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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicants representative amended the claims to reflect what was partially discussed during the interview on 12/29/2025. However, the newly revised claims submitted on 1/26/2025 fail to differentiate themselves from the prior art reference, Mohr. During the interview, it was noted by the office that the amendments should specify that the two or more delivery components are arranged side-by-side, with each surface of said component directly contacting with the second surface of the PCB. Presently, the claims stipulate that the power delivery components to be arranged in a side-by-side configuration and coupled to a surface of the PCB, a configuration already disclosed by Mohr (See figure 3a, #314a/314b each are arranged side by side and coupled to the PCB via #314a). Thus, the arguments presented are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 17 is 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 17 both recite “a thermal insulated layer adjacent to the two or more delivery components”. The office notes that the drawings and specification fail to disclose any thermal insulated layer adjacent to the two or more delivery components. The specification only identifies element #214 (a thermal conductive paste/material) being adjacent to the two or more power delivery components. The office will interpret the thermal insulated layer as a thermal interface material layer.
Dependent claims 18-20 are also rejected under 112(a) as being dependent upon claim 17.
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, in claim 17 “a thermal insulated layer situated thereon, wherein the thermal insulated layer is positioned adjacent to the two or more power delivery components” 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 § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mohr (U.S 2024/0049380 A1).
In regards to Claim 1, Mohr discloses an apparatus, comprising: a printed circuit board (Fig.3a, #304) having: a first side that includes an integrated circuit (Fig.3a, #304 has a first side #306a which includes an IC #208); and a second side that is opposite the first side and that includes two or more power delivery components in a side by side arrangement (Fig.3a, #304 has a second side #306b which includes one or more power component #314/314b which are arranged in a side by side (one on top of the other)) coupled to a surface of the second side of the printed circuit board (Fig.3a, #314/314b, are coupled to the second side of the board #304 via #314a); and a cooling element (Fig.3a, #316b) with a thermal interface material situated thereon, wherein the thermal interface material (Fig.3a, #320b) is positioned adjacent to the two or more power delivery components located on the second side of the printed circuit board (Fig.3a-5, #316b is positioned on two or more components #314, see paragraph [0074 & 0081] and furthermore, the office notes that when the image is flipped 180 degrees, the cooling plate #316b is positioned on the two or more components #314).
In regards to Claim 9, Mohr discloses a cooling system comprising: a cooling element (Fig.3a, #316b); a mechanical stiffener (Fig.3a, #312b) configured to hold the cooling element on two one or more power delivery components (Fig.3a, #314a/314b), the two or more power delivery components configured in a side by side arrangement (Fig.3a, #314a and #314b are arranged in a side by side arrangement) and coupled to a second side of a printed circuit board (Fig.3a, the power delivery components are coupled to the second side #306b via #314a) opposite a first side (Fig.3a, #306a) of the printed circuit board on which an integrated circuit is located (Fig.3a, #208 located on first side #306a of #304); and a thermal interface material (Fig.3a, #320b see paragraph [0076-0077] positioned adjacent to each of the cooling element and the two or more power delivery components (Fig.3a, #320b is adjacent to both #316b and #314b, as defined above).
In regards to Claim 17, Mohr discloses a method comprising: providing a printed circuit board (Fig.3a, #304) having: a first side (Fig.3a, #306a) that includes an integrated circuit (Fig.3a, #208); and a second side (Fig.3a, #306b) that is opposite the first side and having two or more power delivery components (Fig.3a, #314a/b) coupled to in a side by side arrangement (Fig.3a, #314a/314b are arranged side by side (one on top of the other); and positioning a first cooling element (Fig.3a, #316b) with a thermal insulated layer situated (Fig.3a, #320b) thereon, adjacent to the two or more power delivery components, located on the second side of the printed circuit board (Fig.3a and paragraphs 0074 & 0081], which discloses #316b and #320b adjacent to and cooling the power components #314s located on the second side. Furthermore, the office notes that when the image is flipped 180 degrees, the cooling plate #316b is positioned on the two or more components #314).
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.
Claims 2-5, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohr (U.S 2024/0049380 A1) in view of Dibene (U.S 6,356,448).
In regards to Claim 2, Mohr discloses the apparatus of claim 1, the apparatus further comprises: an additional cooling element positioned to cool the integrated circuit (Fig.3a, #316a).
Mohr fails to disclose: Wherein the first side of the printed circuit board has one or more additional power delivery components and cooling the one or more additional power delivery components located on the first side of the printed circuit board.
However, Dibene discloses: Wherein the first side of the printed circuit board (Fig.1, #104) has one or more additional power delivery components (Fig.1, #116) and cooling the one or more additional power delivery components located on the first side of the printed circuit board (Fig.1, #142 is used to cool the components mounted on a first side of #104, see Column 6, lines [35-50], as such the office notes that with the combination of Mohr in view of Dibene, the apparatus comprising a pcb having components disposed on both sides and being cooled by a plurality of cooling plates (as taught by Mohr) would be modified to include PCB having a power delivery component in conjunction with an IC on the first side being cooled (as taught by Dibene) to utilize the available real estate on a single PCB).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the apparatus comprising a pcb having components disposed on both sides and being cooled by a plurality of cooling plates (as taught by Mohr) to further include a power delivery component in conjunction with an IC on the first side being cooled (as taught by Dibene) to utilize the available real estate on a single PCB. By placing a power component on the first surface in conjunction with an IC, this allows for closers connection, thus improving single interconnect delays and permits faster operations (Dibene, Column 5, lines 50-64).
In regards to Claim 3, Mohr in view of Dibene discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the cooling element includes a first cold plate (Mohr, Fig.3a, #316b), and the additional cooling element includes a second cold plate (Mohr, Fig.3a, #316a is the second cold plate).
In regards to Claim 4, Mohr in view of Dibene discloses the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the cooling element and the additional cooling element are connected to one or more fluid routing components configured to provide fluid to the first cold plate and the second cold plate (Mohr, Fig.5, both cold plates #316a/b each include one or more fluid routing components #524/528 configured to provide fluid to each of the plates #316a/b, see paragraphs [0081-0082]).
In regards to Claim 5, Mohr in view of Dibene discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the one or more fluid routing components are configured to provide the fluid in parallel to the first cold plate and the second cold plate (Mohr, see Fig.1 & 5, disclose each cooling plate #316a/b to include its own fluid path connected to supply outlet/inlet #120/116 which allow both cooling plates to operate in parallel, see paragraphs [0081-0082]).
In regards to Claim 16, Mohr discloses the cooling system of claim 9, further comprising: an additional cooling element; an additional mechanical stiffener configured to hold the additional cooling element in position to cool a component located on the additional side of the printed circuit board (Fig.3a, #316a (additional cooling plate) including an additional mechanical stiffener #312a to hold the element in position to cool the IC chip #208).
Mohr fails to disclose: One or more additional power delivery components located on the second side of the printed circuit board and an additional thermal interface material positioned between the additional cooling element and the one or more additional power delivery components.
However, Dibene discloses: One or more additional power delivery components (Fig.1, #116) located on the additional side of the printed circuit board (Fig.1, #104 top side) and an additional thermal interface material positioned between the additional cooling element and the one or more additional power delivery components (paragraph [], which discloses, as such the office notes that with the combination of Mohr in view of Dibene, the apparatus comprising a pcb having components disposed on both sides and being cooled by a plurality of cooling plates (as taught by Mohr) would be modified to include a PCB having a power delivery component in conjunction with an IC on the first side being cooled (as taught by Dibene) to utilize the available real estate on a single PCB).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the apparatus comprising a pcb having components disposed on both sides and being cooled by a plurality of cooling plates (as taught by Mohr) to further include a power delivery component in conjunction with an IC on the first side being cooled (as taught by Dibene) to utilize the available real estate on a single PCB. By placing a power component on the first surface in conjunction with an IC, this allows for closers connection, thus improving single interconnect delays and permits faster operations (Dibene, Column 5, lines 50-64).
In regards to Claim 18, Mohr discloses the method of claim 17, the method further comprises: positioning a second cooling element to cool the integrated circuit (Fig.3a, #316a used to cool #208).
Mohr fails to disclose: First side of the printed circuit board includes one or more additional power delivery components and to cool the one or more additional power delivery components located on the first side of the printed circuit board.
However, Dibene discloses: First side of the printed circuit board includes one or more additional power delivery components (Fig.1, #116) and to cool the one or more additional power delivery components located on the first side of the printed circuit board (Fig.1, #142 is used to cool the power deliver component #116, see Column 6, lines [35-50], as such the office notes that with the combination of Mohr in view of Dibene, the apparatus comprising a pcb having components disposed on both sides and being cooled by a plurality of cooling plates (as taught by Mohr) would be modified to include PCB having a power delivery component in conjunction with an IC on the first side being cooled (as taught by Dibene) to utilize the available real estate on a single PCB).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the apparatus comprising a pcb having components disposed on both sides and being cooled by a plurality of cooling plates (as taught by Mohr) to further include a power delivery component in conjunction with an IC on the first side being cooled (as taught by Dibene) to utilize the available real estate on a single PCB. By placing a power component on the first surface in conjunction with an IC, this allows for closers connection, thus improving single interconnect delays and permits faster operations (Dibene, Column 5, lines 50-64).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohr (U.S 2024/0049380 A1) in view of Dibene (U.S 6,356,448), and further, in view of Arvelo (U.S 2016/0345466 A1).
In regards to Claim 6, Mohr in view of Dibene discloses the apparatus of claim 5.
Mohr in view of Dibene fail to disclose: Wherein the one or more fluid routing components are configured to provide the fluid in series to the first cold plate and the second cold plate.
However, Arvelo discloses: Wherein the one or more fluid routing components are configured to provide the fluid in series to the first cold plate and the second cold plate (Fig.5, #520 first cold plate has a series coolant flow connected to a second (additional cold plate) cold plate #520 above, see paragraph [0049], as such the office notes that with the combination of Mohr in view of Dibene and Arvelo, the coolant path of the two cold plates used to cool the plurality of components (as taught by Mohr) would be modified such that the coolant path through said plates is series (as taught by Arvelo) to cool the plurality of components).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the coolant path of the two cold plates used to cool the plurality of components (as taught by Mohr) such that the coolant path through said plates is series (as taught by Arvelo) to cool the plurality of components. By changing the path to series, would offer better heat transfer efficiency as the coolant encounters a larger temperature different throughout said path.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohr (U.S 2024/0049380 A1) in view of Dibene (U.S 6,356,448), and further, in view of Morrison (U.S 5,608,617).
In regards to Claim 7, Mohr in view of Dibene discloses the apparatus of claim 2.
Mohr in view of Dibene fail to explicitly disclose: Wherein a combined power delivery of the one or more additional power delivery components located on the first side of the printed circuit board and the two or more power delivery components located on the second side of the printed circuit board is at least twelve-hundred watts.
However, Morrison discloses: The combined power delivery of the one or more power delivery components located on a PCB is at least twelve-hundred watts (Column 3, lines 15-20, which discloses one or more power/voltage regulars are configured of producing at least twelve-hundred watts, as such the office notes that with the combination of Mohr in view of Dibene and Morrison, the one or more power delivery components located on both sides of a PCB (as taught by Mohr in view of Dibene) would be modified such that the power delivery components can delivery at least twelve-hundred watts (as taught by Morrison) to ensure proper power is supplied to the electronic device)
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the one or more power delivery components located on both sides of a PCB (as taught by Mohr in view of Dibene) such that the power delivery components can delivery at least twelve-hundred watts (as taught by Morrison) to ensure proper power is supplied to the electronic device.
Additionally, MPEP 2143.02 (I) notes that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention could have combined and/or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination and/or modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. As such, by including one or more delivery power components capable of producing at least twelve-hundred watts would be within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed as Mohr in view of Dibene and Morrison all disclose a plurality of power delivery components mounted on a PCB to provide power to the electronic device (See MPEP 2143.02, citing, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohr (U.S 2024/0049380 A1) in view of Macias (U.S 2021/0208647 A1).
In regards to Claim 8, Mohr discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Mohr fails to disclose: Wherein a combined thickness of the cooling element, the two or more power delivery components, and a thermal interface material positioned between the cooling element and the two or more power delivery components is no greater than eight millimeters
However, Macias discloses: Wherein a combined thickness of the cold plate, the two or more power delivery components, and a thermal interface (Fig.1, #140) material positioned between a cold plate (Fig.1, #134) and the two or more power delivery components (Fig.1, #112) is no greater than eight millimeters (Fig.1 and 5, paragraphs [0001, 0014, 0016, and 0032], which discloses the cold plate in conjunction with pcb and two or more delivery components conform to the OCP OAM form factor which is no greater than 8mm (height limited via form factor of less than 5mm), as such the office notes that with the combination of Mohr in view of Macias, the apparatus having a pcb with two or more delivery components (as taught by Mohr) would be modified such that the system conforms to the OAM form factor (as taught by Macias) to use less real estate, therefore allowing for more electronic components).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the apparatus having a pcb with one or more delivery components (as taught by Mohr) such that the system conforms to the OAM form factor (as taught by Macias) to use less real estate, therefore allowing for more electronic components. By keeping the form factor of the cooling system minimal, would allow for device to be much smaller and more efficient (Macias, paragraph [0051]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohr (U.S 2024/0049380 A1) in view of Macias (U.S 2021/0208647 A1) and, further in view of Peng (CN 2094177124 U).
In regards to Claim 14, Mohr discloses the cooling system of claim 9.
Mohr fails to disclose: Wherein a combined thickness of the cooling element, the two or more power delivery components, and the thermal interface is no greater than eight millimeters
However, Macias discloses: Wherein a combined thickness of the cold plate, the two or more power delivery components, and a thermal interface (Fig.1, #140) material positioned between a cooling element (Fig.1, #134) of the cooling system and the one or more power delivery components (Fig.1, #112) is no greater than eight millimeters (Fig.1 and 5, paragraphs [0001, 0014, 0016, and 0032], which discloses the cooling system in conjunction with pcb and one or more delivery components conform to the OCP OAM form factor which is no greater than 8mm (height limited via form factor of less than 5mm), as such the office notes that with the combination of Mohr in view of Macias, the cooling system having a pcb with one or more delivery components (as taught by Mohr) would be modified such that the system conforms to the OAM form factor (as taught by Macias) to use less real estate, therefore allowing for more electronic components).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the cooling system having a pcb with two or more delivery components (as taught by Mohr) such that the system conforms to the OAM form factor (as taught by Macias) to use less real estate, therefore allowing for more electronic components. By keeping the form factor of the cooling system minimal, would allow for device to be much smaller and more efficient (Macias, paragraph [0051]).
Furthermore, Mohr in view of Macias fail to disclose: Each of the two or more power delivery components are approximately three millimeters in height.
However, Peng discloses: Each of the two or more power delivery components are approximately three millimeters in height (Fig.2 which discloses the two components placed on the pcb have a heigh of 3mm each, see “the PCB plate of the dual mode and single plate adopts 6-layer stack design, the size is 50.75mm * 31mm * 7mm, wherein, height of the PCB upper device is about 3mm, the height of the lower device is about 3mm, the PCB board is 1mm thick. the total thickness of the dual mode and single plate is about 7mm”, as such the office notes that with the combination of Mohr in view of Macias and Peng, the two or more delivery components coupled to the second side of the PCB having a total heigh of less than 8mm (as taught by Mohr in view of Macias) would be modified to having a heigh no more than 3mm (as taught by Peng) to keep the apparatus below 8mm).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the two or more delivery components coupled to the second side of the PCB having a total heigh of less than 8mm (as taught by Mohr in view of Macias) would be modified to having a heigh no more than 3mm (as taught by Peng) to keep the apparatus below 8mm. By keeping the components at a height of 3mm, would allow the system to retain the OAM form factor while reducing the overall real estate required.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohr (U.S 2024/0049380 A1) in view of Wang (CN 207219257 U) and further, in view of ADAM (EP 4 152 377 A2).
In regards to Claim 10, Mohr discloses the cooling system of claim 9.
Mohr fails to disclose: Wherein the cooling element includes a cold plate that has a thickness no greater than four millimeters and the two or more power delivery components are each located within 1mm of the cold plate.
However, Wang discloses: Wherein the cold plate has a thickness no greater than four millimeters (see Abstract, “the thickness of the water cooling plate is 0.5mm-3.5mm. the water cooling plate greatly reduces the thickness of the water-cooling plate, which can reach 0.5mm-3.5mm, the thinnest can reach 0.5 mm”, as such the office notes that with the combination of Mohr in view of Dibene and Wang the thickness of the cold plate within the cooling system (as taught by Mohr) would be modified to have a thickness of less than four millimeters (as taught by Wang) to ensure the cooling system is compact).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the thickness of the cold plate within the cooling system (as taught by Mohr) to have a thickness of less than four millimeters (as taught by Wang) to ensure the cooling system is compact. By utilizing a cold plate of less than four millimeters, would ensure space saving design and weight reduction, therefore reducing the overall size of the cooling system.
Furthermore, Mohr in view Wang fail to disclose: The two or more power delivery components are each located within 1mm of the first cooling element.
However, ADAM discloses: The two or more power delivery components are each located within 1mm of the first cooling element (Paragraphs [0062-0068], which discloses the use of spacers and TIM to accurately position the devices to the cooling surface (cold plate) within a few tenths of a millimeter, as such the office notes that with the combination of Mohr in view of Wang and ADAM, the spacer and TIM used in the cooling system (as taught by Mohr) would be modified to be sized accurately to ensure the power devices are within a tenth of a millimeter from the cold plate (as taught by ADAM) to enable optimal cooling).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the spacer and TIM used in the cooling system (as taught by Mohr) would be modified to have a size and shape to ensure the power devices are within a tenth of a millimeter from the cold plate (as taught by ADAM) to enable optimal cooling. By reducing the spacing between the components and cooling element, would decrease thermal resistance and increase cooling performance (ADAM, paragraph [0068]).
Additionally, MPEP 2144.04 (IV) C notes that a mere rearrangement of parts from the prior art teachings is considered obvious as being well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art, where there is no criticality established for the placement of the particular parts. Thus, wherein The two or more power delivery components are each located within 1mm of the first cooling element is obvious as being well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art, as such modification would yield predictable results i.e., decrease thermal resistance and increase cooling efficiency (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) C Rearrangement of Parts, citing, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
In regards to Claim 11, Mohr in view of Wang and ADAM discloses the cooling system of claim 10, further comprising one or more fluid routing components configured to provide fluid to the cold plate (Mohr, Fig.5, which discloses one or more fluid routing components #528/524).
In regards to Claim 12, Mohr in view of Wang and ADAM discloses the cooling system of claim 11, wherein the one or more fluid routing components are configured to provide the fluid in parallel to the cold plate (Mohr, Fig.3a and 5) and to an additional cold plate positioned to cool the integrated circuit (Mohr, Fig.3a, #316a cooling #208 and figure 3a, which discloses two separate cold plates having parallel coolant flow).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohr (U.S 2024/0049380 A1) in view of Wang (CN 207219257 U) and, further in view of Arvelo (U.S 2016/0345466 A1).
In regards to Claim 13, Mohr in view of Wang discloses the cooling system of claim 11.
Mohr in view of Wang fail to disclose: Wherein the one or more fluid routing components are configured to provide the fluid in series to the cold plate and to an additional cold plate positioned to cool the integrated circuit.
However, Arvelo discloses: Wherein the one or more fluid routing components are configured to provide the fluid in series to the cold plate and to an additional cold plate positioned to cool the integrated circuit (Fig.5, #520 first cold plate has a series coolant flow connected to a second (additional cold plate) cold plate #520 above, see paragraph [0049], as such the office notes that with the combination of Mohr in view of Wang and Arvelo, the coolant path of the two cold plates used to cool the plurality of components (as taught by Mohr) would be modified such that the coolant path through said plates is series (as taught by Arvelo) to cool the plurality of components).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the coolant path of the two cold plates used to cool the plurality of components (as taught by Mohr) such that the coolant path through said plates is series (as taught by Arvelo) to cool the plurality of components. By changing the path to series, would offer better heat transfer efficiency as the coolant encounters a larger temperature different throughout said path.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohr (U.S 2024/0049380 A1) in view of Dibene (U.S 6,356,448), and further, in view of Morrison (U.S 5,608,617).
In regards to Claim 15, Mohr discloses the cooling system of claim 9.
Mohr fails to explicitly disclose: Wherein a combined power delivery of the two or more power delivery components and one or more additional power delivery components located on the second side of the printed circuit board is at least twelve-hundred watts.
However, Dibene discloses: Wherein the first side of the printed circuit board (Fig.1, #104) has one or more additional power delivery components (Fig.1, #116, as such the office notes that with the combination of Mohr in view of Dibene, the apparatus comprising a pcb having components disposed on both sides (as taught by Mohr) would be modified to include PCB having a power delivery component in conjunction with an IC on the first side (as taught by Dibene) to utilize the available real estate on a single PCB).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the apparatus comprising a pcb having components disposed on both sides (as taught by Mohr) to further include a power delivery component in conjunction with an IC on the first side (as taught by Dibene) to utilize the available real estate on a single PCB. By placing a power component on the first surface in conjunction with an IC, this allows for closers connection, thus improving single interconnect delays and permits faster operations (Dibene, Column 5, lines 50-64).
Furthermore, Mohr in view of Dibene fail to disclose: Wherein a combined power delivery of the two or more power delivery components and one or more additional power delivery components located on the additional side of the printed circuit board is at least twelve-hundred watts.
However, Morrison discloses: The combined power delivery of the one or more power delivery components located on a PCB is at least twelve-hundred watts (Column 3, lines 15-20, which discloses one or more power/voltage regulars are configured of producing at least twelve-hundred watts, as such the office notes that with the combination of Mohr in view of Dibene and Morrison, the one or more power delivery components located on both sides of a PCB (as taught by Mohr in view of Dibene) would be modified such that the power delivery components can delivery at least twelve-hundred watts (as taught by Morrison) to ensure proper power is supplied to the electronic device)
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the one or more power delivery components located on both sides of a PCB (as taught by Mohr in view of Dibene) such that the power delivery components can delivery at least twelve-hundred watts (as taught by Morrison) to ensure proper power is supplied to the electronic device. Additionally, MPEP 2143.02 (I) notes that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention could have combined and/or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination and/or modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. As such, by including one or more delivery power components capable of producing at least twelve-hundred watts would be within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed as Mohr in view of Dibene and Morrison all disclose a plurality of power delivery components mounted on a PCB to provide power to the electronic device (See MPEP 2143.02, citing, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claims 19-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohr (U.S 2024/0049380 A1) in view of Dibene (U.S 6,356,448), and further, in view of Wang (CN 207219257 U).
In regards to Claim 19, Mohr in view of Dibene discloses the method of claim 18.
Mohr in view of Dibene fail to disclose: Wherein the first cooling element has a thickness no greater than four millimeters and the two or more power delivery components are each located within 1mm of the first cooling element.
However, Wang discloses: Wherein the cold plate has a thickness no greater than four millimeters (see Abstract, “the thickness of the water cooling plate is 0.5mm-3.5mm. the water cooling plate greatly reduces the thickness of the water-cooling plate, which can reach 0.5mm-3.5mm, the thinnest can reach 0.5 mm”, as such the office notes that with the combination of Mohr in view of Dibene and Wang the thickness of the cold plate within the cooling system (as taught by Mohr) would be modified to have a thickness of less than four millimeters (as taught by Wang) to ensure the cooling system is compact).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the thickness of the cold plate within the cooling system (as taught by Mohr) to have a thickness of less than four millimeters (as taught by Wang) to ensure the cooling system is compact. By utilizing a cold plate of less than four millimeters, would ensure space saving design and weight reduction, therefore reducing the overall size of the cooling system.
Furthermore, Mohr in view Wang fail to disclose: the two or more power delivery components are each located within 1mm of the first cooling element.
However, ADAM discloses: the two or more power delivery components are each located within 1mm of the first cooling element (Paragraphs [0062-0068], which discloses the use of spacers and TIM to accurately position the devices to the cooling surface (cold plate) within a few tenths of a millimeter, as such the office notes that with the combination of Mohr in view of Wang and ADAM, the spacer and TIM used in the cooling system (as taught by Mohr) would be modified to have a size and shape to ensure the power devices are within a tenth of a millimeter from the cold plate (as taught by ADAM) to enable optimal cooling).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the spacer and TIM used in the cooling system (as taught by Mohr) would be modified to have a size and shape to ensure the power devices are within a tenth of a millimeter from the cold plate (as taught by ADAM) to enable optimal cooling. By reducing the spacing between the components and cooling element, would decrease thermal resistance and increase cooling performance (ADAM, paragraph [0068]).
Additionally, MPEP 2144.04 (IV) C notes that a mere rearrangement of parts from the prior art teachings is considered obvious as being well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art, where there is no criticality established for the placement of the particular parts. Thus, wherein The two or more power delivery components are each located within 1mm of the first cooling element is obvious as being well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art, as such modification would yield predictable results i.e., decrease thermal resistance and increase cooling efficiency (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) C Rearrangement of Parts, citing, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
In regards to Claim 20, Mohr in view of Dibene, Wang, and ADAM discloses the method of claim 19, further comprising; configuring one or more fluid routing components to provide fluid to the first cooling element and the second cooling element (Mohr, Fig.5, both cold plates #316a/b each include one or more fluid routing components #524/528 configured to provide fluid to each of the plates #316a/b, see paragraphs [0081-0082]).
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 MANDEEP S BUTTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4768. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at 5712723740. 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.
/MANDEEP S BUTTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835