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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application on 11/17/2025 after final rejection of 09/17/2025. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/17/2025 has been entered. The Office action on currently pending elected claims 1-11 and 14-22 follows.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, requires the specification to be written in "full, clear, concise, and exact terms." The disclosure is again objected to because of the following informalities: superfluous repetition of the claims or claim-like clauses appended to the description (par. [0061]-[0080]) should be deleted. The term “claim-like clauses” means clauses present in the description which use claim language such as “according to the preceding clause”, “of clause 1”, “of clauses 1 or 2”, and similar. These “claim-like clauses” also include examples, embodiments or aspects presented as claim-like clauses.
The specification should provide a clear written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it in full, clear, concise, and exact terms as required by 35 USC 112(a). Claim-like language in the specification is not in line with 35 USC 112(a) since it’s confusing because it suggests multiple dependencies and alternate passages, thereby obscuring rather than clarifying the disclosure (e.g., “The processing subsystem of clauses 1 or 2,… The processing subsystem of any of clauses 1-3,…The processing subsystem of any of clauses 1-4”, etc.). The claim-like clauses in the current specification contain multiple dependencies with nested, back-referenced clauses that are hard to track and produce confusion instead of clarity as required by 35 USC 112(a).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “length of the chassis expansion slot” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 14 recite the limitations: “wherein a combined length of the fan and the length of the first PCB is shorter than or equal to a length of a chassis expansion slot”.
There is no support in the original specification as filed for the aforementioned subject matter, which therefore constitutes an impermissible new matter.
All remaining dependent claims have been also rejected along with said independent claims 1 and 14, since they inherit the aforementioned problems of the independent claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11, 21, and 22, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 is incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: between the expansion slot and remaining structure of the claimed apparatus. The expansion slot has not been positively set forth in claim 1 as a part of the processing subsystem in relation to the remaining structure of the claimed apparatus.
All remaining claims dependent from claim 1 have been also rejected along with said independent claim 1, since they inherit the aforementioned problem(s) of said independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-11 and 14-21, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,791,889 to Belady et al. (hereafter “Belady”, of record) alone, or alternatively in view of US 7,019,974 to Lee et al. (hereafter “Lee”), or yet alternatively in view of US 7,852,632 to Chu et al. (hereafter “Chu”).
Regarding claim 1, Belady discloses (Figs. 1, 2, and 6): a processing subsystem (100), comprising: a first printed circuit board (PCB) (102); a first thermal solution (120) connected to a processor (104, 110) mounted on a first side of the first PCB; and at least a portion of the first thermal solution (120) extends past the first PCB (102), (Fig. 2); and one or more power components (130) that are coupled to a second side of the first PCB and electrically coupled to the processor, wherein the first side of the first PCB is opposite to the second side of the first PCB; and a fan (Figs. 2-4; col. 5, ll. 18-33). Furter, Belady teaches a chassis expansion slot (col. 2, ll. 33-40).
Belady does not specifically disclose that the first thermal solution is longer than a length of the first PCB, wherein the cooling fan disposed on an edge of the first PCB, wherein a combined length of the fan and the length of the first PCB is shorter than or equal to a length of a chassis expansion slot.
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the size(s)/length(s) of the thermal solution, fan, first PCB, and expansion slot in Belady in any suitable way, including as claimed, in order to achieve desired heat dissipation and cooling efficiency, since such a modification 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. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Furter, similarly the proper positioning of the fan, including as claimed would have been also obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to achieve desired heat dissipation and cooling efficiency, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 14, Belady discloses (Figs. 1, 2, and 6): a computer system (col. 2, ll. 26-57) comprising: a chassis (inherently present); a power supply (inherently present) disposed within the chassis; a motherboard (col. 2, ll. 41-57) that is disposed within the chassis and is electrically coupled to the power supply (inherently); and a processing subsystem (100) that is disposed within a chassis expansion slot (col. 2, ll. 33-40) and is communicatively coupled to the motherboard, the processing subsystem (100) including: a first printed circuit board (PCB) (102); a thermal solution (120) coupled to a processor (104, 110), wherein the processor is mounted on a first side of the first PCB, and the first thermal solution (120) is longer than a length of the first PCB (102), (Fig. 2); and one or more power components (130) that are coupled to a second side of the first PCB and electrically coupled to the processor, wherein the first side of the first PCB is opposite to the second side of the first PCB; and a fan (Figs. 2-4; col. 5, ll. 18-33).
Belady does not specifically disclose that the first thermal solution is longer than a length of the first PCB, wherein the cooling fan disposed on an edge of the first PCB, wherein a combined length of the fan and the length of the first PCB is shorter than or equal to a length of a chassis expansion slot.
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the size(s)/length(s) of the thermal solution, fan, first PCB, and expansion slot in Belady in any suitable way, including as claimed, in order to achieve desired heat dissipation and cooling efficiency, since such a modification 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. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Furter, similarly the proper positioning of the fan, including as claimed would have been also obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to achieve desired heat dissipation and cooling efficiency, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Also, it was notoriously known in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose computer systems/subsystems and computer power supplies within computer chassis1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have disposed the computer system/subsystem of Belady and the computer power supply therefor within a chassis, in order to predictably and efficiently provide structural integrity and electrical power source for said computer system/subsystem of Belady, since all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Alternatively, Lee discloses (Figs. 1-3) a computer subsystem (70) having thermal solution(s) (10, 30, 50) extending past the length of the PCB (72).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify to Belady according to the teachings of Lee by providing the first thermal solution the portion of which extends past the length of the first PCB in order to predictably enhance heat dissipation and cooling efficiency by cooling the computer subsystem from both sides with augmented thermal coupling via a heat pipe (col. 2, ll. 6-26). All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Yet alternatively, Chu discloses (Figs. 1A-4) ) a computer subsystem (10) having thermal solution(s) (300, 340, 360,) a portion (360) of which extending past the length of the PCB (100) (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify to Belady according to the teachings of Chu by providing the first thermal solution the portion of which extends past the length of the first PCB in order to predictably enhance heat dissipation and cooling efficiency (col. 5, ll. 23-28). All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Belady discloses a first thermal solution (120) that includes at least one of cold plate, a heat sink, a cooling fan, a heat pipe, or a vapor chamber (col. 3, ll. 11-16) coupled to the processor and a second thermal solution (see “cold plate” on Fig. 6) coupled to the one or more power components.
Regarding claim 3, Belady discloses that the fan is oriented to blow cooling air across the first thermal solution and the second thermal solution (Figs. 2-4; col. 5, ll. 18-33).
Regarding claim 5, Belady discloses that the first thermal solution (120) is oriented parallel to the first PCB (102) (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 6, Belady discloses one or more other power components (110) that are mounted directly on the first side of the first PCB (col. 2, ll. 59-64).
Regarding claim 7, Belady discloses that the one or more power components (130) are mounted directly on the second side of the first PCB (102) and are arranged on the second side of the first PCB to mirror the one or more other power components (110) (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Belady discloses (Figs. 1 and 2) that a first power component (130A) included in the one or more power components (130) is aligned with a second power component (110) included in the one or more other power components (110), and each of the first power component and the second power component is electrically coupled to a first power plane or a first ground plane (inherently) and/or to a first via (170) formed through the first PCB (102).
Regarding claim 10, Belady discloses that the one or more power components (130) are mounted directly on the second side of the first PCB (102), (Figs, 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 11, Belady discloses that the one or more power components (130) include at least one of a capacitor, an inductor, a voltage controller, or a power switching device (col. 3, ll. 52-59).
Regarding claims 15 and 17, Belady discloses a first thermal solution (120) that includes at least one of cold plate, a heat sink, a cooling fan, a heat pipe, or a vapor chamber (col. 3, ll. 11-16) coupled to the processor and a second thermal solution (see “cold plate” on Fig. 6) coupled to the one or more power components.
Regarding claim 16, Belady discloses a cooling fan that is oriented to blow cooling air across the first thermal solution and the second thermal solution (Figs. 2-4; col. 5, ll. 18-33).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Belady discloses that the first thermal solution (120) is oriented parallel the first PCB (102) (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 19, Belady discloses one or more other power components (110) that are mounted directly on the first side of the first PCB (col. 2, ll. 59-64).
Regarding claim 20, Belady discloses that the one or more power components (130) are mounted directly on the second side of the first PCB (102) and are arranged on the second side of the first PCB to mirror the one or more other power components (110) (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 21, Lee discloses (Figs. 1-3) that the first and second thermal solution(s) (10, 30, 50) are longer than the length of the PCB (72). Furter, Chu also discloses that the first and second thermal solution(s) (300, 340, 360, 362, 364, 366) are longer than the length of the PCB (100), (Figs. 1-4, especially Fig. 4).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belady in view of US 2022/0100242 to Saksager as applied to claim 3 above, or alternatively, over Belady as modified by either Lee or Chu, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Saksager.
Regarding claim 22, Belady alone, or as modified by either Lee or Chu, do not disclose: a bracket disposed at a first end of the first PCB, wherein the fan is disposed on the edge at a second end of the first PCB such that the length of the first PCB is between the bracket and the fan.
Saksager discloses (Fig. 3) processing subsystem (100) implemented as an expansion board, comprising: a bracket (102) disposed at a first end of the first PCB (101), wherein the cooling fan (110) is disposed on the edge at a second end of the first PCB (101) such that the length of the first PCB and of the thermal solution (121-125, 132-134) is between the bracket and the fan.
Furthermore, Belady discloses that the processing subsystem can include various devices including the “expansion boards (such as any board that plugs into an expansion slot of a computer)” (col. 2, ll. 27-40).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modify to previously modified Belady according to the teachings of Saksager, by implementing the device of Belady as an expansion card comprising: a bracket disposed at a first end of the first PCB, wherein the cooling fan is disposed at the edge at a second end of the first PCB such that the length of the first PCB is between the bracket and the fan, in order to predictably achieve efficient heat exchange between cooling air and electronic devices to be cooled. Also, moving around the cooling fan and appropriately positioning it, including as claimed, in order to achieve the most efficient heat exchange between cooling air and electronic devices to be cooled is just a common sense approach that would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the objection to the specification Applicant contends that, allegedly, “The Examiner provides no statutory or Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) basis for the objection.”
On the contrary, the objection provides clear statutory basis, i.e., 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, which requires the specification to be written in "full, clear, concise, and exact terms." However, the claim-like language in the specification is not in line with 35 USC 112(a) since it’s confusing because it suggests multiple dependencies and alternate passages, thereby obscuring rather than clarifying the disclosure (e.g., “The processing subsystem of clauses 1 or 2,… The processing subsystem of any of clauses 1-3,…The processing subsystem of any of clauses 1-4”, etc.). The claim-like clauses in the current specification contain multiple dependencies with nested, back-referenced clauses that are hard to track and produce confusion instead of clarity as required by 35 USC 112(a).
Therefore, the objection still stands.
Furthermore, regarding the obviousness prior art rejection the arguments are moot, since the rejection has been adjusted to read on the amended claims as explained above in the body of the rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is (571)272-2047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 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, Jayprakash N. 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.
/Anatoly Vortman/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2835
1 Examiner’s Note: Since Applicant has failed to seasonably traverse the aforementioned well-known statement from the previous Office action, the object of said well-known statement is taken to be admitted prior art. See In re Chevenard, 139 F.2d71, 60 USPQ 239 (CCPA 1943), ("If Applicant does not seasonably traverse the well-known statement during examination, then the object of the well-known statement is taken to be admitted prior art"). MPEP 2144.03 (C).