DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-2, 16-17, 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (JP200579337A).
Regarding claim 1, Iwasaki discloses (see Fig. 20 & 36) a heatsink (200/300) having enhanced localized cooling, said heatsink comprising: a wall (320); a heatframe (H); a coolant channel (310) between the wall and the heatframe; a bulk coolant (L in 310) and a high-pressure coolant (L in 330) a high-pressure manifold (301); wherein the high-pressure manifold has an inlet (110) and a seal (sidewalls of housing 301) and one or more nozzles (370) that extend into the coolant channel and proximate a cooling area of the heatframe; so that an only path for the high-pressure coolant to flow into the inlet of the high-pressure manifold and out the one or more nozzles (370) into the coolant channel, wherein the high-pressure coolant is at a pressure higher than the bulk coolant, wherein the bulk coolant flows through the coolant channel and the high-pressure coolant flows through the one or more nozzles, mixes with the bulk coolant in the coolant channel to create turbulence in the flow of the mixed bulk coolant and the high-pressure coolant, said turbulence providing enhanced localized cooling to at least a portion of a heat producing device (P) that is proximate to or in partial contact with the heatframe proximate to the cooling area of the heatframe.
PNG
media_image1.png
326
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
360
464
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 20 & 36 of Iwasaki
The recitations regarding pressures and turbulence are considered to be statements of intended use. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114(II). In the instant case, Iwasaki is capable of operating in such a manner, and all of the structural limitations of the claim are disclosed.
Iwasaki does not teach, in the same embodiment, explicitly that wherein the high-pressure manifold comprises an inlet, a first wall, a second wall, and a seal to form a chamber having an only outlet one or more nozzles, although, this is suggested, as seen at least in Fig. 1, there are two inlets (110 & 109), which only the bottom portion of 200 corresponding to a single and only outlet 111.
In another embodiment, Iwasaki teaches the manifold comprises an inlet (inlet to 330), a first wall, a second wall, and a seal to form a chamber having an only outlet one or more nozzles (see annotated Fig. 8).
PNG
media_image3.png
423
776
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 8 of Iwasaki
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwasaki to include the walls and seal configuration of Fig. 8 of Iwasaki, as it has been held obvious to provide a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 17, Iwasaki discloses (see Fig. 20 & 36) a heatsink (200/300) having enhanced localized cooling, said heatsink comprising: a first wall (320); a second wall (top wall of housing 301); a heatframe (H); a coolant channel (310) between the first wall and the heatframe, wherein a bulk coolant flows through the coolant channel; a high-pressure coolant, wherein the high-pressure coolant is at a pressure higher than the bulk coolant; one or more nozzles that extend into the coolant channel, wherein a high-pressure manifold (330) is formed between the first wall and the second wall, the high-pressure manifold having an inlet (110) and a seal (sidewalls of housing 301) having as an outlet the one or more nozzles that extend into the coolant channel and proximate a cooling area of the heatframe such that an only path for the high-pressure coolant to flow is into the inlet of the high- pressure manifold out the one or more nozzles where it is forced out the one or more nozzles (370) to create turbulence in the flow of the mixed bulk coolant and the high-pressure coolant, said turbulence creating an enhanced cooling area proximate the wherein the turbulence provides enhanced localized cooling to at least a portion of a heat producing device that is proximate to or in partial contact with the heatframe proximate to the enhanced cooling area of the heatframe.
The recitations regarding pressures and turbulence are considered to be statements of intended use. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114(II). In the instant case, Iwasaki is capable of operating in such a manner, and all of the structural limitations of the claim are disclosed.
Iwasaki does not teach, in the same embodiment, explicitly that wherein the high-pressure manifold comprises an inlet, a first wall, a second wall, and a seal to form a chamber having an only outlet one or more nozzles, although, this is suggested, as seen at least in Fig. 1, there are two inlets (110 & 109), which only the bottom portion of 200 corresponding to a single and only outlet 111.
In another embodiment, Iwasaki teaches the manifold comprises an inlet (inlet to 330), a first wall, a second wall, and a seal to form a chamber having an only outlet one or more nozzles (see annotated Fig. 8).
PNG
media_image3.png
423
776
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 8 of Iwasaki
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwasaki to include the walls and seal configuration of Fig. 8 of Iwasaki, as it has been held obvious to provide a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2/30, Iwasaki discloses the limitations of claim 1/17, and Iwasaki further discloses the bulk coolant is capable of operating as a pressure of 15-20 psi and the high-pressure coolant at a pressure higher than the bulk coolant (see structure above).
Regarding claim 16/31, Iwasaki discloses the limitations of claim 1/17, and Iwasaki further discloses at least one of the one or more nozzles (see angle of 370) is not perpendicular to the wall and/or the heatframe.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 18, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (JP200579337A) in view of Rice (US20120175094).
Regarding claim 3/18, Iwasaki teaches the limitations of claim 1/17, and Iwasaki does not teach a piece of thermally-conductive material, wherein the piece of thermally-conductive material is at least partially embedded into, attached to or proximate to the wall and/or the heatframe proximate to the cooling area of the wall and/or the heatframe, wherein the heat producing device is proximate to or in partial contact with the piece of thermally-conductive material, wherein the piece of thermally-conductive material is comprised of copper, aluminum, thermally-conductive ceramic or thermally-conductive diamond composite.
Rice teaches (see Fig. 1) a piece of thermally-conductive material (102), wherein the piece of thermally-conductive material is at least partially embedded into, attached to or proximate to the heatframe (104) proximate to the cooling area of the heatframe, wherein the heat producing device (10) is proximate to or in partial contact with the piece of thermally-conductive material, wherein the piece of thermally-conductive material is comprised of copper (copper - ¶[0026])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwasaki to include the copper piece of Rice, in order to construct the heat sink of multiple metals tailored for their locations with respect to heat transfer, thereby reducing manufacturing costs (¶[0010]).
Regarding claim 6/21, Iwasaki teaches the limitations of claim 3/18, and Rice further teaches wherein the piece of thermally-conductive material has a thermal-conductivity rating that is equal to or greater than 150 W/mK (copper - ¶[0026]).
Claim(s) 8, 10, 23, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (JP200579337A) in view of Shedd (US20160118317).
Regarding claim 8/23, Iwasaki teaches the limitations of claim 1/17, and Iwasaki does not teach the product-by-process limitation, wherein at least a portion of the heatsink is formed by 3D printing.
Shedd teaches wherein at least a portion of the heatsink is formed by 3D printing (¶[0419]), in order to rapidly construct the heat sink (¶[0419]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwasaki to include the 3D printing of Shedd, in order to rapidly construct the heat sink (¶[0419]).
Regarding claim 10/25, Iwasaki discloses the limitations of claim 1/17, and Iwasaki is silent to the heat producing device comprises one or more of a central processing unit (CPU) or a graphics processing unit (GPU).
Shedd teaches the heat producing device comprises one or more of a central processing unit (CPU) or a graphics processing unit (GPU) (¶[0576]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwasaki to include wherein the heat source is a CPU or GPU, as taught by Shedd, in order to provide required cooling thereto (¶[0576]).
Claim(s) 9/24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (JP200579337A) in view of Suzuki (US20080104970).
Regarding claim 9/24, Iwasaki discloses the limitations of claim 1/17, and Iwasaki does not teach the cooling area of the heatsink occurs in an area of 100 mm.sup.2 to 2500 mm.sup.2.
Suzuki teaches the cooling area of the heatsink occurs in an area of 100 mm.sup.2 to 2500 mm.sup.2 (see ¶[0195], in which the area is 100 mm x 10 mm, or 1000 mm.sup.2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwasaki to include the area of Suzuki, as it has been held obvious to try when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 13, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (JP200579337A) in view of “Elma Adds Liquid Flow Through (LFT) Cooling to OpenVPX Development Platform,” hereinafter Elma.
Regarding claim 13/28, Iwasaki teaches the limitations of claim 1/17, and Iwasaki further teaches at least one of the bulk coolant and/or the high-pressure coolant is a liquid (see abstract), and does not teach wherein the heatsink is in compliance with a ANSI/VITA 48.4 Liquid Flow Through VPX Plug-In Module standard.
Elma teaches designing heat sinks in compliance with a ANSI/VITA 48.4 Liquid Flow Through VPX Plug-In Module standard, to ensure mechanical intermateability within associated subracks (see Page 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwasaki to include wherein the heatsink is in compliance with a ANSI/VITA 48.4 Liquid Flow Through VPX Plug-In Module standard, to ensure mechanical intermateability within associated subracks (see Page 1).
Claim(s) 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (JP200579337A) in view of Sherrer (US10533809B1).
Regarding claims 32-33, Iwasaki teaches the limitations of claims 1/17, and Iwasaki does not teach wherein the at least a portion of the first wall and/or the second wall is formed of thermally non-conductive material.
Sherrer teaches wherein at least a portion of the first wall and/or the second wall is formed of thermally non-conductive material (see abstract – distributor plate…fabricated from a material that is a heat insulator).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwasaki to include the wall is made of an insulator as taught by Sherrer, in order to reduce heat transfer to the fluid in the manifold (abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ERIC S RUPPERT whose telephone number is (571)272-9911. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763