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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a cold plate (904) wherein a cooling liquid circulates” (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leigh et al. US 10,765,038 Bl in view of Shearman US 11112573 B2.
Re claim 1, Leigh et al. teach a heat sink (900) for a network card (col 5 lines 39-51) of a compute blade, said compute blade comprising
a cold plate (904) wherein a cooling liquid circulates (col 1 lines 55-59, ), said heat sink comprising:
a body (908) comprising two main faces, wherein said two main faces comprise a hot face (bottom face) , and a cold face (top face), opposite said hot face, wherein said cold face is configured to be interfaced with the cold plate, and wherein the hot face comprises at least one housing configured to receive at least one heat generating component of the network card (“PCA 908-3 containing electronics or circuitry”).
Additionally, Shearman teach a heat sink for a network card of a compute blade, said compute blade to provide a network card (col 6 last para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a blade as taught by Shearman in the Leigh et al. invention in order to advantageously allow interface for compatible servers.
Re claim 2, Leigh et al. teach further comprising a heat conduction interface (annotated fig) mounted on the cold face of the body.
PNG
media_image1.png
567
703
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 3, Leigh et al. teach wherein the heat conduction interface is in a form of a heat conducting plate (fig 9, noting right portion bottom portion is a plate portion and considered the interface).
Re claim 4, Leigh et al. teach wherein said heat sink further comprises a housing element (annotated fig) configured to cover the network card.
PNG
media_image2.png
347
637
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 5, Leigh et al. teach wherein the housing element comprises a protective plate configured to cover the network card (noting different plate portions covering front end).
Re claim 6, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the protective plate is made of steel for increased heat transfer and/or strength, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 7, Leigh et al. teach wherein the housing element further comprises a connection front, fastened to the protective plate, comprising a portion extending orthogonally to the protective plate and delimiting at least one receiving hole of a connector of the network card.
Re claim 8, another embodiment of Leigh et al. teach wherein the body delimits, at the cold face (figs), a plurality of fasteners (holes for screws 208-6, fig 2) each configured to receive a screw (208-6) to fasten the body on the cold plate for assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a screw as taught by combining embodiments in order to advantageously allow for PCA assembly (fig 2).
Re claim 9, another embodiment of Leigh et al. teach wherein the body delimits a plurality of through-fastening holes (holes for screws 208-6, fig 2), connecting the hot face to the cold face, each configured to receive an assembly screw (208-6) to firmly secure both the body and the network card for assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a screw as taught by combining embodiments in order to advantageously allow for PCA assembly (fig 2).
Re claim 10, another embodiment of Leigh et al. teach wherein said heat sink further comprises a housing element (208-2), wherein said housing element delimits a plurality of through-fastening holes, aligned with the plurality of through-fastening holes of the body, each configured to receive an assembly screw to firmly secure the housing element, the body and the network card (fig 2) for assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a screw as taught by combining embodiments in order to advantageously allow for PCA assembly (fig 2).
Re claim 11, Leigh et al. teach a heat dissipation module comprising: a network card mounted on a body (908) of a heat sink (900), wherein said network card is a network card of a compute blade (col 5 lines 39-51), said compute blade comprising a cold plate (904) wherein a cooling liquid circulates (col 1 lines 55-59), wherein said heat sink comprises said body comprising two main faces, wherein said two main faces comprise a hot face (bottom face), and a cold face (top face), opposite said hot face, wherein said cold face is configured to be interfaced with the cold plate, and wherein the hot face comprises at least one housing configured to receive at least one heat generating component of the network card (“PCA 908-3 containing electronics or circuitry”; also see the rejection of claim 1).
Additionally, Shearman teach a heat sink for a network card of a compute blade, said compute blade to provide a network card (col 6 last para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a blade as taught by Shearman in the Leigh et al. invention in order to advantageously allow interface for compatible servers.
Re claim 12, Leigh et al. teach wherein the heat sink further comprises a housing element firmly secured at least with the network card, wherein the network card is mounted between the housing element and the body.
PNG
media_image2.png
347
637
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 13, Leigh et al. teach wherein the body of said heat sink is fastened on the cold plate via the cold face (noting an entire assembly together in the final assembly every part is fastened to each other, figs).
Re claim 14, Leigh et al. teach A method for manufacturing a heat sink for a compute blade network card, said compute blade network card comprising a cold plate wherein a cooling liquid circulates, said method comprising: creating a body comprising two main faces, wherein said two main faces comprise a hot face, and a cold face, opposite said hot face, wherein said cold face is configured to be interfaced with the cold plate, wherein the hot face comprises at least one housing configured to receive at least one heat generating component of the compute blade network card (see the rejection of claims 11 and 1, noting the same structure is taught by the art and merely provided or present in the manufacturing claim, and the heat generating component is (“PCA 908-3 containing electronics or circuitry”).
Additionally, Shearman teach a heat sink for a network card of a compute blade, said compute blade to provide a network card (col 6 last para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a blade as taught by Shearman in the Leigh et al. invention in order to advantageously allow interface for compatible servers.
Re claim 15, Leigh et al. teach wherein the network card comprises an upper face comprising at least one heat generating component and a lower face (top and bottom faces fitting into long slot, fig 9), opposite said upper face, wherein said heat dissipation module is assembled such that the upper face of the network card is mounted opposite the hot face of the body of the heat sink, with the at least one heat generating component extending into the at least one housing of the hot face (fig 9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see reply, filed 2/27/2026, with respect to the 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the objections to the drawings should be withdrawn. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Perusing the spec provides that the application is in fact related to a liquid cooling circuit:
[0048] The compute blade also comprises a cold plate through which a liquid cooling circuit runs. The liquid cooling circuit allows cooling liquid, for example water, to be routed through the cold plate in order to cool various compute blade components such as, for example, the processors of the motherboard or the heat generating components of the network card(s), via heat sinks.
The preamble of claim 1 ends and then is followed by the positive recitation: “comprising a cold plate wherein a cooling liquid circulates”. Applicants arguments outlines details regarding the “heat sink” in the claim; however, the objection to the drawings is related to the cold plate with liquid, more specifically “comprising a cold plate wherein a cooling liquid circulates” (claim 1). Applicants arguments are not considered responsive to the objection, additionally, because claim 1 clearly claims the cold plate although the arguments appear to state that the cold plate is not part of the invention even though the recitation is clearly claimed in claim 1.
The applicant argues that Leigh fail to teach the heat sink of claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that Leigh fail to teach “contacting the heat generating components” since Leigh only has a structure which “contains the heat generating components”. 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., “contact” or “contacting”) 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). The claims recite “to receive at least one heat generating component of the network card” (claim 1), which is different than “contact” and would be met by prior which teach, as applicant has stated …. Leigh has structure which “contains the heat generating components”.
The applicant argues that Leigh '038 does not describe or suggest a body comprising a hot face comprising at least one housing configured to receive at least one heat generating component. The examiner respectfully disagrees. There are various structure of 908 to meet the broad terminology housing (see annotated fig below). Noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘housing’ is
3
: something that covers or protects: such as
a
: a case or enclosure (as for a mechanical part or an instrument)
b
: a casing (such as an enclosed bearing) in which a shaft revolves
c
: a support (such as a frame) for mechanical parts.
PNG
media_image3.png
318
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The applicant argues that in contrast, for example, Leigh '038's heat transfer panels 908-1 and 908-2 don't comprise any housing configured to receive at least one heat generating component. The examiner respectfully disagrees. 908-1 and 908-2 both meet the broad term “housing”. meet the broad terminology housing (see annotated fig below). Noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘housing’ is
3
: something that covers or protects: such as
a
: a case or enclosure (as for a mechanical part or an instrument)
b
: a casing (such as an enclosed bearing) in which a shaft revolves
c
: a support (such as a frame) for mechanical parts.
The applicant argues that Shearman '573 does not describe or suggest a heatsink body comprising a hot face comprising at least one housing configured to receive at least one heat generating component. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Shearman is relied upon to further expound upon the details of a network card in a compute blade.
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 have been addressed above. Thus, the rejections are proper and remain.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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