).
In re claim 27, wherein the openings of the cold plate 30 comprise an inlet opening 322 and an outlet opening 324, and wherein the coolant chamber volume is in fluid communication with the inlet opening 322 and the outlet opening 324 of the cold plate 30, and though Hsu fails to teach the device package further comprising: a package cover, the package cover having an inlet opening and an outlet opening disposed therethrough, wherein the coolant chamber volume is in fluid communication with the inlet opening and the outlet opening of the package cover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use such a package cover in the invention of Hsu because it is conventionally known and used in the art to protect the package and forma a reliable connection to the inlet/outlet openings. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art teach various aspects of the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A ZARNEKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matt Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/DAVID A ZARNEKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 6/12/26
Prosecution Insights