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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a second heat transfer element” in claims 1 and 16 are understood to be any art recognized cooling element.
“a heat generating element” in claim 1 is understood to be an electronic component.
“a heat transfer medium” in claims 12 and 25 are understood to be refrigerant fluid.
“a heat dissipating device” in claims 13 and 26 are understood to be any art recognized heat exchanger.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 2, 5, 7-16 and 20-26 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.
Claims 1 and 16 recites "a top surface of the first base plate and a bottom surface of the second base plate are in physical contact with one another in one or more first regions". The amendment limits this contact to discrete "first regions." While the specification of the application describes heat pipes sandwiched between two base plates (¶ 0033–0037; Figs. 1–2, 7–9), the specification does not expressly describe, nor do the figures unambiguously depict, the two base plates making direct surface-to-surface contact in discrete, defined "first regions" as a separate, distinct structural feature apart from the heat pipe contact areas. A skilled artisan reading the original disclosure would not recognize that the inventors were in possession of the specific concept of discrete "first regions" of direct base-plate-to-base-plate contact as a distinct structural element claimed. Applicant is invited to point to specific support in the originally filed specification.
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, 2, 5, 7-16 and 20-26 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.
Claims 1, 2 and 16 recite "in one or more first regions" and (in claim 2) "one or more second regions positioned between the one or more first regions" renders the claims indefinite because the boundaries and spatial extent of these regions are not defined with sufficient certainty to permit a skilled artisan to determine the scope of the claims. Specifically: (a) The claims do not define whether "first regions" refer to peripheral edge contact, intermediate land areas between heat pipe grooves, point contacts at fastener locations, or any other structural arrangement. A skilled artisan examining the specification (see ¶ 0033–0037; Figs. 1–2, 7–9) cannot determine from the specification alone what geometric area constitutes a "first region" of plate-to-plate contact. (b) The phrase "positioned between" in claim 2 is spatially ambiguous, and it is unclear whether this means the second regions are strictly laterally flanked on both sides by first regions (in one dimension), or whether the first regions merely surround the second regions in two dimensions, or some other arrangement.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 11, 16, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popovich (US 2007/0074853 A1) in view of Kulkarni et al. (US 2018/0004259 A1) and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 6397935 B1).
In regard to claim 1, Popovich teaches an apparatus for component cooling, comprising: a first heat transfer element (see the annotated figure below) configured to be thermally coupled to a heat-generating component (10, chip in a microprocessor), wherein the first heat transfer element includes a first base plate (15) and a second base plate (16) (see the annotated figure below), wherein a top surface of the first base plate (15) and a bottom surface of the second base plate (16) are in physical contact with one another in one or more first regions. Specifically, Popovich's conduit walls 15 and 16 are positioned at opposite sides of the mesh layer 13, with conduit elements 15b and 16b establishing physical structural contact at the peripheral regions of the assembly -- i.e., at the edges and boundary portions of the plates where the walls meet to confine the mesh and coolant fluid (see the annotated figure below). The seal 18 located at the boundary of opening 15a further confirms the existence of discrete physical contact regions between the first and second base plates. To the extent Popovich's peripheral contact regions are disputed, Yamamoto teaches two aluminum plates brazed to each other in the flat land regions between the heat-transferring path channels, directly establishing physical contact in one or more first regions as claimed (see Yamamoto, Abstract; col. 1, ll. 40-55). Note: the claim does not require that physical contact occur across the entire surface area of the plates; physical contact in one or more first regions satisfies this limitation;
a second heat transfer element (see the annotated figure below); and
a plurality of thermally conductive paths (mesh wires 13) between the first heat transfer element and the second heat transfer element (see Fig. 1 below), and wherein a first portion of the plurality of thermally conductive paths (13) is disposed between the first base plate (15) and the second base plate (16) (see the annotated figure below).
Popovich teaches a plurality of thermally conductive paths but does not explicitly teach the plurality of thermally conductive paths includes at least one heat pipe.
However, Kulkarni teaches a heat transfer apparatus for a computer environment comprising a liquid coolant system (202) that pumps a liquid (such as oil and/or water) through a thermal conductive path that includes at least one heat pipe (liquid lines 204), wherein the liquid may receive heat when passed through the heat pipe (204) and transfer the heat to a heat exchanger (206), where the liquid is cooled. The liquid further passes into coolant plates, such as coolant plate (210), for cooling of one or more components within the computer environment 200, such as a CPU (see paragraph 0041; Figs. 2 and 3).
Since Popovich shows in Fig. 1 a plurality of thermally conductive paths for removing heat from a die or chip (10) and Kulkarni teaches a conventional heat pipe for facilitating heat removal from a computer environment housing chips, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the plurality of thermally conductive paths of Popovich with at least one heat pipe disposed between the top surface of the first base plate and the bottom surface of the second base plate, in view of the teachings of Kulkarni, for the purpose of moving more heat faster, keeping the processor cooler and quickly spreading localized processor heat across a larger area, like a heatsink or radiator. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to implement the first and second base plates of the first heat transfer element using the two-plate brazed groove architecture taught by Yamamoto -- two aluminum plates brazed to each other in the flat land regions between the heat-transferring path channels -- as this was a well-known and commercially proven construction for achieving direct plate-to-plate thermal contact while providing defined channels for heat pipe or working fluid routing between the plates.
PNG
media_image1.png
684
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
732
573
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 2, Popovich teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein it recite that the first portion of the at least one heat pipe is disposed between the top surface of the first base plate and the bottom surface of the second base plate in one or more second regions positioned between the one or more first regions (i.e., the physical contact regions). Popovich teaches and renders obvious this limitation. As noted above with respect to claim 1, the physical contact between the first base plate (15) and the second base plate (16) occurs at one or more peripheral/edge first regions (established by conduit elements 15b and 16b and the seal region at opening 15a). The mesh wires 13 are disposed in the interior of the assembly, i.e., in regions located between (interior to) those peripheral physical contact regions, inherently placing the thermally conductive paths in "second regions positioned between the one or more first regions" as claimed.
To the extent any doubt remains, Yamamoto independently confirms this structural arrangement: in Yamamoto's flat type heat pipe, the two aluminum plates are brazed together in the flat land regions flanking the groove/channel heat-transferring paths (first regions of physical contact), and the heat-transferring path channels -- in which a heat pipe would be disposed --are located between those brazed contact regions (second regions positioned between the first regions). As set forth in the rejection of claim 1, it would have been obvious to modify the thermally conductive paths with at least one heat pipe as taught by Kulkarni, such that the first portion of that heat pipe is likewise disposed in those second regions between the physical contact regions of the first and second base plates.
In regard to claim 9, Popovich teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second heat transfer element (see the annotated figure above) includes a third base plate and a fourth base plate (see the annotated figure above), and wherein a second portion of the at least one heat pipe (13) is disposed between the third base plate (15) and the fourth base plate (16).
In regard to claim 11, Popovich teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a cooling fan assembly (28) coupled to the second heat transfer element (see the annotated figure above; also see ¶ 0056 of Popovich).
In regard to claim 16, Popovich teaches a component cooling assembly, comprising:
An electronic component (10, chip in a microprocessor);
a first heat transfer element (see the annotated figure above) configured to be thermally coupled to the electronic component (10, chip in a microprocessor), wherein the first heat transfer element includes a first base plate (15) and a second base plate (16) (see the annotated figure above), wherein a top surface of the first base plate (15) and a bottom surface of the second base plate (16) are in physical contact with one another in one or more first regions, for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1 -- specifically, the conduit elements (15b and 16b) establish physical contact at peripheral/edge first regions of the assembly (see the annotated figure above), and to the extent this is disputed, Yamamoto teaches two plates brazed to each other in flat land regions between channels, directly establishing physical contact in one or more first regions.
Note: the claim does not require direct physical contact across the entire interfacial surface of the first and second base plates;
a second heat transfer element (see the annotated figure above); and
a plurality of thermally conductive paths (mesh wires 13) between the first heat transfer element and the second heat transfer element (see the annotated figure above), and wherein a first portion of the plurality of thermally conductive paths (13) is disposed between the first base plate (15) and the second base plate (16) (see the annotated figure above).
Popovich teaches a plurality of thermally conductive paths, but does not explicitly teach the plurality of thermally conductive paths includes at least one heat pipe.
However, Kulkarni teaches a heat transfer apparatus for a computer environment comprising a liquid coolant system (202) that pumps a liquid through a thermal conductive path that includes at least one heat pipe (liquid lines 204), wherein the liquid may receive heat when passed through the heat pipe (204) and transfer the heat to a heat exchanger (206), where the liquid is cooled. The liquid further passes into coolant plates, such as coolant plate (210), for cooling of one or more components within the computer environment 200, such as a CPU (see paragraph 0041; Figs. 2 and 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the plurality of thermally conductive paths of Popovich with at least one heat pipe, in view of the teachings of Kulkarni, for the purpose of moving more heat faster, keeping the processor cooler and quickly spreading localized processor heat across a larger area, like a heatsink or radiator, and further to implement the plate-and-channel architecture of the first and second base plates using the construction taught by Yamamoto.
In regard to claim 22, Popovich teaches the component cooling assembly of claim 16, wherein the second heat transfer element (see the annotated figure above) includes a third base plate and a fourth base plate (see the annotated figure above), and wherein a first portion of the at least one heat pipe (13) is disposed between the first base plate (15) and the second base plate (16).
In regard to claim 24, Popovich teaches the component cooling assembly of claim 16, further comprising a cooling fan assembly (28) coupled to the second heat transfer element (see the annotated figure above; also see ¶ 0056 of Popovich).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popovich, Yamamoto and Kulkarni as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gao (US 2022/0369517).
In regard to claim 5, Popovich teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the plurality of thermally conductive paths includes at least one vapor chamber.
However, Gao is in the art of thermal management of electronics wherein the plurality of heat transfer paths include at least one vapor chamber (107 & 108, Fig. 2; ¶ 0030-0034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified heat transfer paths of Popovich to include at least one vapor chamber, in view of the teachings of Gao, to provide cooling redundancy and enhance the overall cooling.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 10, 20, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popovich, Yamamoto and Kulkarni as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of an NPL “Study on heat pipe assisted thermoelectric power generation system from exhaust gas” by Chi et al. (“hereinafter “Chi”).
In regard to claims 7 and 8, Popovich teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach a thermoelectric cooler having a first side thermally coupled to the first heat transfer element (claim 7) and a third heat transfer element thermally coupled to a second side of the thermoelectric cooler (claim 8).
However, Chi discloses a thermoelectric power generator system comprising a first, second and third heat transfer elements (see the annotated figure below), wherein the system further comprises a first and second thermoelectric modules, wherein at least one side of one of the first thermoelectric module coupled to the first heat transfer element and a second side coupled to the third heat transfer element (see the annotated figure below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling apparatus of Popovich to include a thermoelectric cooler thermally coupled to the first heat transfer element and a third heat transfer element thermally coupled to the thermoelectric cooler, as taught by Chi, in order to enhance the heat transfer ability of the cooling apparatus of Popovich by including an additional heat transfer element and thermoelectric cooler.
PNG
media_image3.png
582
406
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 10, Popovich teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach a thermoelectric cooler thermally coupled to the second heat transfer element.
However, Chi discloses a thermoelectric power generator system comprising a first, second and third heat transfer elements (see the annotated figure above), wherein the system further comprises a first and second thermoelectric modules, wherein at least one of the thermoelectric module coupled to the second heat transfer element (see the annotated figure above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling apparatus of Popovich to include a thermoelectric cooler thermally coupled to the second heat transfer element, in view of the teachings of Chi, in order to enhance the heat transfer ability of the cooling apparatus of Popovich by including a thermoelectric cooler.
In regard to claims 20 and 21, see the rejection of claims 7 and 8 above.
In regard to claim 23, see the rejection of claim 10.
Claim(s) 12, 13, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popovich, Yamamoto and Kulkarni as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of in view of Refai-Ahmed et al. (US 11,373,929).
In regard to claim 12, Popovich discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach a manifold configured to receive a single fluid flow of a heat transfer medium and split the single fluid flow into a first split fluid flow provided to a first cold plate thermally coupled to the first heat transfer element and a second split fluid flow provided to a second cold plate thermally coupled to the second heat transfer element.
However, Refai-Ahmed teaches a cooling plate assembly and electronic device wherein each of an active cooling devices (184) is coupled by a conduit (210) to an outlet manifold (208), wherein the outlet manifold (208) coupled by an exhaust line (212) to a source of working fluid so that the working fluid recycled through the active cooling devices (184). Alternatively, the outlet manifold (208) coupled by the exhaust line (212 ) to a collection reservoir where the working fluid is accumulated for disposal (see fig. 2; col. 8, lines 37-45) or recycled into a heat exchanger (1104) (see fig. 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Popovich to include a manifold to provide a first split fluid flow to the first heat transfer element and a second split fluid flow provided to the second heat transfer element, as taught by Refai-Ahmed, in order to provide independent heat transfer fluid flow into the heat transfer elements and maximize cooling within limited space.
In regard to claim 13, Popovich as modified by Refai-Ahmed further teaches the manifold is further configured to merge the first split fluid flow and the second split fluid flow into a merged fluid flow and provide the merged fluid flow to a heat dissipating device (See Refai-Ahmed, fig, 11; col. 13, line 43-64).
In regard to claims 25 and 26, see the rejection of claims 12 and 13 above.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popovich, Yamamoto and Kulkarni as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2007/0234740).
In regard to claim 14, Popovich discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not teach a fluid block including a passage providing a heat transfer fluid in thermal contact with the first heat transfer element.
However, Lee teaches a cooling block including a passage providing a heat transfer fluid in thermal contact with the first heat transfer element (7 & 7a, Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Popovich to include a cooling block including a passage providing a heat transfer fluid in thermal contact with the first heat transfer element, as taught by Lee, in order to prevent limiting the life span of processors (Lee, Para. 0022).
In regard to claim 15, Popovich teaches the apparatus of claim 14, further comprising a cooling fan assembly (28) coupled to the second heat transfer element (see the annotated figure of Popovich above; also see ¶ 0056).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
The arguments are moot in view of Yamamoto (US 6,397,935 B1), which has been added to the rejection as a third reference. As set forth in detail above, Yamamoto explicitly teaches two aluminum plates brazed to each other in flat land regions between heat-transferring path channels: directly establishing "physical contact in one or more first regions" as claimed, while the heat-transferring path channels in which a heat pipe is disposed are located in the groove regions between those brazed contact regions, directly establishing the "second regions positioned between the one or more first regions" of amended claim 2. Applicant's arguments with respect to Popovich and Kulkarni are therefore moot, as the amended limitations are independently taught by Yamamoto.
Conclusion
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 WEBESHET MENGESHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1793. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7-4, alternate Fridays, 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/W.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights