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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Colgan (US 2009/284921).
Regarding claim 1, Colgan teaches an apparatus (100, Fig. 2, [0047]) comprising:
a single manifold body (130 and 140 combined is broadly interpreted as the single manifold body performing heat removal for 111, Fig. 2, [0047], [0051]) coupled to a plurality of chips (112 and 113, Fig. 2, [0047]) of a multiple chip module (110, Fig. 2, [0047]), the single manifold body including
a plurality of heat transfer structures (3 of 130 and 1 of 130 and 140 combined, Fig. 2, [0047]),
the plurality of heat transfer structures configured to be thermally coupled to the plurality of chips (112 and 113 combined, Fig. 2, [0048], [0049]); and
a plurality of flow directing structures (132, Fig. 2, [0050], [0060]), the plurality of flow directing structures configured to direct
a first portion of a fluid flow ([0060], fluid flowing through one of the plurality of 131 of the plurality of 130) within the single manifold body to a first heat transfer structure (131 of one 130, Fig. 2, [0050]) of the plurality of heat transfer structures in a first cooling zone (zone occupied by the one 130) and
a second portion of the fluid flow ([0060], fluid flowing through another of the plurality of 131 of the plurality of 130) within the single manifold body to a second heat transfer structure (131 of another 130, Fig. 2, [0050]) of the plurality of heat transfer structures in a second cooling zone (zone occupied by the another 130).
Regarding claim 2, Colgan teaches the manifold body is configured to be compliant under a distributed pressure load when thermally coupled to the plurality of chips ([0058], [0061]).
Regarding claim 3, Colgan teaches the plurality of heat transfer structures is configured to distribute a mechanical load from a first side of the manifold body to a second side of the manifold body ([0054]).
Regarding claim 4, Colgan teaches at least one of the plurality of heat transfer structures is configured to be coupled to a first portion of at least one of the plurality of chips (1 of 130 and 140 combined coupled to 112 and 113 combined, Fig. 2, [0050]).
Regarding claim 5, Colgan teaches the first portion comprises a first higher heat load area (area occupied by one 112 under the first cooling zone has higher hot spots than 113, [0048]) and wherein the second portion comprises a second higher heat load area (area occupied by another 112 under the second cooling zone also has higher hot spots than 113, [0048]).
Regarding claim 6, Colgan teaches the the first cooling zone is over the first higher heat load area of a first chip of the plurality of chips (See claim 5 rejection above, Fig. 2, the first chip being the one 112),
the second cooling zone is over the second higher heat load area of a second chip of the plurality of chips (See claim 5 rejection above, Fig. 2, the second chip being the another 112), and
the plurality of flow directing structures are configured to direct the fluid flow to the first cooling zone and the second cooling zone before directing the fluid flow to a lower heat load area of the plurality of chips (See MPEP 2114(II), "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" and "A claim containing a "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" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim." In the instant case, the claimed invention is for flow directing structures with a particular structure and function and using said flow directing structures to direct the fluid flow to the first cooling zone and the second cooling zone before directing the fluid flow to a lower heat load area of the plurality of chips is only an intended use of that flow directing structure).
Regarding claim 7, Colgan teaches the multiple chip module comprises a core area ([0048], processor chips comprise at least a core).
Regarding claim 8, Colgan teaches the plurality of heat transfer structures comprises a first heat transfer structure (130 and 140 combined) and a second heat transfer structure (130), and the first heat transfer structure has a different heat transfer characteristic than the second heat transfer structure (Fig. 2, 130 and 140 combined is bigger and can transfer more heat than 130).
Regarding claim 10, Colgan teaches at least one of the plurality of flow directing structures comprises a permeable mesh ([0083]).
Regarding claim 11, Colgan teaches at least one of the plurality of flow directing structures comprises a rigid wall (132, Fig. 2, 132a and 132b are surrounded by a rigid wall).
Regarding claim 12, Colgan teaches the single manifold body is configured to be directly coupled to the plurality of chips ([0049]), wherein the single manifold body forms a cold plate extending over the plurality of chips (Fig. 2, [0049], [0060], 130 are cooler assemblies, with coolant absorbing heat after flowing through 131; [0051], 140 is coupled to 113 for heat removal; therefore, both combined can be reasonably interpreted as a cold plate as they perform heat removal),
and wherein the plurality of heat transfer structures and the plurality of flow directing structures are disposed within the cold plate (132 and 3 of 130 and 1 of 130 and 140 combined are part of 130 and 140 combined and therefore are disposed within the cold plate) such that the first portion of the fluid flow and the second portion of the fluid flow are internally routed within the cold plate (See MPEP 2115, “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” The fluid flow being worked upon by the cold plate does not impart patentability to the claim).
Regarding claim 13, Colgan teaches the plurality of heat generating components comprise a first chip (112, Fig. 2) and a second (113, Fig. 2), wherein the first chip is arranged orthogonally to the second chip (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Colgan teaches at least one of the plurality of flow directing structures includes an opening (132a and 132b, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Colgan teaches a chip comprises a processor or other electronic device ([0048]).
Regarding claim 16, Colgan teaches a method comprising: a single manifold body (130 and 140 combined is broadly interpreted as the single manifold body performing heat removal for 111, Fig. 2, [0047], [0051]) coupled to a plurality of chips (112 and 113, Fig. 2, [0047]) of a multiple chip module (110, Fig. 2, [0047]), the single manifold body including
a plurality of heat transfer structures (3 of 130 and 1 of 130 and 140 combined, Fig. 2, [0047]),
the plurality of heat transfer structures configured to be thermally coupled to a plurality of heat generating components including the plurality of chips (112 and 113 combined, Fig. 2, [0048], [0049]); and providing
a plurality of flow directing structures (132, Fig. 2, [0050], [0060]) within the single manifold body, the plurality of flow directing structures configured to direct
a first portion of a fluid flow ([0060], fluid flowing through one of the plurality of 131 of the plurality of 130) within the single manifold body to a first heat transfer structure (131 of 130, Fig. 2, [0050]) of the plurality of heat transfer structures and
a second portion of the fluid flow ([0060], fluid flowing through another of the plurality of 131 of the plurality of 130) within the manifold body to a second heat transfer structure (131 of another 130, Fig. 2, [0050]) of the plurality of heat transfer structures.
Regarding claim 17, Colgan teaches the single manifold body is configured to be compliant under a distributed pressure load when thermally coupled to the plurality of heat generating components ([0058], [0061]).
Regarding claim 18, Colgan teaches at least one of the plurality of heat transfer structures is configured to be coupled to a first portion of at least one of the plurality of heat generating components (1 of 130 and 140 combined coupled to 112 and 113 combined, Fig. 2, [0050]).
Regarding claim 19, Colgan teaches the first portion comprises a higher heat load area of the at least one of the plurality of heat generating components (112 has higher hot spots than 113, [0048]).
Regarding claim 20, Colgan teaches the plurality of heat transfer structures comprise a first heat transfer structure (130 and 140 combined) and a second heat transfer structure (130), and the first heat transfer structure has a different heat transfer characteristic than the second heat transfer structure (Fig. 2, 130 and 140 combined is bigger and can transfer more heat than 130).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colgan (US 2009/284921).
Regarding claim 9, Colgan (Fig. 2 embodiment) teaches the plurality of heat transfer structures comprises a first heat transfer structure (130 and 140 combined) and a second heat transfer structure (130).
Colgan (Fig. 2 embodiment) does not teach the first heat transfer structure has a different pressure drop characteristic than the second heat transfer structure.
However, Colgan (Fig. 7A embodiment) teaches it is desirable that the total pressure drop of the cooling fluid over the cache chip is less than that over the processor chip ([0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manifold body (Fig. 2) to modify the total pressure drop of the cooling fluid over the cache chip (113) to be less than that over the processor chip (112) because Colgan teaches it is desirable ([0080]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 An Bach Phan whose telephone number is (571)272-7244. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3 ET.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571)272-1184. 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.
/A.B.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
