DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Applicant’s Amendment, filed 07/07/2025 has been entered. Claims 21-26 have been added. Claims 1-26 are pending in the Application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the prior art rejection(s) of the claim(s) have been fully considered but are moot in view of a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Applicant admitted prior art (AAPA), in view of Giardina et al US 20070053161 and Deng et al US 20070169919.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 15, the Applicant argues that the cited arts fail to teach the newly amended limitation “the heat pipe traverses a surface of a first heat sink and a surface of a second heat sink of the plurality of separate dedicated heat sinks”. However, the newly cited art Deng et al (US 20070169919) discloses a heat pipe traverses a surface of a first heat sink and a surface of a second heat sink of a plurality of separate dedicated heat sinks (see figure 1, heat pipe 22 traverses a surface of heatsink 33 and a surface of heatsink 34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the heat pipe and the heat sinks so that the heat pipe traverses the surfaces of the heat sinks. The motivation for doing so is to improve cooling performance by having the heat pipe conforming to the heat sinks.
Based on the reasoning above, the rejections have been modified to address the newly amended limitations. Please see below for the detailed rejections.
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 1-4, 9-10, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Applicant admitted prior art (AAPA), in view of Giardina et al US 20070053161 and Deng et al US 20070169919. The Examiner notes that paragraphs 0009-0024 and figures 1, 2a and 2b are described as conventional thus the above paragraphs and figures are treated as Applicant admitted prior art (AAPA). See MPEP § 2129.
Regarding claim 1, the AAPA teaches an apparatus (see figure 2a), comprising:
an add-in card (see para 0018, FIGS. 2a and 2b depict another prior art add-in card) comprising semiconductor chip packages mounted to a printed circuit board of the add-in card (see para 0019, The SOCs are mounted to respective I/Os on the printed circuit board 204), separate dedicated heat sinks respectively coupled to the semiconductor chip packages with spring loaded fixturing elements, a heat pipe coupled to a plurality of the heat sinks (see para 0019, Separate heat sinks 205_1, 205_2, 205_3, 205_4 are then individually mounted to the heat sink tray 207. Importantly, the fixturing mechanism 208 between the heat sinks 205 and the heat sink tray 207 is spring loaded which allows flush interfacing between the undersurfaces of the heat sinks 205 and their respective SOC package lid).
But the AAPA fails to teach a heat pipe coupled to a plurality of the separate dedicated heat sinks.
However, Giardina teaches a heat pipe coupled to a plurality of the separate dedicated heat sinks (see figure 3 and para 0027, the heat sinks 350-352 are thermally coupled to one another by heat pipe 360).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the separate heat sinks of the AAPA and further incorporate a heat pipe thermally coupling the heat sinks.
The motivation for doing so is to balance the thermal load between the heat sinks as taught by Giardina (see para 0028).
The combination of AAPA and Giardina fails to teach the heat pipe traverses a surface of a first heat sink and a surface of a second heat sink of the plurality of separate dedicated heat sinks.
However, Deng teaches a heat pipe traverses a surface of a first heat sink and a surface of a second heat sink of a plurality of separate dedicated heat sinks (see figure 1, heat pipe 22 traverses a surface of heatsink 33 and a surface of heatsink 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the heat pipe and the heat sinks so that the heat pipe traverses the surfaces of the heat sinks.
The motivation for doing so is to improve cooling performance by having the heat pipe conforming to the heat sinks.
Regarding claim 2, the AAPA further teaches the add-in card is a PCIe card (see para 0010, The accelerator add-in card is a “long” Peripheral Component Interface Express (PCIe) form factor card).
Regarding claim 3, the AAPA further teaches the add-in card is an accelerator add-in card (see para 0010, the accelerator add-in card).
Regarding claim 4, Giardina further teaches the second heat sink of the plurality of separate dedicated heat sinks is to receive air that has been warmed by flowing through the first heat sink of the plurality of separate dedicated heat sinks (see figure 3, it is clear that heat sink 351 is receiving air that has been warmed by heat sink 310 e.g. air flow provided by fans 370/371 through 310), the second separate dedicated heat sink having more fins than the first of the separate dedicated heat sinks (see para 0029, heat sink 351 is shown sized larger than heat sink 350 e.g. it is clear and obvious that a larger/more capable heat sink would have more fins).
Regarding claim 21, Deng further teaches the first heat sink is tilted differently from the second heat sink of the plurality of heat sinks and the heat pipe is conformed to a tilt of the first heat sink and a tilt of the second heat sink of the plurality of heat sinks (see figure 1, heat sink 33 and heat sink 34 is tilted differently and the heat pipe 22 is conformed to the tilt angles of the heat sinks 33 and 34).
Regarding claims 9, 10 and 23, please refer to the rejection of claims 1 and 4 since the claimed subject matter is substantially similar. Additionally, AAPA further teaches the add-in card is plugged into a computer system comprising a mother board comprising one or more CPUs (see para 0009, plugs into a larger circuit board such as the motherboard of a computer system, also see para 0011, one or more general purpose processor chips (CPUs)).
Claims 15, 16 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Applicant admitted prior art (AAPA), in view of Giardina et al US 20070053161, Morgan US 20200321730 and Deng et al US 20070169919.
Regarding claim 15, the AAPA teaches an accelerator add-in card (see para 0018, FIGS. 2a and 2b depict another prior art add-in card) comprising semiconductor chip packages mounted to a printed circuit board of the accelerator add-in card (see para 0019, The SOCs are mounted to respective I/Os on the printed circuit board 204), separate dedicated heat sinks respectively coupled to the semiconductor chip packages with spring loaded fixturing elements, a heat pipe coupled to a plurality of the heat sinks (see para 0019, Separate heat sinks 205_1, 205_2, 205_3, 205_4 are then individually mounted to the heat sink tray 207. Importantly, the fixturing mechanism 208 between the heat sinks 205 and the heat sink tray 207 is spring loaded which allows flush interfacing between the undersurfaces of the heat sinks 205 and their respective SOC package lid).
But the AAPA fails to teach a heat pipe coupled to a plurality of the separate dedicated heat sinks.
However, Giardina teaches a heat pipe coupled to a plurality of the separate dedicated heat sinks (see figure 3 and para 0027, the heat sinks 350-352 are thermally coupled to one another by heat pipe 360).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the separate heat sinks of the AAPA and further incorporate a heat pipe thermally coupling the heat sinks.
The motivation for doing so is to balance the thermal load between the heat sinks as taught by Giardina (see para 0028).
The combination of AAPA and Giardina fails to teach a data center, comprising multiple computer systems plugged into multiple racks, the multiple computer systems communicatively coupled to one another by way of one or more networks, the multiple computer systems to implement functionality of the data center through execution of software that invokes acceleration, the acceleration performed at least in part with the accelerator add-in card that is plugged into one of the multiple computer systems.
However, Morgan teaches a data center, comprising multiple computer systems plugged into multiple racks, the multiple computer systems communicatively coupled to one another by way of one or more networks, the multiple computer systems to implement functionality of the data center through execution of software that invokes acceleration, the acceleration performed at least in part with the accelerator add-in card that is plugged into one of the multiple computer systems (see para 0021, Dis-aggregated computer system (e.g., dis-aggregated server) implementations are also being undertaken. In the case of a dis-aggregated computer system, unlike a traditional computer in which the core components of a computing system (e.g., CPU processors, memory, storage, accelerators, etc.) are all housed within a common chassis and connected to a common motherboard, such components are instead integrated on separate pluggable cards or other pluggable components (e.g., a CPU card, a system memory card, a storage card, an accelerator card, etc.) that plug-into a larger exposed backplane or network instead of a same, confined motherboard. As such, for instance, CPU computer power can be added by adding CPU cards to the backplane or network, system memory can be added by adding memory cards to the backplane or network, etc. Such systems can exhibit even more high speed card to card connections that traditional computers. One or more dis-aggregated computers and/or traditional computers/servers can be identified as a Point of Delivery (PoD) for computing system function in, e.g., the larger configuration of an information technology (IT) implementation such as a data center).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the add-in card disclosed by the AAPA and incorporate the card in a computer system of a data center.
The motivation for doing so is to utilize the accelerator card in the computer system to improve the operation of the data center.
The combination of AAPA, Giardina and Morgan fails to teach the heat pipe traverses a surface of a first heat sink and a surface of a second heat sink of the plurality of separate dedicated heat sinks.
However, Deng teaches a heat pipe traverses a surface of a first heat sink and a surface of a second heat sink of a plurality of separate dedicated heat sinks (see figure 1, heat pipe 22 traverses a surface of heatsink 33 and a surface of heatsink 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the heat pipe and the heat sinks so that the heat pipe traverses the surfaces of the heat sinks.
The motivation for doing so is to improve cooling performance by having the heat pipe conforming to the heat sinks.
Regarding claim 16, Giardina further teaches the second heat sink of the plurality of separate dedicated heat sinks is to receive air that has been warmed by flowing through the first heat sink of the plurality of separate dedicated heat sinks (see figure 3, it is clear that heat sink 351 is receiving air that has been warmed by heat sink 310 e.g. air flow provided by fans 370/371 through 310), the second separate dedicated heat sink having more fins than the first of the separate dedicated heat sinks (see para 0029, heat sink 351 is shown sized larger than heat sink 350 e.g. it is clear and obvious that a larger/more capable heat sink would have more fins).
Regarding claim 25, Deng further teaches the first heat sink is tilted differently from the second heat sink of the plurality of heat sinks and the heat pipe is conformed to a tilt of the first heat sink and a tilt of the second heat sink of the plurality of heat sinks (see figure 1, heat sink 33 and heat sink 34 is tilted differently and the heat pipe 22 is conformed to the tilt angles of the heat sinks 33 and 34).
Claims 5, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of prior arts as applied to claims above, and further in view of Davidson US 20130294025.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of AAPA, Giardina and Deng teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
But, the combination of AAPA, Giardina and Deng fails to teach the heat pipe is to be thermally coupled to a chassis component of a system that the add-in card is to plug into.
However, Davidson teaches a heat pipe is to be thermally coupled to a chassis component of a system that the add-in card is to plug into (see figure 6, heat pipe 410 is coupled to chassis component 602 of a system that the card 520 is plug into).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the heat pipe and further incorporate coupling the heat pipe to a chassis component.
The motivation for doing so is to communicating the heat away from the add-on card board thus simplified the cooling requirement of the card as taught by Davidson (see para 0009).
Regarding claims 11 and 17, please refer to the rejection of claim 5 above since the claimed subject matter is substantially similar.
Claims 6, 7, 12, 13, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of prior arts as applied to claims above, and further in view of Stefanoski US 20060164808.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of AAPA, Giardina and Deng teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
But, the combination of AAPA, Giardina and Deng fails to teach the heat pipe is thermally coupled to a back plate of the add-in card.
However, Stenfanoski teaches a heat pipe is thermally coupled to a back plate of the add-in card (see figure 3B and 3C, heat pipes 330a-d and back plate 375, see para 0021).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the heat pipe and further incorporate coupling the heat pipe to a back plate of the add-in card.
The motivation for doing so is to dissipate heat away from the components of the add-on cards.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of AAPA, Giardina and Deng teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
But, the combination of AAPA, Giardina and Deng fails to teach the heat pipe is thermally coupled to a heat sink tray that resides between the separate dedicated heat sinks and the semiconductor chip packages.
However, Stefanoski teaches a heat pipe is thermally coupled to a heat sink tray that resides between the heat sinks and the semiconductor chip packages (see figure 3B and 3C, heat pipes 330a-d coupled to the heat sink plate 340 between the heat sink 315 and the GPU chip 345).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the heat pipe and further incorporate coupling the heat pipe to a heat sink tray.
The motivation for doing so is to dissipate heat away from the components of the add-on cards.
Regarding claims 12-13 and 18-19, please refer to the rejection of claims 6-7 above since the claimed subject matter is substantially similar.
Claims 8, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of prior arts as applied to claims above, and further in view of Franz et al US 20190074239.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of AAPA, Giardina, Deng and Stefanoski teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Stefanoski further teaches the heat sink tray is thermally coupled to a back plate of the card with fasteners such as screws (see figure 3B, 32c and 3H, also see para 0024, Each of these three members have a plurality of corresponding holes for fasteners, such as screws, to mount the system base 350 and the back 375 to the graphics card 320).
But, the combination of AAPA, Giardina, Deng and Stefanoski fails to teach the fastener/screw is comprised of copper.
However, Franz teaches screws for heat transfer adapter plate can comprise of copper (see para 0011, the screw and the fixed nuts 108, 118, 116, and 110 can comprise a thermal conductive material, such as copper, which can enhance the heat transfer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the screws attaching the plates and further incorporate copper screws.
The motivation for doing so is to enhance the heat transfer through the use of copper as taught by Franz (see para 0011).
Regarding claims 14 and 20, please refer to the rejection of claim 8 above since the claimed subject matter is substantially similar.
Claims 22, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of prior arts as applied to claims above, and further in view of Mochizuki et al US Patent No. 6,122,166.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of AAPA, Giardina and Deng teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Deng further teaches the length is along a direction that the heat sink traverses a surface of a first and a surface of a second heat sink of the plurality of heat sinks (see figure 1 shows the length of the heat pipe 22 traversing the heat sinks 33, 34)
But, the combination of AAPA, Giardina and Deng fails to teach the of the heat pipe width is 10 mm or more, and the thickness is 3 mm or less.
However, Mochizuki teaches a heat pipe can have different widths and thicknesses including 10mm or more width, and 3mm or less thickness (see col 13 ln 21-30, This plate heat pipe 53 is exemplified by confining pure water as the working fluid in a hollow plate container 54 which is formed of a copper pipe having a thickness of about 0.4 to 0.5 mm into a size having a width of about 3 to 30 mm and a height of about 2 to 4 mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the heat pipe and further incorporate different widths and thicknesses.
The motivation for doing so is a designer’s choice to accommodate different cooling requirements.
Regarding claims 24 and 26, please refer to the rejection of claim 22 above since the claimed subject matter is substantially similar.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Noda et al US 20020189793 discloses a plate type heat pipe
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG H DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM - 6:00PM.
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, Henry Tsai can be reached at (571)272-4176. 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.
/PHONG H DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184