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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15, 17, and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/28/26.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
The term “no disconnectable fluidic connections” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “no disconnectable fluidic connections” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It would not be clear to one skilled in the art what would be considered a non-disconnectable fluid connection. It is unclear if it means purely a single formed structure (which could still be disconnected say by cutting), or if it means a connection not easily disconnected (for instance if the elements are welded or glued as opposed to merely screwed together). Based upon the specification the limitation will be treated as requiring a single formed structure.
The term “enhance conduction of thermal energy” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “enhance” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim will be examined as “to conduction of thermal energy through the first phase change heat spreader”.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "may be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). This limitation language appears to make such an option not a requirement. Applicant may be attempting to claim a configuration of parts, it is recommend to utilize language such as “configure to”.
The term “improve heat transfer” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “improve” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim will be examined as “for heat transfer between the first cooling core and the first conduit branch”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation " the external cooling loop ", there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim should properly be “an external cooling loop”.
Claims 2-14,16,18, and 20 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, and 20 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), 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); 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).
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 for receiving the first conduit branch (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 (per fig.2c, 6c, and 6e; examiner notes that this limitation is extremely broad as it does not require it longer in any specific direction or in comparison to anything. As written the claim merely requires a dimension in a direction (any direction)) .
Regarding claim 11, Hrehor teaches the first cooling core may be connected 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. 6e these are aligned due to the connection).
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 f 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).
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).
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 enhance conduction of 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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL M ATTEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8-5 and Friday 8-10 and 2-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763