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 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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Bolde et al. US 6,888,363 B1 (hereinafter referred to as Bolde).
Regarding claim 1, Bolde discloses a test system (fig. 1, test apparatus, col. 2, ln. 34-42) for a plurality of integrated circuit (IC) chips (fig. 1, chip 120, col. 2, ln. 60-61), comprising: a test site (fig. 1, space between elm. 10 and 112) comprising: a test socket (fig. 1, socket 115, col. 3, ln. 10-11) coupled to a load board (fig. 1, test board 110, col. 2, ln. 41), the test socket comprising: a housing (fig. 2A, 2B, chamber 210, col. 3, ln. 16-17) at least partially defining a chamber; a plurality of contacts (fig. 2A, pins 118, col. 2, ln. 59-col. 3, ln. 5-11) disposed within a retainer structure (fig. 1, substrate 117, col. 2, ln. 45-47) within the chamber and electrically coupled to the load board; and a guide structure (fig. 1, carrier 50, col. 2, ln. 35-37) configured to receive each of the plurality of IC chips and position each IC chip in the chamber when engaged with the plurality of contacts; a fluid coolant system (fig. 2B, module 500, col. 3, ln. 36-44) comprising: a reservoir (fig. 2B, reservoir 230, col. 3, ln. 39) configured to hold a fluid coolant (fig. 2B, cooling fluid, col. 3, ln. 35); an inlet pathway (fig. 2B, fluid enters in line 232, col. 3, ln. 39-42) coupled between the reservoir and the test socket, the inlet pathway configured to carry the fluid coolant to the test socket to at least partially fill the chamber and to at least partially submerge the plurality of contacts (fluid need not be drained entirely from the system, col. 3, ln. 52-55); and an outlet pathway (fig. 2B, fluid exits in line 234, col. 3, ln. 39-42) coupled between the reservoir and the test socket, the outlet pathway configured to carry heated coolant away from the test socket; and a handler system (fig. 2A, handling system 400, col. 2, ln. 49-52) configured to move the plurality of IC chips from a feed container to the test site, and from the test site to an output container, the handler system comprising a pick arm (fig. 1, arm 450, col. 2, ln. 48-53, 64-67) configured to set each IC chip into the guide structure of the test socket to engage with the plurality of contacts at least partially submerged in the fluid coolant (clm. 1, clm. 14).
Regarding claim 2, Bolde discloses the test system of claim 1, wherein the test site further comprises a load board (fig. 1, test board 110, col. 2, ln. 41) configured to conduct an electrical test (col. 1, ln. 63-65) on the IC chip (fig. 1, chip 120, col. 2, ln. 60-61).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolde as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saide et al. US 2005/0099173 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Saide).
Regarding claim 3, Bolde discloses the test system of claim 1, Bolde does not disclose wherein the test site comprises a plurality of test sockets coupled to the fluid coolant system.
Saide discloses wherein the test site comprises a plurality of test sockets (fig. 5, socket 12b, par. [0076]) coupled to the fluid coolant system (fig. 2, 6, coolant 41c-2, 41c-3, par. [0089]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide moving mechanism to automatically move a chip holding subassembly that holds integrated circuit modules on sockets, from a load position to a test position and vice versa with temperature control mechanism contacts the modules when the subassembly is in the test position, as taught in Saide in modifying the apparatus of Bolde. The motivation would be the concurrent testing of the integrated circuit modules, obtaining a high degree of system utilization.
Claim(s) 4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolde as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beaton et al. US 5,278,495 A (hereinafter referred to as Beaton).
Regarding claim 4, Bolde discloses the test system of claim 1, Bolde does not disclose wherein the fluid coolant system comprises an inflow pump coupled to the reservoir and the inlet pathway, the inflow pump configured to move the fluid coolant through the inlet pathway into the chamber of the test socket until a fill level is reached.
Beaton discloses wherein the fluid coolant system comprises an inflow pump (fig. 1, pump 22, col. ln. 21-22) coupled to the reservoir (fig. 1, bath 21, col. ln. 20-23) and the inlet pathway, the inflow pump configured to move the fluid coolant (fig. 1, liquid 20, col. ln. 20-23) through the inlet pathway (fig. 1, pipes 24, 26 and 28, col. ln. 20-23) into the chamber (fig. 1, liquid-tight inside of enclosure 12, col. 2, ln. 61-62) of the test socket (fig. 1, connector 14, col. ln. 20-23) until a fill level is reached.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a liquid coolant which is a perfluorinated liquid, such as Fluorinert, capable of absorbing large quantities of heat and providing a vent pipe for the vapor that is displaced from the enclosure as the enclosure is filled by the liquid back into the cold bath as taught in Beaton in modifying the system of Bolde. The motivation would be operation cost is reduced since coolant is recycled even in vapor form by way of the vent while uncovering defects hard to discover by constant temperature test methods.
Regarding claim 7, Bolde discloses the test system of claim 1, Bolde does not disclose wherein the test socket further comprises a sensor disposed on the housing and configured to detect a fill level of the fluid coolant within the chamber such that the plurality of contacts is at least partially submerged in the fluid coolant.
Beaton discloses wherein the test socket (fig. 1, connector 14, col. ln. 20-23) further comprises a sensor (fig. 1, float switch 32, col. 3, ln. 40-45) disposed on the housing (fig. 1, enclosure 12, col. 2, ln. 61-62) and configured to detect a fill level of the fluid coolant (fig. 1, liquid 20, col. 2, ln. 61-62) within the chamber (fig. 1, liquid-tight inside of enclosure 12, col. 2, ln. 61-62) such that the plurality of contacts is at least partially submerged in the fluid coolant.
The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 8, Bolde discloses the test system of claim 7, Bolde does not disclose wherein the sensor is positioned to detect the fill level such that each IC chip is at least partially submerged in the fluid coolant.
Beaton discloses herein the sensor (fig. 1, float switch 32, col. 3, ln. 40-45) is positioned to detect the fill level such that each IC chip (fig. 1, PCB assembly, col. 2, ln. 63-64) is at least partially submerged in the fluid coolant (fig. 1, liquid 20, col. 3, ln. 20-23).
The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 4.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolde as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Campbell et al. US 2011/0069453 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Campbell).
Regarding claim 5, Bolde discloses the test system of claim 1, Bolde does not disclose wherein the fluid coolant system comprises an outflow pump coupled to the reservoir and the outlet pathway, the outflow pump configured to move the fluid coolant from the chamber of the test socket through the outlet pathway at a selected flow rate.
Campbell discloses wherein the fluid coolant system (fig. 5, cooling apparatus, par. [0044]) comprises an outflow pump (fig. 5, pump 570, par. [0047], liquid condensate is then evacuated from the module (through a sub-cooling heat exchanger) via pumping from the coolant pump, par. [0050]) coupled to the reservoir (fig. 5, sub-cooling heat exchanger 560, par. [0047]) and the outlet pathway (fig. 5, coolant outlet 516, par. [0047]), the outflow pump configured to move the fluid coolant from the chamber (fig. 5, compartment 511, par. [0044]) of the test socket (fig. 5, housing 510, par. [0044]) through the outlet pathway at a selected flow rate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide two-phase dielectric cooling of an electronic device using a pump to evacuate liquid condensate from the module, as taught in Campbell in modifying the apparatus of Bolde. The motivation would be to efficiently cool the electronic devices.
Regarding claim 6, Bolde and Campbell discloses the test system of claim 5, Bolde does not disclose wherein the fluid coolant system further comprises a pump controller configured to operate the outflow pump.
Campbell discloses wherein the fluid coolant system (fig. 5, cooling apparatus, par. [0044]) further comprises a pump controller (fig. 2, power/control unit 230, par. [0030]) configured to operate the outflow pump (fig. 5, pump 570, par. [0047], liquid condensate is then evacuated from the module (through a sub-cooling heat exchanger) via pumping from the coolant pump, par. [0050]).
In cases like the user selected flow rate setting, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Claim(s) 9-10, 12, 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolde in view of Beaton in view of Park et al. US 2004/0124845 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Park).
Regarding claim 9, Bolde discloses a test system (fig. 1, test apparatus, col. 2, ln. 34-42) for a plurality of integrated circuit (IC) chips (fig. 1, chip 120, col. 2, ln. 60-61), comprising: a test site (fig. 1, space between elm. 10 and 112) comprising: a test socket (fig. 1, socket 115, col. 3, ln. 10-11) coupled to a load board (fig. 1, test board 110, col. 2, ln. 41), the test socket comprising: a housing (fig. 2A, 2B, chamber 210, col. 3, ln. 16-17) at least partially defining a chamber (fig. 1, space between elm. 10 and 112); a plurality of contacts (fig. 2A, pins 118, col. 2, ln. 59-col. 3, ln. 5-11) disposed within a retainer structure (fig. 2, substrate 117, col. 2, ln. 45-47) within the chamber and electrically coupled to the load board; and a guide structure (fig. 1, carrier 50, col. 2, ln. 35-37) configured to receive each of the plurality of IC chips and position each IC chip in the chamber when engaged with the plurality of contacts; a fluid coolant system (fig. 2B, module 500, col. 3, ln. 36-44) comprising: a reservoir (fig. 2B, reservoir 230, col. 3, ln. 39) configured to hold a fluid coolant (fig. 2B, cooling fluid, col. 3, ln. 35); an inlet pathway (fig. 2B, fluid enters in line 232, col. 3, ln. 39-42) coupled between the reservoir and the test socket, the inlet pathway configured to carry the fluid coolant to the test socket to at least partially fill the chamber (clm. 14) and to at least partially submerge the plurality of contacts (fluid need not be drained entirely from the system, col. 3, ln. 52-55); and a liquid outlet pathway (fig. 2B, fluid exits in line 234, col. 3, ln. 39-42) coupled between the reservoir and the test socket, the liquid outlet pathway configured to carry heated liquid coolant away from the test socket; and a handler system (fig. 2A, handling system 400, col. 2, ln. 49-52) configured to move the plurality of IC chips from a feed to the test site, and from the test site to an output (col. 2, ln. 49-58), the handler system comprising a pick arm (fig. 1, arm 450, col. 2, ln. 48-53, 64-67) configured to set each IC chip into the guide structure of the test socket to engage with the plurality of contacts at least partially submerged in the two phase fluid coolant (clm. 14).
Bolde do not disclose a two phase fluid coolant; a vapor outlet pathway coupled between the reservoir and the test socket, the vapor outlet pathway configured to carry coolant vapor away from the test socket; a handler system configured to move the plurality of IC chips from a feed container to the test site, and from the test site to an output container.
Beaton discloses a two phase fluid coolant (perfluorinated liquid, such as Fluorinert, col. 3, ln. 23-25); a vapor outlet pathway (fig. 1, pipe 30, col. 3, ln. 27-37) coupled between the reservoir (fig. 1, cold bath, col. 3, ln. 27-37) and the test socket (fig. 1, connector 14, col. ln. 20-23), the vapor outlet pathway configured to carry coolant vapor away from the test socket
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a liquid coolant which is a perfluorinated liquid, such as Fluorinert, capable of absorbing large quantities of heat and providing a vent pipe for the vapor that is displaced from the enclosure as the enclosure is filled by the liquid back into the cold bath as taught in Beaton in modifying the system of Bolde. The motivation would be operation cost is reduced since coolant is recycled even in vapor form by way of the vent while uncovering defects hard to discover by constant temperature test methods.
Park discloses a handler system (fig. 1, modular IC test handler, par. [0005]) configured to move the plurality of IC chips (fig. 1, modular IC, par. [0005]) from a feed container (fig. 1, loading part 1, par. [0005]) to the test site (fig. 1, test chamber 3, par. [0005]), and from the test site to an output container (fig. 1, unloading part 5, par. [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a loading part for mounting a plurality of modular ICs positioned on a tray on a test carrier, mounting the modular ICs disposed on the carrier on a test socket for testing and an unloading part for separating tested modular ICs from the carrier, as taught in Park in modifying the system of Bolde and Beaton. The motivation would be to provide an area for holding ICs before testing and separating, classifying, and then loading the ICs on designated trays according to a test result.
Regarding claim 10, Bolde, Beaton and Park discloses the test system of claim 9, Bolde further discloses wherein the test site (fig. 1, space between elm. 10 and 112) further comprises a load board (fig. 1, test board 110, col. 2, ln. 41) configured to conduct an electrical test on the IC chip (fig. 1, chip 120, col. 2, ln. 60-61).
Regarding claim 12, Bolde, Beaton and Park discloses the test system of claim 9, Bolde does not disclose wherein the fluid coolant system comprises an inflow pump coupled to the reservoir and the inlet pathway, the inflow pump configured to move the two phase fluid coolant through the inlet pathway into the chamber of the test socket until a fill level is reached.
Beaton discloses wherein the fluid coolant system comprises an inflow pump (fig. 1, pump 22, col. ln. 21-22) coupled to the reservoir (fig. 1, bath 21, col. ln. 20-23) and the inlet pathway, the inflow pump configured to move the two phase fluid coolant (fig. 1, liquid 20, col. ln. 20-23) through the inlet pathway (fig. 1, pipes 24, 26 and 28, col. ln. 20-23) into the chamber (fig. 1, liquid-tight inside of enclosure 12, col. 2, ln. 61-62) of the test socket (fig. 1, connector 14, col. ln. 20-23) until a fill level is reached.
The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 15, Bolde, Beaton and Park discloses the test system of claim 9, Bolde does not disclose wherein the fluid coolant system further comprises a filtration system fluidly coupled in the liquid outlet pathway to remove contaminants from heated liquid coolant.
Beaton discloses wherein the fluid coolant system further comprises a filtration system (fig. 1, filter 42, col. ln. 56-61) fluidly coupled in the liquid outlet pathway (fig. 1, drain pipes 38, 40, col. ln. 54-61) to remove contaminants from heated liquid coolant (fig. 1, liquid 20, col. ln. 20-23).
Regarding claim 17, Bolde, Beaton and Park discloses the test system of claim 9, Bolde does not disclose the enclosure includes a ventilation system configured to vent coolant vapor emitted from the test site.
Beaton discloses (fig. 1, enclosure 12, col. 2, ln. 61-62) includes a ventilation system (fig. 1, pipe 30, col. 3, ln. 27-37) configured to vent coolant vapor emitted from the test site (fig. 1, connector 14, col. ln. 20-23).
The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 9.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolde in view of Beaton in view of Park as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Saide et al. US 2005/0099173 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Saide).
Regarding claim 11, Bolde, Beaton and Park discloses the test system of claim 9, Bolde, Beaton and Park does not disclose wherein the test site comprises a plurality of test sockets coupled to the fluid coolant system.
Saide disclose wherein the test site comprises a plurality of test sockets (fig. 5, socket 12b, par. [0076]) coupled to the fluid coolant system(fig. 2, 6, coolant 41c-2, 41c-3, par. [0089]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide moving mechanism to automatically move a chip holding subassembly that holds integrated circuit modules on sockets, from a load position to a test position and vice versa with temperature control mechanism contacts the modules when the subassembly is in the test position, as taught in Saide in modifying the apparatus of Bolde, Beaton and Park. The motivation would be the concurrent testing of the integrated circuit modules, obtaining a high degree of system utilization.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolde in view of Beaton in view of Park as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Campbell et al. US 2011/0069453 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Campbell).
Regarding claim 13, Bolde, Beaton and Park discloses the test system of claim 9, Bolde, Beaton and Park do not disclose wherein the fluid coolant system comprises an outflow pump coupled to the reservoir and the liquid outlet pathway, the outflow pump configured to move heated liquid coolant from the chamber of the test socket through the liquid outlet pathway at a selected flow rate.
Campbell discloses wherein the fluid coolant system (fig. 5, cooling apparatus, par. [0044]) comprises an outflow pump (fig. 5, pump 570, par. [0047], liquid condensate is then evacuated from the module (through a sub-cooling heat exchanger) via pumping from the coolant pump, par. [0050]) coupled to the reservoir (fig. 5, sub-cooling heat exchanger 560, par. [0047]) and the liquid outlet pathway(fig. 5, coolant outlet 516, par. [0047]), the outflow pump configured to move heated liquid coolant from the chamber (fig. 5, compartment 511, par. [0044]) of the test socket (fig. 5, housing 510, par. [0044]) through the liquid outlet pathway.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide two-phase dielectric cooling of an electronic device using a pump to evacuate liquid condensate from the module, as taught in Campbell in modifying the apparatus of Bolde, Beaton and Park. The motivation would be to efficiently cool the electronic devices.
In cases like the selected flow rate, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Claim(s) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolde in view of Beaton in view of Park as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Tilton et al. US 2007/0193300 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Tilton).
Regarding claim 14, Bolde, Beaton and Park discloses the test system of claim 9, Bolde, Beaton and Park do not disclose, wherein the fluid coolant system further comprises a vapor pump coupled to the reservoir and the vapor outlet pathway, the vapor pump configured to move heated coolant vapor from the chamber of the test socket through the vapor outlet pathway at a selected flow rate.
Tilton discloses wherein the fluid coolant system (fig. 1, two-phase liquid cooling system 100, par. [0028]) further comprises a vapor pump (fig. 1, pump 130: (fig. 5, vapor pump 520, par. [0047]), par. [0028]) coupled to the reservoir (fig. 1, reservoir 115, par. [0030]) and the vapor outlet pathway, the vapor pump configured to move heated coolant vapor from the chamber (fig. 1, cooling module 105, par. [0030]) of the test socket through the vapor outlet pathway (par. [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a two-phase liquid cooling system includes an active venting system for regulating an amount of non-condensable gas within the cooling system, as taught in Tilton in modifying the apparatus of Bolde, Beaton and Park. The motivation would be to provide an active venting system to actively regulates the pressure within the cooling system, for example, by regulating the amount of non-condensable gases in the cooling system.
Regarding claim 16, Bolde, Beaton and Park discloses the test system of claim 9, Bolde, Beaton and Park do not disclose wherein the fluid coolant system further comprises a sensor coupled in the liquid outlet pathway and configured to measure a pressure of heated liquid coolant flowing from the test socket.
Tilton discloses wherein the fluid coolant system fig. 1, two-phase liquid cooling system 100, par. [0028]) further comprises a sensor (fig. 1, pressure transducer 145, par. [0034]) coupled in the liquid outlet pathway (the pressure transducer 145 and temperature sensor 150 may be located at other parts of the system, par. [0034]) and configured to measure a pressure of heated liquid coolant (coolant, par. [0028]) flowing from the test socket (par. [0028], [0034]).
The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 14.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolde in view of Beaton.
Regarding claim 18, Bolde discloses a method of testing an integrated circuit (IC) chip (fig. 1, chip 120, col. 2, ln. 60-61), said method comprising: coupling a test socket (fig. 1, socket 115, col. 3, ln. 10-11) to a load board (fig. 1, test board 110, col. 2, ln. 41), the test socket defining a chamber (fig. 1, space between elm. 10 and 112) within which a plurality of contacts (fig. 2A, pins 118, col. 2, ln. 59-col. 3, ln. 5-11) is disposed, the plurality of contacts configured to electrically couple the IC chip to the load board; supplying a two phase fluid coolant (fig. 2B, cooling fluid, col. 3, ln. 35) to the chamber to at least partially submerge the plurality of contacts (clm. 14); receiving the IC chip in a guide structure (fig. 1, carrier 50, col. 2, ln. 35-37) of the test socket to position the IC chip in the chamber when engaged with the plurality of contacts; conducting, employing the load board (110), an electrical test of the IC chip; and removing heated fluid coolant from the chamber, including: removing heated liquid coolant via a liquid outlet (fig. 2B, fluid exits in line 234, col. 3, ln. 39-42) defined in the test socket (clm. 1, clm. 14).
Bolde do not disclose removing coolant vapor via a vapor outlet defined in the test socket.
Beaton discloses removing coolant vapor via a vapor outlet (fig. 1, pipe 30, col. 3, ln. 27-37) defined in the test socket (fig. 1, connector 14, col. ln. 20-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a liquid coolant which is a perfluorinated liquid, such as Fluorinert, capable of absorbing large quantities of heat and providing a vent pipe for the vapor that is displaced from the enclosure as the enclosure is filled by the liquid back into the cold bath as taught in Beaton in modifying the system of Bolde. The motivation would be operation cost is reduced since coolant is recycled even in vapor form by way of the vent while uncovering defects hard to discover by constant temperature test methods.
Regarding claim 19, Bolde and Beaton discloses the method of claim 18, Bolde discloses further comprising removing (fig. 1, arm 450, col. 2, ln. 48-53, 64-67) the IC chip (fig. 1, chip 120, col. 2, ln. 60-61) from the test socket (fig. 1, socket 115, col. 3, ln. 10-11) upon completion of the electrical test.
Regarding claim 20, Bolde and Beaton discloses the method of claim 18, Bolde discloses further comprising supplying the fluid coolant (fig. 2B, cooling fluid, col. 3, ln. 35) to the chamber (fig. 1, space between elm. 10 and 112) to at least partially submerge the IC chip (clm. 1, clm. 14).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY G MCDONNOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm.
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, EMAN ALKAFAWI can be reached at (571) 272-4448. 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.
/COURTNEY G MCDONNOUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 7/15/2026
Prosecution Insights