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 with respect to claims 1 and 14 have been considered, but are moot in
light of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Furthermore, in regards to claim 1 and 14, the applicants representative argued that reference Meyer fails to disclose a “vertically oriented printed circuit board”.
However, the office disagrees. The office notes that figure 5 of Meyer is oriented such that the circuit board #61 is oriented in a vertically direction. The office notes that merely stating the orientation of the circuit board doesn’t differentiate from the overall structure. Furthermore, column 3, lines 35-40, discloses the device can be a personal digital assistance, such that operating said device would place the printed circuit board in a vertically oriented position. Therefore, the arguments presented for claims 1 and 14 are not persuasive.
Figure 5 of Meyer:
PNG
media_image1.png
822
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meyer (U.S 7,684,187).
In regards to Claim 1, Meyer discloses a system for cooling a vertical line card (Fig.5)
comprising: a vertically oriented printed circuit board (Fig.5, #61); an application specific integrated circuit
(ASIC) (Fig.5, #62, see Column 2, lines 36-38)) having a front surface, a back surface, and an edge
surface connecting the front and back surfaces (Fig.5, #62, has front back and edge surfaces), the ASIC
mountable on the vertically oriented printed circuit board (Fig.5); a vapor chamber (Fig.5, #10) mountable
on the ASIC (Fig.5), the vapor chamber including a first portion (Fig.5, #11) mountable on the front
surface of the ASIC (Fig.5, #11 in contact with #62) and extending away from the front surface and a
second portion (Fig.5, #12) in fluid communication with the first portion extending away from the first
portion at an angle relative to the first portion (Fig.5, #12 extends away at an angle relative to #11), the second portion extending towards the vertically oriented printed circuit board (Fig.5, #12 is extending towards the vertically printed circuit board via its thickness direction).
In regards to Claim 6, Meyer in view of Chang disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the first
portion of the vapor chamber includes an evaporator (Meyer, Fig.5, #11 is consider the evaporator as it
absorb heat from the integrated chip #62).
In regards to Claim 7, Meyer in view of Chang disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the
second portion of the vapor chamber includes a condenser (Meyer, Fig.5, #12 is consider the condenser
as it cool the vapor coolant into condensed liquid coolant).
In regards to Claim 8, Meyer in view of Chang disclose the system of claim 1, further comprising
an airflow manifold (Meyer, Fig.1, #30) mountable to a front surface of the first portion of the vapor
chamber (Meyer, Fig. 1-5, #30 is mounted to the front surface of the first portion of #10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (U.S 7,684,187)
in view of LIN (U.S 2024/0274504 A1).
In regards to Claim 2, Meyer discloses the system of claim 1.
Meyer fails to explicitly disclose: Wherein the first portion of the vapor chamber is
configured to be soldered to the ASIC.
However, Lin discloses: Wherein the first portion of the vapor chamber is configured to be
soldered to the ASIC (Fig.1a, and paragraph [0057], which discloses #140 can be a solder TIM, as such
the vapor chamber #180 is solder to #124, as such the office notes that with the combination of Meyer in
view of LIN, the vapor chamber comprising a first portion in contact with a chip (as taught by
Meyer) would be modified to be solder to the front surface of said chip (as taught by LIN) to ensure
thermally connectivity).
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 vapor chamber comprising a first portion in contact with a chip
(as taught by Meyer) would be modified to be solder to the front surface of said chip (as taught by LIN) to
ensure thermally connectivity. By soldering the vapor chamber to the chip, would ensure superior thermal
management by eliminating thermal resistance and enhanced reliability.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (U.S 7,684,187) in view of Chang (U.S 2020/0100401 A1).
In regards to Claim 3, Meyer disclose the system of claim 1.
Meyer fails to disclose: Wherein the second portion of the vapor chamber extends substantially orthogonal relative to the first portion.
However, Chang discloses: Wherein the second portion of the vapor chamber extends substantially orthogonal relative to the first portion (Chang, Fig.3, #C (right side) extends orthogonal to #H, as such the office notes that with the combination of Meyer in view of Chang, the vapor chamber having a first portion and a second portion which extends away at an angle (as taught by Meyer) would be modified such that the second portion extends orthogonal from the first portion (as taught by Chang) to dissipate heat generated by the heat generating component).
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 vapor chamber having a first portion and a second portion
which extends away at an angle (as taught by Meyer) would be modified such that the second portion
Is orthogonal from the first portion (as taught by Chang) to dissipate heat generated by the heat generating component. Having the second portion of the vapor chamber orthogonal to the first portion would help maximize thermal efficiency in limited spaces.
Furthermore, 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 modifying the orientation of the second portion of the vapor chamber relative to the first portion would be within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed as Chang discloses a vapor chamber having a first portion in contact with a heat generating element and a second portion extending orthogonally from the first portion. Thus, having the second
portion of the vapor chamber orthogonal to the first portion would help maximize thermal efficiency in
limited spaces (See MPEP 2143.02, citing, KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385
(2007)).
In regards to Claim 4, Meyer in view of Chang disclose the system of claim 3, further comprising
a third portion of the vapor chamber extending substantially orthogonal relative to the first portion and
parallel relative to the second portion (Chang, Fig.3, #C (Left side) is consider the third portion which is
parallel to the second portion (right side) the vertical line card positionable between the second and third
portions, the third portion extending towards the vertically oriented printed circuit board (Chang, Fig.3,
#42 is between #C right and left side and wherein the second portion (right side #c) extends towards
#42).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (U.S 7,684,187)
in view of Chang (U.S 2020/0100401 A1) and further, in view of LIU (WO 2018153111 A1).
In regards to Claim 5, Meyer in view of Chang disclose the system of claim 4.
Meyer in view of Chang fail to disclose: Further comprising a first heat pipe configured to connect
the first portion to the second portion, and a second heat pipe configured to connect the first portion to the
third portion.
However, LIU discloses Further comprising a first heat pipe (Fig.6, #54) configured to connect the
first portion (Fig.6, #51) to the second portion (Fig.6, # left portion of #52), and a second heat pipe (Fig.6,
#54) configured to connect the first portion to the third portion (Fig.6, #left portion of #52 is consider the
third portion, as such the office notes that with the combination of Meyer in view of Chang and Liu, the
vapor chamber comprising a first, second, and third portion in fluid communication (as taught by Meyer)
would be modified to connect the first, second, and third portion using an first and second heat pipe (as
taught by Liu) to conduct heat evenly to each portion).
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 vapor chamber comprising a first, second, and third portion in
fluid communication (as taught by Meyer) to connect the first, second, and third portion using an first and
second heat pipe (as taught by Liu) to conduct heat evenly to each portion. By utilizing heat pipes in
conjunction with the vapor chamber, would enhance the heat dissipating capabilities and furthermore, the
heat pipes can deform under force thereby better suited for different mounting tolerances between
portions (LIU, Abstract).
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Meyer (U.S 7,684,187)
in view of Huang (EP 2 426 575 A2).
In regards to Claim 8, Meyer discloses the system of claim 1.
Meyer fails to disclose: Further comprising an airflow manifold mountable to a front surface of the first portion of the vapor chamber.
However, Huang discloses: Further comprising an airflow manifold mountable to a front surface of
the first portion of the vapor chamber (Fig.3b, #4 is an airflow manifold mountable to the front surface of
#344a, as such the office notes that with the combination of Meyer in view of Huang, the first
portion of the vapor chamber (as taught by Meyer) would be modified to include an airflow manifold
mounted to the front surface (as taught by Huang) to allow air to flow adjacent to the vapor chambers).
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 first portion of the vapor chamber (as taught by Meyer) to
include an airflow manifold mounted to the front surface (as taught by Huang) to allow air to flow adjacent
to the vapor chamber. By including an airflow manifold would allow fans to be placed on top of said vapor
chamber to allow a plurality of airflows adjacent said vapor chamber for additional cooling.
In regards to Claim 9, Meyer in view of Huang discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the airflow manifold includes a plurality of apertures (Huang, Fig.3b, #4 includes a plurality of apertures), each aperture of the plurality of apertures spaced apart from an adjacent aperture (Huang,
Fig.3b, #4 each aperture is spaced apart from other apertures).
In regards to Claim 10, Meyer in view of Huang discloses the system of claim 9, wherein when the airflow manifold is in a mounted configuration, each aperture aligns with a component of the printed circuit board (Huang, Fig.3b, #4 is in the mounted configuration such that each aperture is
aligns with components #110c/320c/330c of the board #10).
In regards to Claim 11, Meyer in view of Huang discloses the system of claim 9.
Lin in view of Huang fail to disclose: wherein an aperture includes a tapered opening.
However, MPEP 2144.04 (IV) B notes that a mere change in shape from the prior art teachings is
considered obvious as being well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, wherein the
plurality of apertures are modified to have tapered openings would be obvious as being well within the
purview of one of ordinary skill in the art, as such modification would yield predictable results i.e.,
squeezing the opening to allow for higher velocity airflow (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) Citing, In re Dailey,
357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
In regards to Claim 12, Meyer discloses the system of claim 1.
Meyer disclose using a fan to help dissipate heat (See figures 5).
Meyer fails to disclose: Further comprising a plurality of fans, each fan of the plurality stacked on top of an adjacent fan.
However, Huang discloses: Further comprising a plurality of fans (Fig.3a-b, #110/320/330), each
fan of the plurality stacked on top of an adjacent fan (Fig.3a when the system is upright, the fans are
stacked on top of each other, as such the office notes that with the combination of Meyer in view of Huang, the front surface of the first portion (as taught by Meyer) would be modified to further
include a set of fans (as taught by Huang) stacked on top of the adjacent fans to provide airflow).
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 front surface of the first portion (as taught by Meyer) to further
include a set of fans (as taught by Huang) stacked on top of the adjacent fans to provide airflow. By
including a plurality of fans, would provide a plurality of airflows to help assist the vapor chamber to
dissipate heat generated by the heat source.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (U.S 7,684,187)
in view of Huang (EP 2 426 575 A2), and further, in view of Huang 2nd (U.S 2021/0392778 A1).
In regards to Claim 13, Meyer in view of Huang discloses the system of claim 12.
Meyer in view of Huang of fail to disclose: Wherein each fan includes an individual
power controller.
However, Huang 2ⁿᵈ discloses: Wherein each fan includes an individual power controller (Fig.2,
#10-13 each have their own controller #101/111/121/131, see Paragraph [0008], which discloses each
fan comprising a controller, as such the office notes that with the combination of Meyer in view of
Huang and Huang 2nd, the plurality of fans (as taught by Huang) would be modified to each include a
controller (as taught by Huang 2nd) to control said fans based on cooling needs).
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 plurality of fans (as taught by Huang) to each include a
controller (as taught by Huang 2ⁿᵈ) to control said fans based on cooling needs. By having each fan
include a controller, will allow a user to easily set predetermine data for each fan and efficiently operate said fans to effectively cool the vapor chamber.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (U.S
7,684,187) in view of Subrah (WO 2023/048723 A1).
In regards to Claim 14, Meyer discloses a system for cooling a vertical line card comprising: a
vertically oriented printed circuit board (Fig.5, #61); an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) (Fig.5,
#62) mountable on a back side of the vertically oriented printed circuit board such that the ASIC and the
vertically oriented printed circuit board both extend along substantially vertical planes (Fig.5); a vapor
chamber mountable on the ASIC (Fig.5, #10).
Meyer fails to disclose: A heat pipe extending from the vapor chamber; and a fin mountable on
the heat pipe.
However, Subrah discloses: A heat pipe (Fig.5, #506) extending from the vapor chamber (Fig.5,
#505); and a fin mountable on the heat pipe (Fig.5, #503 which is mountable fin on #506, as such the
office notes that with the combination of Meyer in view of Subrah, the vapor chamber coupled to the
integrated chip (as taught by Meyer) would be modified to include a heat pipe with fins extending from
said vapor chamber (as taught by Subrah) to help dissipate the heat generated via the chip).
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 vapor chamber coupled to the integrated chip (as taught by
Meyer) to include a heat pipe with fins extending from said vapor chamber (as taught by Subrah) to help
dissipate the heat generated via the chip. By utilizing heat pipes in combination with a vapor chamber,
would increase the heat dissipating capabilities of said vapor chamber by utilizing the fins to help disperse
heat into the ambient environment.
In regards to Claim 15, Meyer in view of Subrah discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the
ASIC is mountable to a back surface of the vertically oriented printed circuit board (Meyer and Subrah,
disclose a chip mounted on the back side of #61 and #502 respectfully).
In regards to Claim 17, Meyer in view of Subrah discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the
heat pipe includes a plurality of heat pipes, each heat pipe extending radially outward from the vapor
chamber (Subrah, Fig.5 & 7, #506/706 each extend radially outwards from the heat sink).
In regards to Claim 18, Meyer in view of Subrah discloses system of claim 17, wherein the
plurality of heat pipes extend radially outward from each of four lateral surfaces of the vapor chamber
(Subrah, Fig.7, #706 each extends from a lateral surface of #505/705, see paragraph [0028]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (U.S 7,684,187)
in view of Subrah (WO 2023/048723 A1) and further, in view of Sheng (U.S 2005/0263265 A1).
In regards to Claim 19, Meyer in view of Subrah discloses the system of claim 18.
Meyer in view of Subrah fail to disclose: Wherein the fin includes multiple groups of fins, each
group of the multiple groups of fins forming a fin block, each fin block mountable on a set of three heat
pipes.
However, Sheng discloses: Wherein the fin includes multiple groups of fins, each group of the
multiple groups of fins forming a fin block, each fin block mountable on a set of three heat pipes (Fig.3, fin
block #2' comprising a plurality of groups of fins (every 4 fins constitute a group of fins), mountable on a
set of three heat pipes #45, as such the office notes that with the combination of Meyer in view of Subrah
and Sheng, the vapor chamber comprising a plurality of heat pipes (as taught by Subrah) would be
modified such that each side of the vapor chamber comprises at least three heat pipes to connect to a fin
block comprising group of fins (as taught by Sheng) to help dissipate heat captured by said vapor
chamber).
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 vapor chamber comprising a plurality of heat pipes (as taught
by Subrah) such that each side of the vapor chamber comprises at least three heat pipes to connect to a
fin block (as taught by Sheng) to help dissipate heat captured by said vapor chamber. By including a set
of three heat pipes to a single block, would allow more heat to transfer to said fin block for better heat
dissipation.
Claims 20-21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (U.S 7,684,187) in view of Subrah (WO 2023/048723 A1) and further, in view of XU (U.S 2010/0101757 A1).
In regards to Claim 20, Meyer in view of Subrah disclose the system of claim 17.
Meyer in view of Subrah fail to disclose: Wherein the fin is circular.
However, XU discloses: Wherein the fin is circular (Fig.2, #16 is circular disposed on a heat pipe,
as such the office notes that with the combination of Meyer in view of Subrah and XU, the fin attached to
the heat pipe (as taught by Subrah) would be modified to be circular (as taught by XU) to dissipate heat
generated by the heat source).
Therefore, 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 modifying a square shape fin for a circular shape fin would be within the
purview of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed both Subrah in view of XU
disclose fins attached to a heat pipe to help dissipate heat generated by a heat source (See MPEP
2143.02, citing, KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
In regards to Claim 21, Meyer in view of Subrah and XU discloses the system of claim 20,
wherein the fin extends entirely around the perimeter of the vapor chamber (Subrah, Fig.7, #706 each
include fins (as taught by Subrah) would be modified to include circular fins (as taught by XU) which
would extend entirely around the vapor chamber #505/705).
Conclusion
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 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.
/MANDEEP S BUTTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights