DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN et al US 2020/0248968 Al.
Re claim 1, CHEN et al. teach a liquid cooling plate comprising: a housing comprising: a top wall (top portion 12); a bottom wall (bottom portion 11), wherein the top wall and the bottom wall are covered to form an accommodation cavity (fig 3), wherein the accommodation cavity is configured to accommodate a coolant and comprises:
a first region (103, annotated fig) configured to be in contact with the heat-generating device (para 2 thermal contact; noting that 103 is the heat absorption zone and therefore absorbing heat from the chip, paras 2-3, and the term region is broad and is considered to be the zone 103 to include the walls/surfaces vertically above relative to the figures which are in contact with the chip in addition to areas immediately adjacent to the physical boundaries of this region of the vapor chamber , also noting the flat walls are naturally configured to be in contact with by being flat, and allow for a connection with the chip in the heat absorption zone); and a second region (104, annotated fig) configured to: dispose in a staggered manner with the heat-generating device (para 2); and deform to absorb a volume variation of the coolant that is configured to dissipate heat from the heat-generating device, to expand in volume when being heated, and to shrink in volume when being cooled (para 52-54);
and a support structure (13, 30, and ridges/flanges that connects longitudinal ends of 11/12) disposed in the first region, disposed between the top wall and the bottom wall, and coupled to the top wall and the bottom wall (annotated fig).
Additionally, Another embodiment teach wherein the first region is configured to be in contact with the heat-generating device (para 2, also see H figs 13- 14) to contact the chips directly on the cold plate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine embodiments in the CHEN et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for electronic configuration to dissipate heat.
For clarity, the recitation “…and deform to absorb a volume variation of the coolant that is configured to dissipate heat from the heat-generating device, to expand in volume when being heated, and to shrink in volume when being cooled …” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter 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. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above.
PNG
media_image1.png
985
767
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 3, CHEN et al. teach wherein the support structure comprises a plurality of first (13) support columns that are arranged in the first region at intervals, and wherein the first support columns are disposed between and coupled to the top wall and the bottom wall (see the rejection of claim 1, figs).
Re claim 4, CHEN et al. teach wherein the support structure is further disposed in the second region (see the rejection of claim 1).
Re claim 6, CHEN et al. teach wherein the support structure further comprises a plurality of second support columns (30) that are arranged in the second region at intervals, wherein one or more of the second support columns comprises a first end and a second end, wherein the first end is coupled to the bottom wall, and wherein the second end is spaced apart from the top wall (figs 6-7).
Re claim 7, CHEN et al. teach wherein the second support columns have a same height in a direction perpendicular to the housing (figs 6-7).
Re claim 9, CHEN et al. teach wherein a second bending stiffness of the second region is less than a first bending stiffness of the first region (noting due to a cantilever effect, it will be easier to bend the very end of the second region in addition to be thinner in a direction).
Re claim 10, CHEN et al. teach a liquid cooling system comprising: a liquid cooling plate comprising: a housing comprising: a top wall; and a bottom wall (see the rejection of claim 1),
wherein the top wall and the bottom wall are covered to form an accommodation cavity that comprises: a first region (103, annotated fig ) configured to be in contact with the heat-generating device (para 2 thermal contact; noting that 103 is the heat absorption zone and therefore absorbing heat from the chip, paras 2-3, and the term region is broad and is considered to be the zone 103 to include the walls/surfaces vertically above relative to the figures which are in contact with the chip in addition to areas immediately adjacent to the physical boundaries of this region of the vapor chamber, also noting the flat walls are naturally configured to be in contact with by being flat, and allow for a connection with the chip in the heat absorption zone); and a second region (104, annotated fig ) configured to: dispose in a staggered manner with the heat-generating device (see the rejection of claim 1); and deform to absorb a volume variation of a coolant that is configured to dissipate heat from the heat-generating device, to expand in volume when being heated, and to shrink in volume when being cooled (see the rejection of claim 1);
and a support structure (annotated fig, 13 ) disposed in the first region, disposed between the top wall and the bottom wall, and coupled to the top wall and the bottom wall (see the rejection of claim 1); and a delivery apparatus (annotated fig , 20 ) coupled to the liquid cooling plate and configured to drive the coolant to flow in the liquid cooling plate (para 62).
Additionally, Another embodiment teach wherein the first region is configured to be in contact with the heat-generating device (para 2, also see H figs 13- 14) to contact the chips directly on the cold plate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine embodiments in the CHEN et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for electronic configuration to dissipate heat.
The applicant argues that Chen fail to teach deformation. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Materials naturally have thermal expansion coefficients, and material will expand and contract when heat is added or removed naturally. Also, for clarity, the recitation “…and deform to absorb a volume variation of the coolant that is configured to dissipate heat from the heat-generating device, to expand in volume when being heated, and to shrink in volume when being cooled …” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter 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. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above.
PNG
media_image2.png
987
971
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 12, wherein the support structure comprises a plurality of first support columns (13) that are arranged in the first region at intervals, and wherein the first support columns are disposed between the top wall and the bottom wall (see the rejection of claim 10, figs).
Re claim 13, see the rejection of claim 4.
Re claim 15, see the rejection of claim 6.
Re claim 16, CHEN et al. teach wherein the second support columns have different heights in a direction perpendicular to the housing (noting 31 in 30 give different height portions).
Re claim 18, see the rejection of claim 9.
Claim(s) 19, 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN et al. in view of VANDERWEES US 20200221605 A1.
Re claim 19, CHEN et al. teach an electronic device comprising: wherein the liquid cooling system comprises: a liquid cooling plate comprising: a second housing comprising: a top wall (top portion 12); and a bottom wall (bottom portion 11), wherein the top wall and the bottom wall are covered to form an accommodation cavity that comprises:
a first region configured to be in contact with the heat-generating device (para 2 thermal contact; noting that 103 is the heat absorption zone and therefore absorbing heat from the chip, paras 2-3, and the term region is broad and is considered to be the zone 103 to include the walls/surfaces vertically above relative to the figures which are in contact with the chip in addition to areas immediately adjacent to the physical boundaries of this region of the vapor chamber, also noting the flat walls are naturally configured to be in contact with by being flat, and allow for a connection with the chip in the heat absorption zone) ; and a second region (annotated fig)
configured to: dispose in a staggered manner with the heat-generating device (para 2); and deform to absorb a volume variation of a coolant that is configured to dissipate heat from the heat-generating device, to expand in volume when being heated, and to shrink in volume when being cooled (para 52-54);
a support structure (13, 30, and ridges/flanges that connects longitudinal ends of 11/12) disposed in the first region, disposed between the top wall and the bottom wall, and coupled to the top wall and the bottom wall; and a delivery apparatus (annotated fig)
coupled to the liquid cooling plate and configured to drive the coolant to flow in the liquid cooling plate.
CHEN et al. fail to explicitly teach a first housing.
VANDERWEES teach a first housing (2, 4, 6) ; and a liquid cooling system inside the first housing (in the instant combination) to provide a computing shell
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a first housing as taught by VANDERWEES in the CHEN et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for electronics to be housed in a casing.
Additionally, Another embodiment teach wherein the first region is configured to be in contact with the heat-generating device (para 2, also see H figs 13- 14) to contact the chips directly on the cold plate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine embodiments in the CHEN et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for electronic configuration to dissipate heat.
The applicant argues that Chen fail to teach deformation. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Materials naturally have thermal expansion coefficients, and material will expand and contract when heat is added or removed naturally. Also, for clarity, the recitation “…and deform to absorb a volume variation of the coolant that is configured to dissipate heat from the heat-generating device, to expand in volume when being heated, and to shrink in volume when being cooled …” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter 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. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above.
PNG
media_image2.png
987
971
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 21, CHEN et al. teach wherein the support structure comprises a plurality of first support columns (13) that are arranged in the first region at intervals, and wherein the first support columns are disposed between and coupled to the top wall and the bottom wall (see the rejection of claims 1, 19, figs).
Re claim 22, CHEN et al. teach wherein the support structure is further disposed in the second region (see the rejection of claims 1, 19) and further comprises a plurality of second support columns (30) that are arranged in the second region at intervals, wherein one or more of the second support columns comprises a first end and a second end, wherein the first end is coupled to the bottom wall, and wherein the second end is spaced apart from the top wall (figs 6-7).
Re claim 23, CHEN et al. teach wherein a second bending stiffness of the second region is less than a first bending stiffness of the first region (noting due to a cantilever effect, it will be easier to bend the very end of the second region in addition to be thinner in a direction).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the prior art dot disclose any spatial relation with the chip. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art clearly teach a heat absorption zone which absorbs heat from a chip and thus the region is “configured to be in contact with” the chip. Further, another embodiment teach direct physical contact (see detailed rejection above). Further, the limitation “configured to be in contact with” would only require a flat surface to allow a configuration so one could attach a chip, but no direct physical contact is actually claimed- only a configuration that would allow “to be in contact with”. Either way, the other embodiment teach the direct physical contact.
The applicant argues that the term “staggered” does not appear in paragraph 2, and allegedly that the first and second region would not be staggered. The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the heart generating device is clearly attached to and directly adjacent to the first region, therefore the first and second region being staggered meets the claim limitations, and further noting the second region is claimed to be staggered with only one item. Noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘stagger’ is to arrange in any of various zigzags, alternations, or overlappings of position or time, since only two items are claimed to be staggered, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the adjacent offset side by side relationship of the first and second region to be staggered.
The applicant argues that Chen teaches away from deformation. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Teaching away related to a citation that would prevent the combination with another reference or prior art.
The applicant argues that Chen fail to teach deformation. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Materials naturally have thermal expansion coefficients, and material will expand and contract when heat is added or removed naturally. Also, for clarity, the recitation “…and deform to absorb a volume variation of the coolant that is configured to dissipate heat from the heat-generating device, to expand in volume when being heated, and to shrink in volume when being cooled …” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter 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. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Further, the phrase “and deform to absorb a volume variation of the coolant that is configured to dissipate heat from the heat-generating device, to expand in volume when being heated, and to shrink in volume when being cooled” is broad enough to be taught by small thermal expansions, as the phrase ends with “to expand in volume when being heated, and to shrink in volume when being cooled”. Finally, the applicants citations of the prior art are related to deformations prevent from external forces, bend stresses, or being crushed by external forces (which adding internal pillars aids against), but would not apply to all items thermally expanding to an extent.
The applicant argues that examiner combines three embodiments in the rejection of claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees. A support structure (13, 30, and ridges/flanges that connects longitudinal ends of 11/12) are all present in figure 11 embodiment. Further, the term ”a support structure“ is broad , and since all items are in one small , compact unitary construction in Chen, more than one item is considered to be part of the ”a support structure“, therefore no motivation is needed to combine different parts to be considered the ”a support structure“.
The applicant argues that Chen teach a vapor chamber, which is different than the cooling plate as claimed. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Chen clearly teach the cooling plate as claimed ….”A liquid cooling plate comprising: a housing comprising: a top wall; a bottom wall, wherein the top wall and the bottom wall are covered to form an accommodation cavity, wherein the accommodation cavity is configured to accommodate a coolant” (see detailed rejection above). Applicant goes on to state the functions are different, however, Chen clearly teach every single element of ….”A liquid cooling plate comprising: a housing comprising: a top wall; a bottom wall, wherein the top wall and the bottom wall are covered to form an accommodation cavity, wherein the accommodation cavity is configured to accommodate a coolant” which defines the cooling plate of the instant application.
The applicant argues that if para 2 anticipated “configured to be in contact with”, there would be no need to provide an alternative 103 rejection. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In one interpretation, “configured to be in contact” only requires that the plate of Chen is capable of being in contact with the chip, which is taught by paragraph 2, and the 103 section a heat absorption region. However, assuming arguendo, examiner is further noting that that Chen teach direct physically contacting by attaching the chip under another embodiment.
The applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not use the teachings of Chen to physically attach a heat generating chip to dissipate heat, and the reasoning given is a mere conclusory statement. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The direct physically contact is a specific configuration, as opposed to a stack with other intermediate parts,
The applicant argues that the combined embodiment would not have been expected to succeed. The examiner respectfully disagrees. 103 is already a heat absorption region, and directly attaching a heat generating chip to this region would have a clear expectation of success, as would be expected by the disclosure in its entirety.
The applicant argues that a heat source is aligned with the absorption zone does not suggest the first region contacts. The examiner respectfully disagrees. A region is an incredible broad term, and the chip is considered to be “in contact” with the heat absorption region, which also does not denote specific physical contact, since a region is also considered the space vertically surrounding and adjacent to.
Applicants argues that a heat source aligned with a heat absorption zone cannot teach a specific region that contact a heat generating device. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner has already pointed out various times how one ordinary skill in the art would interpret a “region” requiring “configured to be in contact” with a device, and thus this argument is a repetition of the same argument worded slightly differently and has been address above. Nevertheless, examiner reiterates that the prior art which teach a chip (only heat generating device disclosed in the reference) and a heat absorption zone meets the limitation of a “region” (incredibly broad term which can encompass parts and the areas surrounding them) which has a configuration to be in thermal contact with a heat generating device.
The applicant argues that the eight embodiment do not teach the “deliberate structural and spatial differentiation between the first and second regions”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., deliberate structural and spatial differentiation between the first and second regions) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). These arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant argues the claims dependent on the independent claim(s) are allowable based upon their dependence from an independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10, 19 have been addressed above. Thus, the rejections are proper and remain.
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 GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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.
/GORDON A JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights