DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/12/2026 has been entered.
Examiner’s Note
It is noted that the Official Notice taken by the Examiner in a previous rejection has not been traversed and therefore a heat spreader which comprises a vapor chamber is taken as admitted prior art (See: MPEP 2144.03(c)).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 12, 13, 15, 16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2024/0194614 – hereinafter, “Kim”) in view of Schroeder et al. (US 2018/0146569 – hereinafter, “Schroeder”) and further in view of Leigh et al. (US 10,874,032 – hereinafter, “Leigh”).
With respect to claim 12, Kim teaches (In Figs 1, 2, 4, and 18) a solid state drive (10) adapted for rack-mounting in an electronic equipment rack (1200, see Fig 18), in which the SSD is configured for slideable mounting within an SSD-receiving volume in the rack (See Fig 18, the SSD’s (10) are slid into 1200), the SSD comprising: a printed circuit board (120); a plurality of heat-producing semiconductors (131, 133, 135, 137) disposed on the printed circuit board, the semiconductors including NAND flash memory (¶ 0040); a heat spreader (111, 112), the heat spreader being in thermal contact with one or more of the heat-producing semiconductors (See Fig 4), the heat spreader including an externally-facing thermal interface (See Fig 4); a connector (161) providing electrical connections to the printed circuit board and having a mateable portion for removable engagement with a corresponding rack-mounted connector (1210, see Fig 18).
Kim fails to specifically teach or suggest a user-operable latching mechanism that is operable to apply force to an opposing surface in the rack to cause sliding motion of the SSD within the rack to seat the mateable portion of the connector with the rack-mounted connector, and to establish power and data circuits to the printed circuit board, when seated, wherein the thermal interface of the heat spreader provides a thermal conduction path for the heat-producing semiconductors to an external liquid-cooled coldplate that is disposed in the rack when the corresponding connectors of the SSD and rack are seated.
Schroeder, however, teaches a user-operable latching mechanism (14) that is operable to apply force to an opposing surface in a rack (16) to cause sliding motion of an SSD (12) within the rack (16) to seat a mateable portion of a connector (¶ 0062, “a connector of the captured storage device 12”) with a rack-mounted connector (¶ 0062, “with a connector of the circuit board 20 shown in FIG. 1”) to establish power and data circuits to a printed circuit board when seated (See Figs 6-7, the latching mechanism cam (50) presses against rack portion locking member (72) which helps to connect the mating connectors of the SSD and rack. See also, ¶ 0025, “Such an enclosure may include a circuit board, such as a midplane or baseplane, that electrically, optically, or otherwise operably connects to the storage device, for example, to transfer of information and power.”, ¶ 0028, “When captured by a carrier, the storage device may then be securely mounted to the enclosure via the carrier and operably connected to the circuit board of the enclosure.”, ¶ 0051, “Securing the storage device 12 to the receiving frame 18 may also to establish a connection to the circuit board 20. In one or more embodiments, the storage device 12 is operably connected to the circuit board 20 when mounted, for example, to transfer data or power. Such a connection may be electrical, optical, electromagnetic, or any other suitable type of connection.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Schroeder with that of Kim, such that, Kim includes a user-operable latching mechanism that is operable to apply force to an opposing surface in the rack to cause sliding motion of the SSD within the rack to seat the mateable portion of the connector with the rack-mounted connector, and to establish power and data circuits to the printed circuit board, when seated, as taught by Schroeder, since doing so would allow for secure mechanical and electrical attachment of the SSD within the rack of Kim.
With respect to the limitations regarding the thermal interface of the heat spreader provides a thermal conduction path for the heat-producing semiconductors to an external liquid-cooled coldplate that is disposed in the rack when the corresponding connectors of the SSD and rack are seated,
Leigh teaches wherein a thermal interface (Top surface of 723) of a heat spreader (723) provides a thermal conduction path for a heat-producing semiconductor (722) to an external liquid-cooled coldplate (631) that is disposed in a rack (3) when corresponding connectors of an electronic device (700) and the rack are seated (See Fig 5B, when 724 and 602 are seated, the cold plate contacts the thermal interface of 700).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Leigh with that of Kim such that, in Kim the thermal interface of the heat spreader provides a thermal conduction path for the heat-producing semiconductors to an external liquid-cooled coldplate that is disposed in the rack when the corresponding connectors of the SSD and rack are seated, as taught by Leigh, since doing so would provide additional cold plate cooling to the SSD mounted within the rack of Kim.
With respect to claim 13, Kim further teaches a thermal interface material (171, 173) disposed between the heat-producing semiconductors (131, 133, 135, 137) and the heat spreader (111, 112, see Fig 4).
With respect to claim 15, Kim further teaches that the plurality of heat-producing semiconductors (131, 133, 135, 137) is disposed across both sides of the printed circuit board (120, see Fig 4) and the heat spreader (111, 112) comprises multiple components distributed on both sides of the printed circuit board over the heat-producing semiconductors (See Fig 4).
With respect to claim 16, Kim as modified by Schroeder and Leigh teach the limitations of claim 12 as per above but fail to specifically teach or suggest that the heat spreader comprises a vapor chamber.
A heat spreader which comprises a vapor chamber is taken as admitted prior art (See the above Examiner’s Note).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the heat spreader of Kim comprise a vapor chamber since doing so would allow for the heat spreader of Kim to accept more heat than the currently disclosed heat spreader.
With respect to claim 20, Kim teaches (In Figs 1, 2, 4, and 18) a solid state drives (10) each SSD comprising: a printed circuit board (120); a plurality of heat-producing semiconductors (131, 133, 135, 137) disposed on the printed circuit board, the semiconductors including NAND flash memory (¶ 0040); a connector (161) having a mateable portion for removable engagement with a corresponding rack-mounted connector (1210, see Fig 18), in which the matable portion is exposed externally (See Fig 1); a heat spreader (111, 112), the heat spreader being in thermal contact with one or more of the heat-producing semiconductors (See Fig 4), the heat spreader including a thermal interface (Exterior surfaces of 111, 112) that is at least partially exposed from the SSD;
Kim fails to specifically teach or suggest a liquid-cooling system, comprising: a liquid-cooled coldplate; a rack to which the coldplate is moveably mounted, the rack providing receiving slots for each of a plurality of slideably removably mountable solid state drives (SSD), and a user-operable latching mechanism that is operable to apply force to the SSD-receiving slot to cause sliding motion of the SSD within the SSD-receiving slot to seat the mateable portion of the connector with the rack-mounted connector, and to establish power and data circuits to the printed circuit board, when seated, wherein the thermal interface of the heat spreader provides a thermal conduction path for the heat-producing semiconductors to the coldplate when the corresponding connectors of the SSD and rack are seated; a fluid distribution system having an interface to a liquid-cooling system; and fluid couplers disposed on the coldplate connecting the coldplate to the fluid distribution system.
Schroeder, however, teaches a user-operable latching mechanism (14) that is operable to apply force to a receiving slot (Slot in a rack (16) where 12 resides) to cause sliding motion of a drive (12) within the receiving slot to seat a mateable portion of a connector with a rack-mounted connector, and to establish power and data circuits to the printed circuit board, when seated (See Figs 6-7, the latching mechanism cam (50) presses against rack portion locking member (72) which helps to connect the mating connectors of the SSD and rack. See also, ¶ 0025, “Such an enclosure may include a circuit board, such as a midplane or baseplane, that electrically, optically, or otherwise operably connects to the storage device, for example, to transfer of information and power.”, ¶ 0028, “When captured by a carrier, the storage device may then be securely mounted to the enclosure via the carrier and operably connected to the circuit board of the enclosure.”, ¶ 0051, “Securing the storage device 12 to the receiving frame 18 may also to establish a connection to the circuit board 20. In one or more embodiments, the storage device 12 is operably connected to the circuit board 20 when mounted, for example, to transfer data or power. Such a connection may be electrical, optical, electromagnetic, or any other suitable type of connection.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Schroeder with that of Kim, such that, Kim includes a user-operable latching mechanism that is operable to apply force to the SSD-receiving slot to cause sliding motion of the SSD within the SSD-receiving slot to seat the mateable portion of the connector with the rack-mounted connector and to establish power and data circuits to the printed circuit board, when seated, as taught by Schroeder, since doing so would allow for secure mechanical and electrical attachment of the SSD within the rack of Kim.
With respect to the limitations a liquid-cooling system, comprising: a liquid-cooled coldplate; a rack to which the coldplate is moveably mounted, the rack providing receiving slots for each of a plurality of slideably removably mountable solid state drives (SSD) wherein the thermal interface of the heat spreader provides a thermal conduction path for the heat-producing semiconductors to the coldplate when the corresponding connectors of the SSD and rack are seated; a fluid distribution system having an interface to a liquid-cooling system; and fluid couplers disposed on the coldplate connecting the coldplate to the fluid distribution system, Leigh teaches a liquid-cooling system, comprising: a liquid-cooled coldplate (631 + 633); a rack (3) to which the coldplate is moveably mounted, the rack providing receiving slots (604) for each of a plurality of slideably removably mountable devices (700) wherein a thermal interface (Top surface) of a heat spreader (723) provides a thermal conduction path for a heat-producing semiconductor (722) to the coldplate when a corresponding connector (724) of the device (700) and rack (601) are seated (See Fig 5B); a fluid distribution system (634) having an interface to a liquid-cooling system (Col. 9, ll. 11-23); and fluid couplers (635) disposed on the coldplate (631 + 633) connecting the coldplate to the fluid distribution system (See Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Leigh with that of modified Kim, such that modified Kim includes a liquid-cooling system, comprising: a liquid-cooled coldplate; a rack to which the coldplate is moveably mounted, the rack providing receiving slots for each of a plurality of slideably removably mountable solid state drives (SSD) wherein the thermal interface of the heat spreader provides a thermal conduction path for the heat-producing semiconductors to the coldplate when the corresponding connectors of the SSD and rack are seated; a fluid distribution system having an interface to a liquid-cooling system; and fluid couplers disposed on the coldplate connecting the coldplate to the fluid distribution system, as taught by Leigh, since doing so would provide additional cold plate cooling to the SSD mounted within the rack of Kim.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Schroeder in view of Leigh and further in view of Isaacs et al. (US 2016/0262270 – hereinafter, “Isaacs”).
With respect to claim 14, Kim as modified by Schroeder and Leigh teach the limitations of claim 12 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest that the heat spreader comprises multiple discrete components, different components adapted to interface with heat-producing semiconductors having different stand-off heights with respect to the printed circuit board.
Isaacs, however, teaches (In Fig 3B) a heat spreader (312) which comprises multiple discrete components (320’, 320’’), different components adapted to interface with heat-producing semiconductors (305’, 305’’) having different stand-off heights with respect to a printed circuit board (302, ¶ 0041, “As depicted in FIG. 3C, in one or more assembled implementations, each heat transfer element 320, 320′, 320″ has a thickness or height appropriate for the space between the respective electronic component 305, 305′, 305″ (for which enhanced cooling is to be provided), and the inner surface 313 of thermally conductive cover 312.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Isaacs with that of Kim such that, in Kim the heat spreader comprises multiple discrete components, different components adapted to interface with heat-producing semiconductors having different stand-off heights with respect to the printed circuit board, as taught by Isaacs, since doing so would allow for components which may be of different heights to be able to better thermally communicate with an outside of the SSD.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Schroeder in view of Leigh and further in view Leigh et al. (US 10,765,038 – hereinafter, “Leigh-038”).
With respect to claim 19, Kim further teaches that the heat spreader (111, 112) encloses the printed circuit board and heat-producing semiconductors (See Fig 4), and in which the SSD has a form factor for slideable motion relative to surfaces forming an SSD-receiving volume in the rack (Fig 18 discloses that the SSD’s are provided in a rack and thus has a form factor for slidable motion relative to the rack).
Kim fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein the form factor complies with specifications promulgated by the EDSFF (Enterprise and Datacenter Standard Form Factor).
Leigh-038, however, teaches an SSD wherein the form factor complies with specifications promulgated by the EDSFF (Enterprise and Datacenter Standard Form Factor)(Col. 5, ll. 41-51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Leigh-038 with that of Kim, such that the form factor of Kim complies with specifications promulgated by the EDSFF (Enterprise and Datacenter Standard Form Factor), as taught by Leigh-038, since doing so would allow for the SSD of Kim to conform with a particular standard thus allowing the SSD to work with standardized racks and chassis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
See p. 16 of the non-final office action dated 10/27/2025.
Claims 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
See p. 17 of the non-final office action dated 10/27/2025.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s remarks to claim 12 that, “Claim 12, as amended, requires that the SSD's user-operable latching mechanism both seat the connector and cause the SSD heat spreader to establish thermal conduction to an external liquid-cooled coldplate disposed in the rack when the connectors are seated, and neither Kim, Schroeder, nor Leigh teaches or suggests that integrated operation.” (Present remarks page 9) the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 12, even as amended, can be read in at least two separate ways:
the user-operable latching mechanism makes the thermal connection between the heat spreader and the coldplate, and
when the connectors of the SSD and rack are seated, then the thermal interface provides a conduction path to the external coldplate.
While the Examiner agrees that a) is not met by any of Kim, Schroeder, and
Leigh, it is respectfully submitted that these references teach or suggest b) above. Indeed, Leigh clearly discloses that, when corresponding connectors of an electronic device (700) and a rack are seated, a thermal interface of a heat spreader (723) provide a thermal conduction path for a heat-producing semiconductor (722) to an external coldplate (63, see the above rejection to claim 12).
Accordingly, claim 12 is believed to be prima facie obvious in view of Kim, Schroeder, and Leigh.
With respect to the Applicant’s additional remarks to claim 12 that, “Even accepting the Examiner's view that the coldplate could touch Kim's heat spreader without physically blocking the shielding structure, the rejection still fails because it does not explain why a skilled artisan would have combined these systems with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve the specific claimed sequence and cooperation of parts. Under 35 U.C.C. § 103, the Office must show more than that the parts could be placed together. Rather, the rejection must show a reasoned path to the claimed combination as a whole, and the present references do not supply that path for the coordinated latching-and-thermal-contact arrangement required in independent claims 12.” (emphasis added, Present remarks pages 8-9) again the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, claim 12, even as amended, is not believed to require a coordinated latching-and-thermal-contact arrangement as alleged.
Accordingly, this argument is not found persuasive and claim 12 is believed to be prima facie obvious in view of Kim, Schroeder, and Leigh.
With respect to the Applicant’s remarks to claim 12 that, “It is respectfully submitted that the Examiner's clarification (discussed above) does not cure the deficiency of the proposed combination of Kim, Schroeder, and Leigh because it reframes the modification as a passive coldplate merely touching Kim's heat spreader, while claim 12, as amended, requires a coordinated structure in which the latching mechanism, connector mating, and thermal contact all occur together in the claimed manner. Kim's air-cooled SSD architecture, Schroeder's connector-seating latch, and Leigh's liquid-cooled coldplate remain separate teachings, and the Office has not shown a reasoned basis to combine them into the specific integrated arrangement recited in claim 12, as amended.” (Present remarks page 10) the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, claim 12, even as amended, is not believed to require a coordinated latching-and-thermal-contact arrangement as alleged.
Accordingly, this argument is not found persuasive and claim 12 is believed to be prima facie obvious in view of Kim, Schroeder, and Leigh.
With respect to the Applicant’s additional remarks to claim 20 (Present remarks page 11) the Examiner notes that, since the limitations of claim 20 are similar to those with respect to claim 12, claim 20 is also still believed to be prima facie obvious in view of Kim, Schroeder, and Leigh for the reasons noted above with respect to claim 12.
With respect to the Applicants’ additional remarks to the dependent claims (Present remarks pages 11-12) the Examiner respectfully notes that, since the remarks regarding independent claim 12 are not found to be persuasive, and since there are no additional persuasive remarks provided with respect to the dependent claims, the dependent claims are believed to be properly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY M PAPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2201. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am - 6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAYPRAKASH Gandhi can be reached at 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.
/ZACHARY PAPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights