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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
1. The drawings are objected to because.
a. Per figure 7, change second instance of 860 to 850.
b. Per figure 12, element 520-2 is not disclosed in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. In the event that the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10-12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chrysler et al. US6650542.
.
Per claim 1 Chrysler et al. teaches a semiconductor device (3, see fig.3) comprising: a semiconductor chip (16) including a substrate (12), the substrate extending along a plane (see fig.3, “horizontal plane”); a plurality of coolant chambers (22) spaced apart from the substrate at a certain distance in a first direction (see fig.3, “vertical distance”), each coolant chamber of the plurality of coolant chambers being configured to accommodate a coolant (14), the first direction being perpendicular to the plane (see fig.3); a plurality of nozzles (25) respectively provided on or below the plurality of coolant chambers and configured to spray the coolant toward the substrate (see fig.3; col.3, line 5-28, “fluid jets”); and a plurality of actuators (21) respectively provided on the plurality of coolant chambers (see fig.3) and configured to individually adjust internal pressures of the plurality of coolant chambers (col.2, line 62-67, “the pressure is adjusted based on the opening and closing of the piezoelectric element”).
Per claim 2 Chrysler et al. teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of coolant chambers are spaced apart from each other along a direction parallel to the plane (see fig.3).
Per claim 10 Chrysler et al. teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, further comprising: a coolant inflow port through which the coolant is introduced (see fig.3, “port into 14”); a coolant inflow channel (14) configured to have a fluid communication with each coolant chamber of the plurality of coolant chambers and introduce the coolant, introduced through the coolant inflow port, into the plurality of coolant chambers; and a pump (13) configured to apply a pressure to the coolant passing through the coolant inflow channel (col.2, line 31-52).
Per claim 11 Chrysler et al. teaches the semiconductor device of claim 10, wherein the coolant inflow channel (14) includes a plurality of coolant inflow channels (22, see fig.3, “left and right”), and wherein the plurality of coolant inflow channels include: a first coolant inflow channel configured to have a fluid communication with a plurality of first coolant chambers (see fig.3, “left chamber”) arranged in a second direction, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction (see fig.3); and a second coolant inflow channel configured to have a fluid communication with a plurality of second coolant chambers arranged apart from the plurality of first coolant chambers in a third direction, the third direction being perpendicular to the second direction (see fig.3).
Per claim 12 Chrysler et al. teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the coolant is sprayed toward a coolant spray area between the plurality of coolant chambers and the semiconductor chip (col.3, line 19-27, “fluid jet”), and wherein the semiconductor device further comprises: a coolant discharge channel configured to have a fluid communication with the coolant spray area and discharge the coolant from the coolant spray area (col.2, line 43-52); and a pump configured to apply a pressure to the coolant passing through the coolant discharge channel (col.2, line 43-52).
Per claim 14 Chrysler et al. teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of actuators include thermal-jet actuators (col.3, line 19-27).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. In the event that the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chrysler et al. US6650542.
Per claim 3 Chrysler et al. teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor chip includes a plurality of cooling areas along the plane (see fig.3),
Chrysler et al. discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim(s) except for wherein each cooling area of the plurality of cooling areas has a surface area of about 0.25 mm2 to about 30 mm2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to make each cooling area of the plurality of cooling areas have a surface area of about 0.25 mm2 to about 30 mm2, because it enables the semiconductor to have an area big enough for effective cooling by the spray, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and that such modifications would have involved a mere change in the size of a component - a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components - a change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 4-7 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chrysler et al. US6650542 in view of US 5270572.
Per claim 4 Chrysler et al. teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1,
Chrysler et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the semiconductor chip is divided into a plurality of cooling areas, each cooling area having a certain length in a second direction and a certain width in a third direction, to correspond to each nozzle included in the plurality of nozzles, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction and the third direction being perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction.
Nakajima et al. however discloses wherein the semiconductor chip is divided into a plurality of cooling areas (see fig.1), each cooling area having a certain length in a second direction and a certain width in a third direction (see fig.1), to correspond to each nozzle included in the plurality of nozzles, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction and the third direction being perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction (see fig.1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a plurality of cooling areas with certain length and width as taught by Nakajima et al. in the semiconductor device of Chrysler et al., because it enables cooling of multiple semiconductors simultaneously.
Per claim 5 Chrysler et al. in view of Nakajima et al. discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim(s) except for the semiconductor device of claim 4, wherein the certain length of each cooling area of the plurality of cooling areas in the second direction is about 3 mm to about 20 mm, and wherein the certain width of each cooling area of the plurality of cooling areas in the third direction is about 1 mm to about 18 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to make each the certain length of each cooling area of the plurality of cooling areas in the second direction is about 3 mm to about 20 mm, and wherein the certain width of each cooling area of the plurality of cooling areas in the third direction is about 1 mm to about 18 mm, because it enables the cooling area to have dimensions big enough for each semiconductor to be effectively cooled, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and that such modifications would have involved a mere change in the size of a component - a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components - a change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Per claim 6 Chrysler et al. in view of Nakajima et al. teaches the semiconductor device of claim 4, wherein a heating component included in the semiconductor chip is positioned to correspond to at least one of the plurality of cooling areas (see fig.1).
Per claim 7 Chrysler et al. in view of Nakajima et al. teaches the semiconductor device of claim 4, wherein the plurality of actuators are further configured to adjust an internal pressure of a corresponding coolant chamber based on a first heating temperature of a first cooling area of the plurality of cooling areas and a second heating temperature of a second cooling area of the plurality of cooling areas (col.2; line 43-52, col.3, line 18-36, “the opening and closing of the piezoelectric actuators based on the temperature sensor controls the internal pressure of each chamber”).
Per claim 9 Chrysler et al. in view of Nakajima et al. teaches the semiconductor device of claim 4, further comprising: a sensor configured to measure temperatures of the plurality of cooling areas; and a controller configured to control operations of the plurality of actuators based on temperature information measured by the sensor (col.2, line 42-52, col.3, line 19-36).
Allowable Subject matter
4. Claims 8, 13 & 15-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8, includes allowable subject matter because of the semiconductor device of claim 7, wherein the plurality of actuators are further configured to adjust the internal pressure of the corresponding coolant chamber based on a difference between the first heating temperature and the second heating temperature being about 10 °C to about 30 °C.
The closest reference to claim 8 would be Chrysler et al. which teaches a temperature sensor that opens and closes a piezoelectric actuator based on the temperature of each chamber to adjust the internal pressure of that chamber, Chrysler however does not teach that the temperature sensor operates based on the difference between the first heating temperature and the second heating temperature being about 10 °C to about 30 °C.
Claim 13, includes allowable subject matter because of the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of actuators include piezoelectric actuators, and wherein the semiconductor device further comprises a plurality of diaphragms respectively provided between the plurality of actuators and the plurality of coolant chambers.
The closest reference to the claim would be Chrysler et al. which teaches an actuator but not teach a diaphragm respectively provided between the plurality of actuators and the plurality of coolant chambers.
Claim 15, includes allowable subject matter because of the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of coolant chambers include a plurality of first coolant chambers, arranged to face a first surface of the semiconductor chip, and a plurality of second coolant chambers, arranged to face a second surface of the semiconductor chip, the second surface being opposite to the first surface, wherein the plurality of nozzles include a plurality of first nozzles, provided respectively corresponding to the plurality of first coolant chambers to spray a first coolant toward the first surface of the semiconductor chip, and a plurality of second nozzles, provided respectively corresponding to the plurality of second coolant chambers to spray a second coolant toward the second surface of the semiconductor chip, and wherein the plurality of actuators include a plurality of first actuators, provided respectively corresponding to the plurality of first coolant chambers and configured to individually adjust internal pressures of the plurality of first coolant chambers, and a plurality of second actuators, provided respectively corresponding to the plurality of second coolant chambers and configured to individually adjust internal pressures of the plurality of second coolant chambers.
The closest reference to the invention would be Chrysler et al, which teaches spraying on only one side of the semiconductor. Chrysler et al. does not teach a nozzle spraying a coolant on both sides of the semiconductor as shown in figure 12 of the application.
Claims 16-20, depends on claim 15 therefore allowable for the same reason.
Email Communication
5. Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502, 502.05.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yalamarthy et al. US20210176894 teaches a cooling system, comprising: a support structure; a cooling element having a central region and a perimeter, the cooling element being supported by the support structure at the central region.
Brunschwiler et al. US20070119565 teaches an impingement cooling device comprising: at least a first level structure adjacent an impingement gap, the first level structure comprising: a layer of substantially parallel inlets and outlets in a distributed array adjacent the impingement gap.
Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior are included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A MATEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5 EST.
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, JAYPRAKASH GANDHI can be reached at 5712723740. 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.
/MICHAEL A MATEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights