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 .
Reply Under 37 CFR 1.111
The submission of the reply filed on 04/20/2026 to the non-final Office action of 02/18/2026 is acknowledged. The Office action on the currently pending claims 1-3 and 5-22 follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10-11, 13, 19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subrahmanyam (US 20220077023) in view of Wang (US 20230007849) and in further view of Andersen (US 20240314986).
Regarding claim 1, Subrahmanyam discloses (Figs.1a-e):
A memory module (DIMM) configured to store data ([0017]: the memory module is a DIMM, which by definition is made to store data), the memory module comprising: at least one substrate (See Figure Below); one or more memory chips (120) disposed on the at least one substrate, each memory chip configured to store a portion of the data ([0014]-[0015] and [0017]: 120 are explicitly DIMM semiconductor chips, which means that they are they are designed to store data, and thus each 120 will store at least a portion of the data); and an active cooling device (101 and 102) dedicated to cooling the at least one substrate (See Fig.1c and See Figure Below: the arrangement is similar to that shown in Figs.3A-B of Applicant’s figures, and thus 101 and 102 will be able to dissipate heat from both the substrate and 120), the one or more memory chips (120) sandwiched between the active cooling device (101 and 102) and the substrate (See Figure Below: there is at least one 120 that is sandwiched between 101/102 and the substate).
See next page→
PNG
media_image1.png
788
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See next page→
However, Subrahmanyam does not disclose:
One or more rechargeable power storage devices disposed on the substrate; and a second active cooling device disposed directly on the one or more rechargeable power storage devices and dedicated to cooling the one or more rechargeable power storage devices.
Wang however teaches (Fig.1):
One or more rechargeable power storage devices (12) disposed on the substrate (11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Wang to modify the device of Subrahmanyam such that it has one or more rechargeable power storage devices disposed on the substrate, as claimed, in order to optimize the power supply quality of the memory module as taught by Wang (See Abstract and [0022]).
However, the above combination still fails to teach:
A second active cooling device disposed directly on the one or more rechargeable power storage devices.
Andersen however teaches (Fig.3):
An active cooling device (22) disposed directly on ([0038]: “The power module 20 includes chokes, each indicated at 24, and DC capacitors, each indicated at 26, mounted directly to the cold plate”) (emphasis added) the one or more rechargeable power storage devices (26) and dedicated to cooling the one or more rechargeable power storage devices (26) (Fig.3 and [0038]: 22 is dedicated to cooling at least 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Andersen to further modify the device of modified Subrahmanyam to provide an active cooling device for the one or more rechargeable power storage devices so that the active cooling device for the one or more rechargeable power storage devices defines a second active cooling device that is disposed directly on the one or more rechargeable power storage devices and dedicated to cooling the one or more rechargeable power storage devices, as claimed, in order to further optimize the cooling capabilities due to the increased number of cooling components being utilized to cool heat generating components. Furthermore, the incorporating the second active cooling device, as modified above, will improve the overall heat dissipation capabilities as well since each of the main heat generating components will have a dedicated active cooler to further ensure that none of the heat generating components overheat.
Regarding claim 21, Subrahmanyam discloses (Figs.1a-e):
A computer processing system comprising: a memory module (Fig.1c: DIMM) configured to store the data ([0017]: the memory module is a DIMM, which by definition is made to store data), the memory module comprising: at least one substrate (See Figure of Claim 1); one or more memory chips (120) disposed on the at least one substrate (See Figure of Claim 1), each configured to store a portion of the data (120 are explicitly DIMM semiconductor chips, which means that they are they are designed to store data, and thus each 120 will store at least a portion of the data); and an active cooling device (101 and 102) dedicated to cooling the at least one substrate (See Fig.1c and See Figure of Claim 1: the arrangement is similar to that shown in Figs.3A-B of Applicant’s figures, and thus 101 and 102 will be able to dissipate heat from both the substrate and 120), the one or more memory chips (120) sandwiched between the active cooling device (101 and 102) and the substrate (See Figure of Claim 1: there is at least one 120 that is sandwiched between 101/102 and the substate).
However, the relied upon embodiment of Subrahmanyam does not explicitly disclose:
A processor circuit configured to process data.
Subrahmanyam however presents another embodiment that teaches (Fig.7):
A processor circuit (710) configured to process data ([0064], [0066], and [0068]: 710 is a processor, which by definition is made to process data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the additional embodiment taught by Subrahmanyam to modify the primary embodiment of Subrahmanyam such that it has a processor circuit that is configured to process data, as claimed, in order to provide a simple and efficient means of controlling the overall computer system, and thus also provide a simple and efficient means of communicating with the memory module.
However, the above combination would still to teach:
One or more rechargeable power storage devices disposed on the substrate; and a second active cooling device disposed directly on the one or more rechargeable power storage devices and dedicated to cooling the one or more rechargeable power storage devices.
Wang however teaches (Fig.1):
One or more rechargeable power storage devices (12) disposed on the substrate (11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Wang to further modify the device of modified Subrahmanyam such that it has one or more rechargeable power storage devices disposed on the substrate, as claimed, in order to optimize the power supply quality of the memory module as taught by Wang (See Abstract and [0022]).
However, the above combination still fails to teach:
See next page→
A second active cooling device disposed directly on the one or more rechargeable power storage devices and dedicated to cooling the one or more rechargeable power storage devices.
Andersen however teaches (Fig.3):
An active cooling device (22) disposed directly on ([0038]: “The power module 20 includes chokes, each indicated at 24, and DC capacitors, each indicated at 26, mounted directly to the cold plate”) (emphasis added) the one or more rechargeable power storage devices (26) and dedicated to cooling the one or more rechargeable power storage devices (26) (Fig.3 and [0038]: 22 is dedicated to cooling at least 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Andersen to further modify the device of modified Subrahmanyam to provide an active cooling device for the one or more rechargeable power storage devices so that the active cooling device for the one or more rechargeable power storage devices defines a second active cooling device that is disposed directly on the one or more rechargeable power storage devices and dedicated to cooling the one or more rechargeable power storage devices, as claimed, in order to further optimize the cooling capabilities due to the increased number of cooling components being utilized to cool heat generating components. Furthermore, the incorporating the second active cooling device, as modified above, will improve the overall heat dissipation capabilities as well since each of the main heat generating components will have a dedicated active cooler to further ensure that none of the heat generating components overheat.
Regarding claim 2, Subrahmanyam further discloses:
Wherein: each memory chip of the one or more memory chips (120) comprises a first side (Fig.1c and See Figure of Claim 1: side of 120 in direct contact with the substrate) facing the at least one substrate (See Figure of Claim 1) and a second side (Fig.1c: side of 120 in contact with 102) opposite to the at least one substrate (See Figure of Claim 1); and the active cooling device (102) is disposed on the second side (Fig.1c: side of 120 in contact with 102) of the one or more memory chips (120).
Regarding claim 5, Subrahmanyam further discloses:
Wherein the active cooling device (101 and 102) comprises a first surface (Fig.1c: surface of 102 in direct contact with 120) thermally coupled to the second side (Fig.1c: side of 120 in contact with 102) of the one or more memory chips (120).
Regarding claim 6, Subrahmanyam further discloses:
Wherein the first surface (Fig.1c: surface of 102 in direct contact with 120) of the active cooling device (101 and 102) is in direct contact (See Fig.1c and [0012]: "actual contact"- means that there is actual direct contact with no intervening structure) with the second side (Fig.1c: side of 120 in contact with 102) of the one or more memory chips (120).
Regarding claim 7, Subrahmanyam further discloses:
Wherein the active cooling device (101 and 102) is configured to actively remove heat from the second side (Fig.1c: side of 120 in contact with 102) of the one or more memory chips (120) (See Figs.1a and 1c, [0013]-[0014], and [0018]: 101 is a cold plate and 102 is a Peltier, TEC, device, which are both active cooling components that will actively remove heat from the second side of their corresponding memory chip 120).
Regarding claim 8, Subrahmanyam further discloses:
Wherein a thermally conductive material ([0012]: "thermal interface material") is disposed between the second side (Fig.1c: side of 120 in contact with 102) of the one or more memory chips (120) and the first surface (Fig.1c: surface of 102 in direct contact with 120) of the active cooling device (101 and 102).
Regarding claim 10, Subrahmanyam further discloses:
Wherein the active cooling device (101 and 102) comprises a thermoelectric cooling device (102).
Regarding claim 11, Subrahmanyam further discloses:
Wherein the active cooling device (101 and 102) further comprises terminals (See Figure Below) configured to couple the active cooling device (101 and 102) to a power supply voltage (See Figure Below, Fig.1d, [0024] and [0028]: there has to be a power supply voltage in order to power 102 via the terminals of 102, 108_1, and 108_2).
PNG
media_image2.png
325
891
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Subrahmanyam further discloses:
Wherein the active cooling device (101 and 102) comprises a liquid cooling device (101) comprising a tube (103_1 and 103_2 in combination) comprising an inlet port (103_1) and an outlet port (103_2) for liquid flow ([0019] and [0027]).
Regarding claim 19, Subrahmanyam further discloses:
A dual inline memory module (DIMM) (Fig.1c: the memory module is a DIMM).
Regarding claim 22, Subrahmanyam further discloses:
Wherein the active cooling device (101 and 102) is disposed on at least one of the one or more memory chips (120) (Active Cooling Device disposed on At Least One of the One or More Memory Chips: See Fig.1c).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subrahmanyam (US 20220077023), Wang (US 20230007849), and Andersen (US 20240314986) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Louvar (US 20140301031).
Regarding claim 3, Subrahmanyam does not explicitly disclose:
Wherein the one or more memory chips are disposed on a rectangular area of the substrate and the active cooling device extends over the rectangular area.
Louvar however teaches (Figs.2-4):
Wherein the one or more memory chips (170) are disposed on a rectangular area (See Figure Below) of the substrate (168) and the active cooling device (155) extends over the rectangular area (See Fig.2: in the connected state, 155 will extend over the rectangular area).
PNG
media_image3.png
534
866
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Louvar to further modify the device of modified Subrahmanyam such that the one or more memory chips are disposed on a rectangular area of the substrate, and such that the active cooling device extends over the rectangular area, as claimed, in order to provide a substantially flush design between the active cooling device and the substrate, and thus provide a more aesthetic cooling arrangement.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subrahmanyam (US 20220077023), Wang (US 20230007849), and Andersen (US 20240314986) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Chainer (US 20150092352).
Regarding claim 9, neither Subrahmanyam nor Wang explicitly teaches:
Wherein the thermally conductive material comprises a paste.
Chainer however teaches (Figs.3-4):
Wherein the thermally conductive material (28) comprises a paste ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Chainer to further modify the device of modified Subrahmanyam such that the thermally conductive material of Subrahmanyam is a paste, as claimed, in order to provide a thermally conductive material that can provide a reliable thermal and mechanical connection that does not exceed the compressive-stress limitation of the heat generating component as taught by Chainer ([0028]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subrahmanyam (US 20220077023), Wang (US 20230007849), and Andersen (US 20240314986) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Subrahmanyam (US 20220225542) (Referred to as Subrahmanyam'542).
Regarding claim 12, Subrahmanyam further discloses:
Wherein the active cooling device (101 and 102) further comprises: a second surface (Fig.1c: surface of 102 in contact with 101) opposite to the first surface (Fig.1c: surface of 102 in direct contact with 120).
However, neither Subrahmanyam nor Wang teaches:
A heat sink disposed on the second surface.
Subrahmanyam'542 however teaches (Fig.2c):
A heat sink (204).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Subrahmanyam'542 to further modify the device of modified Subrahmanyam such that it has a heat sink that is disposed on the second surface (i.e., provide the heat sink taught by Subrahmanyam'542 to the top surface of 101 of Subrahmanyam, and thus providing the heatsink on the second surface of 101,102), as claimed, in order to further optimize the heat dissipation capabilities due to the increased number of heat dissipation components provided in the device.
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subrahmanyam (US 20220077023), Wang (US 20230007849), and Andersen (US 20240314986) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Karidis (US 20190212797).
Regarding claim 14, modified Subrahmanyam does not explicitly teach:
See next page→
A controller circuit disposed on the substrate, wherein the active cooling device is disposed on the controller circuit.
Karidis however teaches (Fig.2):
A controller circuit (205) disposed on the substrate ([0023]: 200 is a DIMM, and will thus have a circuit board that will define the "substrate").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Karidis to further modify the device of modified Subrahmanyam such that it has a controller circuit disposed on the substrate in such a way that the active cooling device is disposed on the controller circuit, as claimed, in order to further optimize the use of the memory module due to the controller circuit providing a self-regulating means for the memory module as taught by Karidis ([0023] and [0025]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Subrahmanyam does not explicitly teach:
One or more rechargeable power management devices disposed on the substrate, wherein the active cooling device is disposed on the one or more power management devices.
Karidis however teaches (Fig.2):
One or more rechargeable power management devices (250) disposed on the substrate ([0023]: 200 is a DIMM, and will thus have a circuit board that will define the "substrate").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Karidis to further modify the device of modified Subrahmanyam such that it has one or more rechargeable power management devices disposed on the substrate in such a way that the active cooling device is disposed on the one or more power management devices, as claimed, in order to further optimize the memory module performance since the one or more rechargeable power management devices will still allow the memory module to operate normally even in the event that power loss occurs as taught by Karidis ([0023] and [0025]).
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subrahmanyam (US 20220077023), Wang (US 20230007849), and Andersen (US 20240314986) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cong (US 20130088843).
Regarding claim 15, modified Subrahmanyam does not explicitly teach:
A serial attached memory.
Cong however teaches (Figs.1-3):
A serial attached memory (100) ([0010] and [0011]: 100 is a serial attached memory due to 250 being a serial connector, and thus also making 181 of 100 a serial connector, and thus making 100 a serial attached memory).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Cong to further modify the device of modified Subrahmanyam such that the memory device has a serial connector, and thus having the memory module comprise a serial attached memory (i.e., make the memory module a serial attached memory), as claimed, in order to achieve the enhanced cooling capacity as disclosed by Subrahmanyam ([0012]) (i.e., making the memory module of Subrahmanyam into a serial attached memory will still achieve the enhanced cooling capability since the cooling mechanism of Subrahmanyam will still be utilized).
Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 18, modified Subrahmanyam does not explicitly teach:
A solid-state device (SSD) memory module.
Cong however teaches:
A solid-state device (SSD) memory module ([0005]: the SSD with the SATA DIMM module will define the "SSD memory module").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Cong to further modify the device of modified Subrahmanyam such that the memory module further comprises a solid-state memory device (i.e., make the device a solid-state memory device), as claimed, in order to achieve the enhanced cooling capacity as disclosed by Subrahmanyam ([0012]) (i.e., implementing the cooling unit disclosed by Subrahmanyam into a solid state memory module will still achieve the enhanced cooling disclosed by Subrahmanyam).
Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
See next page→
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subrahmanyam (US 20220077023), Wang (US 20230007849), and Andersen (US 20240314986) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bernat (US 20210064531).
Regarding claim 16, modified Subrahmanyam does not explicitly teach:
A CXL memory module.
Bernat however teaches (Fig.6a):
A CXL memory module (616) ([0058]: the 616 with the "build-in CXL interfaces" will define the "CXL memory module").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Cong to further modify the device of modified Subrahmanyam such that the memory device has a built-in CXL interface, and thus having the memory module comprise a CXL memory module (i.e., make the memory module a CXL memory module due to it having the CXL interface), as claimed, in order to achieve the enhanced cooling capacity as disclosed by Subrahmanyam ([0012]) (i.e., making the memory module of Subrahmanyam into a CXL memory module will still achieve the enhanced cooling capability since the cooling mechanism of Subrahmanyam will still be utilized).
Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
See next page→
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subrahmanyam (US 20220077023), Wang (US 20230007849), and Andersen (US 20240314986) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lym (US 20220139428).
Regarding claim 17, modified Subrahmanyam does not explicitly teach:
An add-in-card (AIC) form factor.
Lym however teaches (Fig.8):
An add-in-card (AIC) form factor (Fig.8 and [0068]: any the connector on any one of 210 that connects to a PCIe socket will define the "add-in-card form factor").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Lym to further modify the device of modified Subrahmanyam such that the memory device has an add-in-card form factor, and thus having the memory module comprise an add-in-card form factor, as claimed, in order to achieve the enhanced cooling capacity as disclosed by Subrahmanyam ([0012]) (i.e., implementing the cooling unit disclosed by Subrahmanyam to the memory module that has the add-in-card form factor will still achieve the enhanced cooling disclosed by Subrahmanyam).
Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
See next page→
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of 04/20/2026 have been fully considered, but notes that Applicant's arguments are directed to the claims as amended, and are thus moot since the rejection has been modified to meet the limitations of the amended claims (See rejection above). However, since the overall rejection is being maintained, the Office will outline reasons why Applicant’s arguments are believed to be in error and why the rejection is being still maintained over Subrahmanyam, Wang, and Andersen.
Regarding the rejection made to independent claims 1 and 21, Applicant contests that the rejection is no longer proper because Subrahmanyam, Wang, and Andersen, alone or in combination, fail to teach a “second active cooling device” that is not only “disposed directly on the one or more rechargeable power storage devices” but is also “dedicated to cooling the one or more rechargeable power storage devices”. Applicant specifically argues that “While Andersen does contemplate cooling capacitors 26 with cooling plate 22, it is not clear that Andersen has a second cooling device” and that the cooling plate of Andersen is also made to cool the choke, and thus not making the cooling plate a device that is dedicated to cooling the rechargeable power storage devices.
The Office has fully considered the above argument, but respectfully disagrees. The Office notes that the definition of the word “dedicated” is “set apart or reserved for a specific use or purpose” (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/dedicated), and thus making the broadest reasonable definition for the word “dedicated” to mean a component that is designed to fulfill a desired purpose/job. Therefore, using the broadest reasonable definition of the word “dedicated”, the Office contests that the broadest reasonable interpretation for the limitation “a second active cooling device…dedicated to cooling the one or more rechargeable power storage devices” is simply to find an active cooling component that cools at least “one or more rechargeable power storage devices”. The Office contests that the scope of “at least” is encompassed because even if there are multiple components in addition to the “one or more rechargeable power storage devices” being cooled by the cold plate, the cold plate is still designed for the sole singular purpose of cooling every component (i.e., the sole and singular purpose is cooling), including the “one or more rechargeable power storage devices”, and thus still making the cold plate a component that is designed for, and thus dedicated to, cooling the “one or more rechargeable power storage devices”. Therefore, Applicant’s argument that the word “dedicated” is only limited to a singular component is believed to be in error. The Office also notes that the “second active cooling device” of Applicant’s invention is also capable of, and will also most likely to some degree dissipate heat from the substrate as well, and thus also providing a second active cooling device that is dedicated to cooling multiple components.
The Office now directs Applicant’s attention to figure 3 and paragraph [0038] of Andersen. As outlined in paragraph [0038] and as shown in figure 3, the cold plate (22) is designed to cool both the capacitors/rechargeable power storage devices (26) and chokes (24). In other words, the cold plate (22) is a component that is dedicated to cooling the capacitors/rechargeable power storage devices (26) and chokes (24), and thus making the cold plate (22) an active cooling device that is dedicated to cooling the capacitors/rechargeable power storage devices (26). As outlined above, even though there are components in addition to the capacitors being cooled by the cold plate, the cold plate is still designed and dedicated to cooling the capacitors, and thus fulfilling the broadest reasonable interpretation for the aforementioned limitations as respectively recited in independent claim 1 and 21. For all of the reasons outlined above, Applicant’s argument is believed to be in error.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the combination is improper because “it is not clear that Andersen has a second cooling device”, the Office has fully considered the above argument. The Office notes that Applicant’s argument is only directed to the reference in isolation and does not provide any argument as to why the combination of Subrahmanyam, Wang, and Andersen would not yield to a cooling unit that has two active cooling devices. In other words, Applicant only provides an argument as to why the references in isolation do not teach each and every single limitation as respectively recited in independent claim 1, but fails to provide any clear argument as to why the combination of references would not arrive at the claimed invention as respectively recited in independent claims 1 and 21.
As outlined in the rejection above, Subrahmanyam discloses a DIMM that utilizes an active cooling device that is dedicated to cooling memory chips that are placed on the PCB of the DIMM, and Andersen teaches an active cooling device that is dedicated to cooling at least capacitors/rechargeable power storage devices that are mounted directly on the active cooling device. Therefore, based on the teaching of Andersen, one possible combination that one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could make would be to incorporate an additional active cooling device into the device of Subrahmanyam as modified by Wang (and thus defining a second active cooling device) that is designed and dedicated to cooling the “one or more rechargeable power devices” of Subrahmanyam as modified by Wang without undo experimentation or impermissible hindsight since the combination is still based on the teachings of the prior art references, and thus making the combination a permissible combination. See MPEP 2143. For all of the reasons provided above, Applicant’s argument that the combination is improper because Andersen is not believed to teach a “second active cooling device” is believed to be improper.
Finally, Applicant argues that the motivation of optimizing cooling capabilities due to the increased number of cooling components is improper because “Andersen does not teach increasing the number of cooling components since the cooling components of Andersen serve two different element”.
The Office has fully considered the above argument and reminds Applicant that “The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (setting forth test for implicit teachings); In re Eli Lilly & Co., 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (discussion of reliance on legal precedent); In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings); Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (examiner must present convincing line of reasoning supporting rejection); and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (reliance on logic and sound scientific reasoning)”. “The strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("Indeed, we have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.")”. See MPEP 2144 I and II. In the instant case, the Office asserts that one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would appreciate and understand that cooling efficiency can be increased if each heat generating component and/or each group of heat generating components are cooled using a dedicated cooling device since the thermal load/burden can be better dispersed. Therefore, while Andersen does not expressly disclose the motivation provided in the rejection above, the Office notes that the motivation to combine is one that one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date would have realized and understood in light of the prior art references. For all of the reasons provided above, Applicant’s argument is believed to be in error.
For all of the reasons provided above Applicant’s arguments are believed to be in error, and the combination of Subrahmanyam, Wang, and Andersen is still believed to properly and reasonably reject the claimed device as respectively recited in independent claims 1 and 21.
See next page→
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 STEPHEN S SUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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.
See next page→
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at (571)272-3740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHEN S SUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights