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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
1. Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities:
a. Per claim 26, line 1, change “an outer surface” to – said outer surface--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
Claim 27 is 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.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "said thermal path" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. In the event that 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 15-17, 19, 22-23 & 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. CN203099757.
Per claim 1 Chen et al. teaches an apparatus (see fig.1) comprising a power supply (see fig.1; Abstract) for providing power (Abstract), said power supply (1) comprising power-handling components (3) disposed in a housing (1, see fig.1) comprising a shell (1) and a heat guide (5), said shell having an outer surface (6, see fig.1) and an inner surface (see fig.1, “inner left, right and bottom portions of 6”), said outer surface being made from a material having a first thermal conductivity ([0015]-[0016], “aluminum”) and said inner surface being in thermal contact with said power-handling components (see fig.1, “power components are in thermal contact with the inner surfaces via heat pipe 5 and heat absorbing plate 4”) and having said heat guide disposed therein (see fig.1), wherein said heat guide (5) transports heat along a component-density gradient from a proximal zone (see annotated fig.1 below, “bottom portion of shell 1 with the heat absorbing plate (4) and power devices or power handling components (3) mounted is the proximal zone”, Examiner note: The figure shows the heat guide transporting heat along that zone”) of said shell (1) to a distal zone (see annotated fig.1 below; [0015]-[0017], “ bottom portion of shell 1 with the heat pipe is the distal zone”) of said shell at a rate sufficient to maintain said power-handling components at or below a particular operating temperature (see fig.3; [0015]-[0017]) and wherein, during operation of said power supply, said distal zone is at a lower temperature than said proximal zone ([0015]-[0017], “Examiner notes: the portion of the heat pipe farther away from the heat source would be cooler than the portion of the heat pipe closer to the heat source, therefore the distal zone which is farther away from the heat source would have a lower temperature”).
PNG
media_image1.png
327
487
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per claim 2 Chen et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein said heat guide (5) comprises a solid-state thermal paths ([0015]) having a second thermal conductivity, wherein said second thermal conductivity exceeds said first thermal conductivity ([0015]-[0017], “the heat guide generates heat from the power device which exceeds said first thermal conductivity and dissipates the heat via the housing 1”).
Per claim 4 Chen et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein said heat guide (5) is in an intermediate layer of said shell between said inner and outer surfaces thereof (see fig.1; [0015], “embedded in 7”).
Per claim 5 Chen et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein said heat guide (5) is on said inner surface of said shell (see fig.1).
Per claim 15 Chen et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein said power supply is a liquid-cooled power supply ([0015]-[0017], “liquid cooled via heat pipe”).
Per claim 16 Chen et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein said power supply is an air-cooled power supply ([0016], “ambient air cools the power supply via air convection”).
Per claim 17 Chen et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein said shell is configured to suppress electromagnetic interference that arises during operation of said power supply ([0007], “aluminum suppress electromagnetic interference”).
Per claim 19 Chen et al. teaches a method comprising dissipating heat from a power supply that is providing power to a power consumer (Abstract), said method comprising using a heat guide (5) to guide heat generated by power-handling components (3) disposed in a housing that comprises a shell (1,see fig.1), said shell having an outer surface and an inner surface (see fig.1), said outer surface being made from a material having a first thermal conductivity and said inner surface being in thermal contact with said power-handling components and having said heat guide disposed therein (see fig.1), wherein using said heat guide comprises transporting heat along a component-density gradient from a proximal zone (see annotated fig.1) of said shell (1) to a distal zone (see annotated fig.1; [0015]-[0017]) of said shell at a rate sufficient to maintain said power-handling components at or below a particular operating temperature (see fig.3; [0015]-[0017]) and whereby, during operation of said power supply, said distal zone is at a lower temperature than said proximal zone ([0015]-[0017]).
Per claim 22 Chen et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein said power-handling components (3) are clustered at said proximal zone and wherein said distal zone is free of any power- handling components (see fig.1).
Per claim 23 Chen et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein said heat guide (5) guides a fluid that carries latent heat of evaporation collected at said proximal zone for later release at said distal zone ([0016], see annotated fig.1).
Per claim 28 Chen et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein said outer surface of said shell (6) comprises an exterior area (see fig.1; [0015]) for dissipating heat by radiation and conduction ([0015]-[0016]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. In the event that 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 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.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. CN203099757.
Per claim 18 Chen et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Chen et al. discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim(s) except for said heat guide is one of a plurality of heat guides that are on different walls of said shell.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the heat pipe to ensure effective thermal dissipation of heat from the heat sources, thus ensuring better cooling, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B).
Claim(s) 9 & 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. CN203099757 in view of Sung US7352584.
Per claim 9 Chen et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Chen et al. does not explicitly teach wherein said shell comprises an outer surface that has been treated to increase a ratio of thermal energy emitted by the outer surface to that emitted by a black body at the same temperature as the outer surface.
Sung however discloses wherein said shell comprises an outer surface that has been treated to increase a ratio of thermal energy emitted by the outer surface to that emitted by a black body at the same temperature as the outer surface (col.6, line 15-64).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a shell that comprised an outer surface that has been treated to increase a ration of thermal energy emitted by the outer surface to that emitted by a black box, because it enables the shell to effectively conduct and dissipate heat from the power handling component, thus ensuring proper cooling and operation of the power supply.
Per claim 26 Chen et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Chen et al. does not explicitly teach wherein said shell comprises an outer surface that has been treated to promote emissivity thereof.
Sung however discloses wherein said shell comprises an outer surface that has been treated to promote emissivity thereof. (col.6, line 15-64).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a shell that comprises an outer surface that has been treated to promote emissivity thereof, because it enables the shell to effectively conduct and dissipate heat from the power handling component, thus ensuring proper cooling and operation of the power supply.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. CN203099757 in view of Ali US2008/0101026.
Per claim 11 Chen et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein said power-handling components are in thermal contact with said inner wall (see fig.1, “power components are in thermal contact with the inner wall via 4 & 5”)
Chen et al. does not explicitly teach wherein said inner wall of said shell comprises a planar allotrope of carbon.
Ali however discloses wherein said inner wall of said shell comprises a planar allotrope of carbon ([0024]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a planar allotrope of carbon such as graphite, because of its high conductivity and chemical inertness.
Per claim 12 Chen et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Chen et al. does not explicitly teach wherein said inner wall of said shell comprises a material having an anisotropic thermal conductivity.
Ali however discloses wherein said inner wall (112) of said shell (110-1 & 110-2) comprises a material having an anisotropic thermal conductivity ([0024], see fig.1B).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the inner shell comprise a material having an anisotropic thermal conductivity because it enables better insulation and heat management.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. CN203099757 in view of Zhamu et al. US2020/0031671.
Per claim 21 Chen et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein said inner wall (see fig.1, “inner portion of 6”) comprises a recess (7, see fig.1) and wherein a solid-state thermal path is embedded in said recess (see fig.1, “heat pipe (5) path”),
Chen et al. does not explicitly teach said solid-state thermal path comprising graphene.
Zhamu et al. however discloses a solid-state thermal path comprising graphene ([0082]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have graphene coated on the heat pipe as taught by Zhamu in the apparatus of Chen et al., because graphene offers superior thermal performance, have high corrosion resistance and are light weight.
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. CN203099757.
Per claim 24 Chen et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Chen et al. does not explicitly teach further comprising an internet data center that consumes power from said power supply.
The Examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA); In re Minks, 169 USPQ 120 (Bd Appeals); In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP §2114. The recitation of “an internet data center that consumes power from said power supply” does not distinguish the present invention over the prior art of Chen et al. who teaches the structure as claimed.
Per claim 25 Chen et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Chen et al. does not explicitly teach further comprising a stand-alone server that consumes power from said power supply.
The Examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA); In re Minks, 169 USPQ 120 (Bd Appeals); In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP §2114. The recitation of “a stand-alone server that consumes power from said power supply” does not distinguish the present invention over the prior art of Chen et al. who teaches the structure as claimed.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. CN203099757 in view of Roberts et al. US11235325.
Per claim 27 Chen et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Chen et al. does not explicitly teach wherein said thermal path has a thermal conductivity of one kilowatt per meter per degree kelvin.
Roberts et al. however discloses wherein said thermal path has a thermal conductivity of one kilowatt per meter per degree kelvin (col.8, line 37-62).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a heat guide with a thermal path having a thermal conductivity of one kilowatt per meter per degree kelvin as taught by Roberts et al. in the apparatus of Chen et al., because it ensures enables superior heat dissipation which allows rapid removal of heat from the apparatus.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 09/19/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
a. Applicant asserts on page 1 of the remarks: “According claim 1, the “inner surface” of the shell must be “in thermal contact with said power-handling components.”
In D1, the power-handling components 3 thermally contact an inner “absorbing wall 4.” This absorbing wall 4 is an interior wall. It does not appear to be what one of ordinary skill in the art would have construed as being as the “inner surface” of a “shell.”
As best understood, a “shell” would include only an outermost wall and not an inner wall.
In response: Examiner asserts that figure 1 of Chen et al. (D1) shows a shell (1) having a left, right and bottom exterior side with their respective interior surfaces, the shell (1) (i.e. interior and exterior), the heat absorbing plate (4), and heat guide (5) are disclosed to be thermally conductive components, therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to assert that the heat generated from the power device (power handing component) (3) would be conducted via the heat absorbing plate and heat guide to the shell, thus teaching the limitations of an “inner surface” of the shell must be “in thermal contact with said power-handling components.”
b. Applicant asserts on page 2 of the remarks: Claim 1’s “heat guide” transports heat “from a proximal zone of said shell to a distal zone of said shell.”
An ordinary artisan who consulted the specification would have observed the locations of “proximal zone 28” and “distal zone 30” in Applicant’s FIGS. 2 and 3. Asa result, this ordinary artisan who broadly and reasonably construed “proximal zone” and “distal zone” in light of the specification, would have construed them as being similarly situated at the two opposite ends of the shell 1.
In response: Examiner asserts that per Applicants disclosure in figure 3 of the application, the proximal zone is a wide area of the apparatus that includes the power handling component, while the distal zone is a wide area that excludes the power handling component. In comparison, Examiner has included an annotated drawing to disclose the proximal zone including the power handling component and the distal zone excluding the power handling component. The heat guide (5) in Chen et al. is shown to transport heat from the proximal zone to the distal zone.
c. Applicant asserts on page 3 of the remarks: The claim further requires that “during operation...said distal zone is at a lower temperature than said proximal zone.”
The rejection relies on the proposition that “the portion of the shell closer to the heat pipe” is inherently “hotter than the portion of the shell further from the heat pipe.”
The ordinary artisan would have understood that the temperature at each point in FIG. 1 of D1 would be determined by solving the diffusion equation subject to appropriate boundary conditions. The examiner’s assumption would be reasonable if in fact the boundary conditions were such that no other heat sources existed.
However, the ordinary artisan would have understood that this is not true for FIG.1 of D1. In particular, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that power- handling elements 3 produce heat that will influence the steady-state solution to the diffusion equation. As such, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that there is no guarantee that, in fact, that the “distal zone” would be at a lower temperature than the “proximal zone.”
The claim requires that “said heat guide” be one that “transports heat along a component-density gradient.” According to D1’s FIG. 1, pipe 5 begins near a cluster of power components 3 and, after executing a U-turn, it ends back near the same cluster of components 3. As a result, the pipe 5 does not appear to be transporting “along a component-density gradient.
The claim requires that “said heat guide transports heat... from a proximal zone of said shell to a distal zone of said shell.” According to D1’s FIG. 1, pipe 5 begins near power components 3 in a central zone of the housing. The pipe 5 then travels away from the central zone of the housing, loops back, and then terminates back at the central zone of the housing.
In response: Examiner asserts that paragraph [0016] of Chen et al., discloses that the heat generated by the power device is dissipated via the heat pipe (5) from the proximal end as disclosed in the annotated figure above to the distal end as disclosed in the annotated figure above. Examiner further asserts that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude from paragraph [0016] and the annotated figure above that the distal end would be lower in temperature than the proximal end.
Per claim 2, the heat pipe is a conductive component, hence it is a pipe that does not only define the walls of a void but is a solid conductive component as well.
Claim 4, see rejection. “embedded” means it is recessed within the wall and not passing through.
Claim 5, portions of the heat pipe as disclosed in figure 1 are shown to be on the inner surface, while other portions are embedded. Rejection is consistent with Applicant figures, claims 4 and 5.
Per claim 15, 16 & 17 see rejection.
Per claim 19, see explanation of claim 1 above.
Please see the rejections above for the other dependent claims.
Email Communication
6. Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502, 502.05.
Conclusion
7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL A MATEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5 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, 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.
/MICHAEL A MATEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835