DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: It is the Examiner’s position that a solid graphite bar will, in essence, be thermally conductive in all directions. However, the claim will be interpreted as the graphite bar having a relatively lower thermal conductivity in the third axis. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1, 10, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0373879 to Colgan et al.
Colgan discloses;
As to Claim 1, a cooling apparatus (300) for cooling electronic components, the cooling apparatus comprising: at least one graphite bar (114a, [0026]) mounted to a frame (106), the at least one graphite bar thermally conductive in a first axis (vertically from the heat generating component 112 to the graphite bar 114a) and a second axis (horizontally outward towards support 114b), the second axis being perpendicular to the first axis, the second axis parallel to a length of the at least one graphite bar; the frame for mounting the at least one graphite bar, the frame comprising a receiving and retaining member (114b) mounted thereon and thermally coupled thereto for retaining the at least one graphite bar in a fixed position relative to the frame, the receiving and retaining member comprising a recess for receiving the at least one graphite bar (see again FIG. 3, “C” shaped recess of 114b); a thermal adhesive (136) disposed in the recess for adhering and thermally coupling the at least one graphite bar to the receiving and retaining member; and a heat sink (140) thermally coupled to the frame; wherein heat is extracted from the at least one graphite bar to the frame, and to the heat sink.
As to Claim 10, the cooling apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one graphite bar is further conductive in a third axis perpendicular to the first axis and further perpendicular to the second axis ([0027] disclosing that 114a is conductive in the Z (horizontal) plane as well as the vertical axis. The Z plane comprising both the second and third axis.)
As to Claim 14, The cooling apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one graphite bar is substantially rigid ([0027] teaching a thickness of 4mm which would make a graphite bar of that thickness substantially rigid).
As to Claim 15, the cooling apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one graphite bar is compliant (A 4mm thick graphite bar, while being substantially rigid, still would have some compliance, thus the need for the support structures 114b to prevent warping [0028]).
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0373879 to Colgan et al. in view of US 10,999,938 to Pevner et al. and US 2012/0299375 to Saez-Zamora et al. (hereafter Saez).
As to Claim 2, Colgan discloses the cooling apparatus of claim 1.
Colgan fails to disclose a digital printed circuit board (“PCB”).
Pevner teaches that the cooling of digital PCBs via heat sinks are well known in the art of electronics (col. 4, ll. 9-11, also FIG. 5C, 550).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify Colgan for the purposes of cooling electronic components on a digital PCB in order to prevent overheating of digital processors.
Colgan also fails to disclose a PCB mounting platform to which the frame is mounted and thermally coupled.
Saez teaches a PCB mounting platform (38, FIG-2) to which a frame (40) is mounted and thermally coupled. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the apparatus of Colgan to include a mounting platform in order to add structural integrity to the device.
As to Claim 3, modified Colgan further discloses the cooling apparatus of claim 2, further comprising: a flip chip electronic component ([0030] “Referring now to FIG. 3, a subset 300 of a flip chip package…”) mounted to the PCB at a bottom surface of the at least one graphite bar (FIG. 3, 112 mounted to the bottom of 114a), the flip chip electronic component including an integrated circuit package (106, 108, 110, 112), a top surface for dissipating heat to the at least one graphite bar (FIG. 3, top surface of 112 dissipating heat to 114a), and a plurality of soldered contacts (108) deposited onto chip pads (106) of the flip chip electronic component for interconnecting the flip chip electronic component to external circuitry on the PCB.
Colgan discloses TIM layer (132) between (114a) and (112), but fails to disclose a flexible adhesive disposed between a portion of the bottom surface of the at least one graphite bar overlapping the top surface of the flip chip electronic component.
Colgan teaches an adhesive (136) that is flexible ([0024] adhesive 136 maintains the bond between components under structural stress and heat fluctuations, thus it must be flexible to maintain the connection under physical warpages).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the TIM layer (132) of Colgan to be flexible as well as adhesive in order to secure the bond between (114a) and (112) under warpage.
As to Claim 4, modified Colgan discloses the cooling apparatus of claim 3, wherein approximately one third of the bottom surface of the at least one graphite bar overlaps the top surface of the flip chip electronic component (FIG. 3 clearly showing at least a third of 114a overlapping 112).
As to Claim 8, modified Colgan discloses the cooling apparatus of claim 3, wherein the plurality of soldered contacts are soldered balls (108).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0373879 to Colgan et al. in view of US 10,999,938 to Pevner et al. and US 2012/0299375 to Saez-Zamora et al. further in view of US 2017/0196127 to Seidl et al.
As to Claim 5, modified Colgan teaches the cooling apparatus of claim 3.
Colgan fails to disclose wherein the flexible adhesive is applied with a primer to enhance bonding.
Seidl teaches the use of a primer to enhance the adhesive bonding of a connecting body with a bonding layer ([0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify Colgan with a primer as taught by Seidl in or to enhance the adhesion between the graphite bar and the flip chip electronic component.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0373879 to Colgan et al. in view of US 10,999,938 to Pevner et al. and US 2012/0299375 to Saez-Zamora et al. further in view of US 2014/0291834 to Gandhi et al.
As to Claim 6, modified Colgan teaches the cooling apparatus of claim 3.
Modified Colgan fails to disclose wherein the plurality of soldered contacts are soldered columns.
Gandhi teaches soldered contacts (102) that are soldered columns ([0021] “102 may be a conductive bump or pillar”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the soldered contacts of Colgan to be column shaped as taught by Gandhi in order to add structural support to the heat conductive structures.
As to Claim 7, modified Colgan teaches the cooling apparatus of claim 6. Colgan fails to disclose wherein the soldered columns are wrapped in copper.
Gandhi teaches the use of copper in soldered columns ([0021] “a copper pillar”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to the soldered bumps of Colgan to be made of copper as taught by Gandhi in order to facilitate thermal conductivity as is well known in the art.
Claim(s) 9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0373879 to Colgan et al. in view of US 2018/0363878 to Potluri et al.
As to Claim 9, Colgan discloses the cooling apparatus of claim 1.
Colgan fails to disclose wherein the at least one graphite bar is not conductive in a third axis perpendicular to the first axis and further perpendicular to the second axis.
Potluri teaches a graphite heat spreader (37) that is not conductive in a third axis (Z axis; [0006] “he heat spreader may have a significantly lower thermal conductivity through its thickness (along its Z axis)”) perpendicular to the first axis (X axis) and further perpendicular to the second axis (Y axis [0006] “The sheet may have, as the desired anisotropic properties, an in-plane thermal conductivity in excess of 650 or 700 watts per meter-Kelvin (W/mK), with “in-plane” referring to a plane defined by the length and width or X and Y dimensions of the heat spreader using an example XYZ Cartesian coordinate system.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the graphite bar of Colgan to be anisotropic as taught by Potluri in order to maximize the thermal conductivity the heat spreader.
As to Claim 11, Colgan discloses the cooling apparatus of claim 1.
Colgan fails to disclose wherein the at least one graphite bar is composed of polycrystalline graphite.
Potluri teaches a graphite heat spreader (37) composed of polycrystalline graphite ([0006]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the graphite bar of Colgan to be a polycrystalline graphite as taught Potluri in order to utilize the graphite’s anisotropic properties.
As to Claim 12, Colgan in view of Potluri further teach the cooling apparatus of claim 11.
Colgan fails to disclose wherein the polycrystalline graphite is quantumly oriented such that conductivity is possible only in the first axis and in the second axis.
Potluri teaches a polycrystalline graphite quantumly oriented such that conductivity is possible only in the first axis and in the second axis ([0006]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the graphite bar of Colgan to be quantumly oriented as taught by Potluri in order to maximize the thermal conductivity of the heat spreader.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0373879 to Colgan et al. in view of US 2018/0363878 to Potluri et al. further in view of US 3,404,061 to Bochman et al.
As to Claim 13, modified Colgan teaches the cooling apparatus of claim 11.
Modified Colgan fails to disclose wherein the polycrystalline graphite is annealed.
Bochman teaches a method of annealing a graphite mass (col. 5, ll.46-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the graphite of Colgan with an annealing process as taught by Bochman in order to create a “well-ordered graphitic structure” as taught by Bochman (col. 5, ll. 46-54).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2021/0284850 to Lee et al. disclosing an adhesive primer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIL ALEXANDER DECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6578. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm Mon-Fri.
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 (571) 272-3740. 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.
/JAMIL ALEXANDER DECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/MANDEEP S BUTTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights