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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14,16,18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite for the limitation of “the sealed coolant path remains closed during removal of any core3 from any conduit branch” as this language makes it impossible to determine if the claimed apparatus is being read on until it is applied to system which makes the claim indefinite as it makes it unclear when infringement occurs (when system is made or when system used) MPEP 2173.05 (p). The limitation requires an action that occurs during use this makes it unclear when the claim is infringed. The limitation will be examined as “the sealed coolant path is configured to remain closed during removal of any core from any conduit branch”.
Claims 2-10, 12-14,16,18, and 20-23 are rejected for dependence from one or more of the above rejected claims.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hrehor, Jr. et al. (U.S. PGPub 2010/0085712).
Regarding claim 1, Hrehor teaches a system (fig. 6e and 10b), comprising: a fluid conduit (element 500) for circulating a cooling fluid (abstract) , wherein the fluid conduit includes a fluid inlet (one of 504a; para. 0039, note the system is reversable), a fluid outlet ( other of element 504a; para. 0039, note system reversable), and a plurality of conduit branches (elements 506) including a first conduit branch (second from left element 506 fig. 6e) and a second conduit branch (second from right element 506 fig. 6e) , wherein each of the plurality of conduit branches are formed between the fluid inlet and the fluid outlet (per fig. 5b) and wherein the fluid conduit defines a sealed coolant path from the fluid inlet to the fluid outlet through the plurality of conduit branches (per fig. 6c-6e and 10a-10b), and wherein the sealed coolant path is configured to remain closed during removal of any cooling core from any conduit branch (per para. 0039. 0044, 0048, “that may be removed quickly and easily without the need to remove its liquid supply and such that any or all of the HPCs may be quickly and easily replaced”); a plurality of cooling cores (combinations of elements 204 and 206) including a first cooling core (see annotated fig. 6e) and a second cooling core (see annotated fig. 6e), the first cooling core having a first base (see annotated fig. 6e) for thermal communication with a first electronic component (element 202) installed on a circuit board (element 302) and a first lateral channel (see annotated fig. 6e) that is about an exterior surface of the first conduit branch (per annotated fig. 6e), and the second cooling core having a second base (see annotated fig. 6e) for thermal communication with a second electronic (another element 202) component installed on the circuit board and a second lateral channel (see annotated fig. 6e) that is about an exterior surface of the second conduit branch, wherein physically connecting the first lateral channel to the first conduit branch establishes thermal communication between the first cooling core and the first conduit branch (per fig. 6e), and wherein physically connecting the second lateral channel to the second conduit branch establishes thermal communication between the second cooling core and the second conduit branch (per fig. 6e), wherein at least one cooling core of the plurality of cooling cores is selectively positionable at different locations along a length of one conduit branch independent of being thermally coupled to the respective electronic component and is removable from the selected conduit branch without disconnecting the fluid inlet, the fluid outlet, or any portion of the sealed coolant path (per para. 0039. 0044, 0048, “that may be removed quickly and easily without the need to remove its liquid supply and such that any or all of the HPCs may be quickly and easily replaced”).
Hrehor does not explicitly teach wherein the fluid conduit is a unitary component with no disconnectable fluidic connections between the fluid inlet and the fluid outlet; a first electronic component installed on a circuit board and a first lateral channel that is physically disconnectably connectable about an exterior surface of the first conduit branch; a second lateral channel that is physically disconnectably connectable about an exterior surface of the second conduit branch.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the fluid conduit as unitary (non-disconnectable) structure, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(V)(B).
Similarly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the first and second lateral channels physically disconnectable about he the conduit branches, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (V) B.
PNG
media_image1.png
400
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hrehor teaches there is no fluid communication between the cooling fluid in the fluid conduit and the plurality of cooling cores (per fig. 6e).
Regarding claim 3, Hrehor teaches the first and second lateral channels have an open side and two open ends (per fig. 6e and 2c elements 204/206 have curved sides meeting this limitation), each lateral channel receiving an exterior surface of a selected conduit branch of the plurality of conduit branches (per fig. 6e and 2c elements 204/206 have curved sides meeting this limitation).
Regarding claim 4, Hrehor does not explicitly teach wherein the first lateral channel in the first cooling core is also physically disconnectably connectable about the exterior surface of the second conduit branch, and wherein the second lateral channel in the second cooling core is also physically disconnectably connectable about the exterior surface of the first conduit branch.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the first and second lateral channels physically disconnectable about he the conduit branches, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (V) B.
Regarding claim 5, Hrehor teaches the first conduit branch is spaced apart from the second conduit branch (spacing shown in fig. 6e), and wherein the first and second conduit branches are configured to extend over the circuit board and the first and second electronic components installed on the circuit board (per fig. 6e they are over the board and above the electronic components).
Regarding claim 10, Hrehor teaches the first conduit branch of the fluid conduit is linear and the first lateral channel in the first cooling core is linear, wherein the first cooling core is configured to be connectable at any point along a length of the linear first conduit branch to align the first cooling core with the first electronic component (per fig.2c, 6c-6e, and 10a-10b) .
Regarding claim 12, Hrehor teaches the plurality of cooling cores includes a third cooling core (the center element 506 in fig. 6e) having a third base (the connected elements to the center electronic component) for thermal communication with a third electronic component (center elements 202) installed on the circuit board and a third lateral channel (per fig. 6e) that is about an exterior surface of the first conduit branch (per fig 6e), wherein physically connecting the third lateral channel to the first conduit branch establishes thermal communication between the third cooling core and the first conduit branch (per fig. 6e).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the third lateral channel (per fig. 6e) that is physically disconnectably connectable about an exterior surface of the first conduit branch, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (V) B.
Regarding claim 14, Hrehor teaches the fluid conduit is positionable relative to the circuit board so that the plurality of conduit branches extend over one or more areas of the circuit board while the fluid inlet and the fluid outlet are positioned beyond a perimeter of the circuit board (per fig. 13a)
It has been held that the 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 claimed structural limitations. Thus, the intended use of “for connecting to an external cooling loop that is located outside the perimeter of the circuit board” in the claim does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 MPEP 2214 (II).
Regarding claim 16, Hrehor teaches the fluid conduit forms a first longitudinal conduit extending from the fluid inlet and a second longitudinal conduit extending from the fluid outlet (per fig. 5b), wherein the first longitudinal conduit is parallel to the second longitudinal conduit, and wherein the plurality of conduit branches extend between the first and second longitudinal conduits and are perpendicular to the first and second longitudinal conduits (per fig. 5b), wherein the first and second longitudinal conduits extend along opposing sides of the circuit board (per annotated fig. 6e above).
Regarding claim 18, Hrehor teaches the first cooling core includes a first mechanical fastener (elements 208 or 210) for securing the first conduit branch within the first lateral channel.
Regarding claim 20, Hrehor teaches the fluid inlet and the fluid outlet each secure a blind mating connector (the connectors shown for 504a reasonable read on blind mating connectors”).
It has been held that the 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 claimed structural limitations. Thus, the intended use of “for coupling with the external cooling loop” in the claim does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 MPEP 2214 (II).
Regarding claim 23, Hrehor teaches the first lateral channel is frictionally disconnectably connectable about the exterior surface of the first conduit branch, and wherein the second lateral channel is frictionally disconnectably connectable about the exterior surface of the second conduit branch (as both are held on with force this is by physics a frictional connection).
Claims 6-8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hrehor, Jr. et al. (U.S. PGPub 2010/0085712), and further in view of Cipolla et al. (U.S. Patent 8,004,841).
Regarding claim 6, Hrehor does not teach the first cooling core is a first phase change heat spreader, wherein the first phase change heat spreader has a sealed internal chamber containing a phase change material that changes between liquid and vapor phases to conduct thermal energy through the first phase change heat spreader.
Cipolla teaches a first cooling core is a first phase change heat spreader (element 16), wherein the first phase change heat spreader has a sealed internal chamber containing a phase change material that changes between liquid and vapor phases to conduction of thermal energy through the first phase change heat spreader (col. 5, ln 59-67). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Hrehor to be modify to include the heat spreader of Cipolla as claimed, the motivation would be to efficiently transfer heat (col. 5, ln 9-35).
Regarding claim 7, Cipolla further teaches the first phase change heat spreader has metal walls formed around the sealed internal chamber (col. 5, ln 59-67).
Regarding claim 8, Cipolla further teaches the sealed internal chamber includes a lower region along the base of the first cooling core and an upper region adjacent the first lateral channel, wherein heat conduction from the first base causes the phase change material to evaporate from the lower region and condense in the upper region (per fig. 9 heat transferred from memory below tubes to structure 32 which is includes the top ends, thus reading on this claim limitation).
Regarding claim 13, Hrehor does not teach a first thermal transfer pad positionable within the first lateral channel for heat transfer between the first cooling core and the first conduit branch; and a second thermal transfer pad positionable within the second lateral channel for heat transfer between the second cooling core and the second conduit branch.
Cipolla teaches thermal transfer pads (elements 138) being used between a between heat transfer structures (fig. 17b). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Hrehor to be modify to include the pads of Cipolla as claimed, the motivation would be to increase contact between structures.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hrehor, Jr. et al. (U.S. PGPub 2010/0085712), and further in view of Cipolla et al. (U.S. Patent 8,004,841) and Grote (U.S. Patent 4,616,699).
Regarding claim 9, Hrehor and Cipolla do not teach the sealed internal chamber includes a plurality of metal fins, each metal fin having a first end connected to the metal wall adjacent the lateral channel of the first cooling core and extending into the upper region of the sealed internal chamber.
Grote teaches the sealed internal chamber (shown in fig. 6) includes a plurality of metal fins (elements 29 and 27), each metal fin having a first end connected to the metal wall adjacent the lateral channel of the first cooling core and extending into the upper region of the sealed internal chamber (per fig. 6). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Hrehor and Cipolla to include the fins of Grote as claimed, the motivation would be to have a lower heat pipe temperature drop is possible, and an ability to accommodate higher wall heat fluxes before nucleate boiling is initiated (col. 5, ln 1-4).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hrehor, Jr. et al. (U.S. PGPub 2010/0085712), and further in view of Campbell et al. (U.S. Patent 6,184,436).
Regarding claim 21, Hrehor does not expressly teach the external cooling loop includes a fluid supply manifold and a fluid return manifold located in the back of a computer rack in which the chassis is positioned, and wherein the fluid inlet connects to the fluid supply manifold outside the perimeter of the chassis and the fluid outlet connects to the fluid return manifold outside the perimeter of the chassis.
Campbell teaches the external cooling loop includes a fluid supply manifold (element 331) and a fluid return manifold (element 332) located in the back of a computer rack (element 300) in which the chassis (element 200) is positioned, and wherein the fluid inlet connects to the fluid supply manifold outside the perimeter of the chassis and the fluid outlet connects to the fluid return manifold outside the perimeter of the chassis (at element 340). It would have bene obvious to apply the system of Hrehor to the system of Campbell, the motivation would be the increased control and cooling of the rack cooling (Col. 6, ln 36- Col. 7, ln 7). Examiner notes that the limitation is required as required though the claim this depends from states it is “for” the claimed external cooling loop thus this may also be considered “use” and it has been held that the 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 claimed structural limitations. Thus, the intended use of “for connecting to an external cooling loop that is located outside the perimeter of the circuit board” in the claim does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 MPEP 2214 (II).
Regarding claim 22, Hrehor teaches the fluid inlet connects to the fluid supply manifold with blind mating connectors and the fluid outlet connects to the fluid return manifold with blind mating connectors (the connectors shown for 504a reasonable read on blind mating connectors”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 112b rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive that the amendments have overcome the 112b rejections. The 112b rejections have been withdrawn. Examiner does note that the amendment did result in a new 112b rejection (similar, but not the same as one of the previous).
Applicant's arguments filed for the rejection of the unitary structure have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The argument is not persuasive as applicant has not shown that such is taught away from as in the cited case where a contrary teaching was cited, applicants’ statement of benefit is not enough to overcome the rejection.
Applications argument regarding the physical disconnectability as the case law states that since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art per the MPEP 2144.04(V)B .
Applicants arguments the claim amendment is anticipatory and does not specifically address the rejection made above.
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 Joel Attey whose telephone number is (571) 272-7936. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights