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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/6/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Meyer was disclosed in the IDS filed on 3/6/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-8 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 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).
Meyer fails to disclose: The second portion extending towards the vertically oriented printed circuit board.
However, Chang discloses: The second portion extending towards the vertically oriented printed circuit board (Fig.3, vapor chamber #10 includes a first portion #H and a second portion #C which extends towards the vertical board #42, 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 away from the first portion at an angle towards the circuit board (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 extends away from the first portion at an angle towards the circuit board (as taught by Chang) to dissipate heat generated by the heat generating component. Having the second portion of the vapor chamber extend towards the circuit board 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 direction of the second portion of the vapor chamber towards the circuit board 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 away at an angle towards said circuit board. Thus, having the second portion of the vapor chamber extend towards the circuit board 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 3, Meyer in view of Chang disclose the system of claim 1, 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).
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).
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 2 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 LIN (U.S 2024/0274504 A1).
In regards to Claim 2, Meyer in view of Chang disclose the system of claim 1.
Meyer in view of Chang fail 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 Chang and 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.
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 Chang (U.S 2020/0100401 A1) and further, in view of Huang (EP 2 426 575 A2).
In regards to Claim 8, Meyer in view of Chang disclose the system of claim 1.
Meyer in view of Chang fail 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 Chang and 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 Chang and 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 Chang and 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 Chang and 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 in view of Chang disclose the system of claim 1.
Meyer in view of Chang both disclose using a fan to help dissipate heat (See figures 5 and 3 respectfully).
Meyer in view of Chang fail 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 Chang and 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 Chang (U.S 2020/0100401 A1), 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 Chang and Huang discloses the system of claim 12.
Meyer in view of Chang and 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 Chang, 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDEEP S BUTTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4768. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-4:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at (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