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 .
Specification
The objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s remarks thereto.
Claim Objections
The objections to claims 8-10 are withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 8.
Examiner’s Note
Applicant has failed to traverse the Examiner’s Official Notice in claim 7 and, accordingly, making portions of a cold plate of metal is taken as admitted prior art.
See MPEP 2144.03(C)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 112 rejections to claims 1-10 are withdrawn in view of the recitations in ¶ 0037 of the written description which defines cold heat transfer fluid as fluid which has yet to accept heat from a component and hot heat transfer fluid as fluid which has collected calories produced by the processors and other electronic components.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemura et al. (US 10,014,239 – hereinafter, “Takemura”) in view of Arvelo et al. (US 9,298,231 – hereinafter, “Arvelo”).
With respect to claims 1-2, Takemura teaches (In Fig 1, 6-9) a cold plate (20) for a supercomputer compute blade, said cold plate delimiting at least one opening (Space between respective 40A where 80 resides) configured to receive at least one heat sink (80) intended to cool at least one electronic component (14), said cold plate comprising: a cooling circuit comprising channels (Channels which make up the upstream piping 22) wherein said cooling circuit is configured to circulate a cold heat transfer fluid within said channels to supply said at least one heat sink (80), and a discharge circuit comprising channels (Channels which make up the downstream piping 30), wherein said discharge circuit configured to circulate a hot heat transfer fluid within said channels of said discharge circuit after heating through the at least one heat sink, wherein said cold plate comprises an assembly of several separate elements (40A), wherein each pair of adjacent elements (40A) of said several separate elements that are fluidly connected via a connection (24) at a portion of the cooling circuit or of the discharge circuit.
Takemura fails to specifically teach or suggest a sealing member at an interface of said connection.
Arvelo, however, teaches (In Fig 10C) an o-ring sealing member (247) at an interface of a liquid connection between separate elements and a cooling circuit.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Arvelo with that of Takemura, such that there is a sealing member at the interface of the connections of Takemura, as taught by Arvelo, since doing so would prevent the heat transfer fluid from leaking at the connection.
With respect to claim 3, Takemura further teaches that the several separate elements (40A) of the cold plate are fastened together in pairs by fastening members (24 and 32, see Fig 1, elements 40A are fastened to other parts of the cold plate via 24 and 32).
With respect to claim 4, Takemura further teaches that the fastening members comprise fastening screws (Col. 3, ll. 36-37, “The plural upstream joints 24 are detachable fluid joints such as a threaded type” (emphasis added)).
With respect to claim 5, Takemura further teaches at least one pair of elements (Bottom two 40A in Fig 1) of said each pair of adjacent elements of the cold plate comprises positioning members (Opening which accept fasteners 100, see Fig 6).
With respect to claim 7, Takemura as modified by Arvelo teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest that the several separable elements are made of metal.
However, making portions of a cold plate of metal is taken as admitted prior art (See the above Examiner’s Note”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the several separate elements of Takemura be made of metal, since doing so would allow for them to be made of a material that is relatively cheap, easy to manufacture, and, with certain metals, relatively inert to the heat transfer fluid flowing therethrough.
Further it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination1.
With respect to claim 8, Takemura teaches (In Fig 1) a method for assembling a cold plate (20) for a supercomputer compute blade, said cold plate delimiting at least one opening (Space between 40A) configured to receive at least one heat sink (80) intended to cool at least one electronic component (14), said cold plate comprising a cooling circuit comprising channels (Channels of 22), wherein said cooling circuit is configured to circulate a cold heat transfer fluid within said channels to supply said at least one heat sink (80), and a discharge circuit comprising channels (Channels of 30), wherein said discharge circuit is configured to circulate a hot heat transfer fluid within said channels of said discharge circuit after heating through the at least one heat sink (80), wherein said cold plate comprises an assembly of several separate elements (40A), said method comprising: positioning the several separate elements together, and fastening the several separate elements together to form the cooling circuit and the discharge circuit (See Fig 1).
Takemura fails to specifically teach or suggest a sealing member at an interface of said connection, wherein the positioning of the several separate elements together comprises placing said sealing member at each fluidic connection interface at said portion of the cooling circuit or of the discharge circuit of said each pair of adjacent elements.
Arvelo, however, teaches (In Fig 10C) an o-ring sealing member (247) at an interface of a liquid connection between separate elements and a cooling circuit.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Arvelo with that of Takemura, such that there is a sealing member at the interface of the connections of Takemura, as taught by Arvelo, since doing so would prevent the heat transfer fluid from leaking at the connection.
Note that when a sealing member is provided at each connection of Takemura, then the combination of Takemura and Arvelo teaches that the positioning of the several separate elements together comprises placing said sealing member at each fluidic connection interface at said portion of the cooling circuit or of the discharge circuit of said each pair of adjacent elements, as claimed.
With respect to claim 9, Takemura further teaches that the fastening is done by screwing (Col. 3, ll. 36-37, “The plural upstream joints 24 are detachable fluid joints such as a threaded type” (emphasis added)).
With respect to claim 10, Takemura further teaches that wherein the positioning of the several separate elements (40A) together comprises guiding at least part of the several separate elements (40A) by positioning members (32, see Fig 1, where the downstream joints (32) help to guide the elements (40A) into position within the cold plate).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemura in view of Arvelo and further in view of Cronin (US 4,498,119).
With respect to claim 6, Takemura as modified by Arvelo teaches the limitations of claim 5 as per above and but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein the positioning members comprise at least one indexing pin inserted into a complementary shape.
Cronin, however, teaches a positioning member which comprises at least one indexing pin (98) inserted into a complimentary shape (104, see Fig 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cronin with that of Takemura, such that the positioning member of Takemura comprises at least one indexing pin inserted into a complimentary shape, as taught by Cronin, since doing so would help to align the cooler (82) with the adjacent elements (40A) before fastening.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s remarks to the 112(b) rejections to claims 1-10 (Present remarks pages 6-7) the Examiner notes that the 112(b) rejections thereto have been withdrawn in view of ¶ 0037 of the present written description.
With respect to the Applicant’s remarks to claims 1 and 8 that, “However, for example, this unit cannot be considered a cold plate: it is not a full, low-thickness plate but a piping network….By definition, for example, a “plate” is a sheet of material which is full and has a low thickness. The ensemble formed by the upstream main piping 22, the downstream main piping 30 and the sub-pipings 40 does not form a full device. Applicant respectfully notes wherein Takemura ‘239, for example, does not describe a cold plate for a compute blade of a supercomputer.” (Present remarks pages 8-9) the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner is required to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in view of the specification2. The written description appears to define a cold plate as, in part, “a mechanical assembly of a plurality of elements” (¶ 0038) which “constitute a circulation circuit of a refrigerant wherein one or more heat sinks are placed making it possible to cool the processors and other electronic components” (¶ 0037). This is also consistent with what is disclosed in, for example, Fig 1 of the drawings. Takemura appears to meet this definition. Fig 1 of Takemura includes a mechanical assembly of a plurality of elements (22, 24, 40, 50, 80, 32, 30, among others) which constitute a circulation circuit of a refrigerant (Col. 2, ll. 54-65, “The cooling unit 20 has upstream main piping 22, downstream main piping 30, sub-piping 40, and plural cooling modules 50. Further, the upstream main piping 22 includes an upstream flow path 22A, through which a cooling medium flows, in an internal portion. Further, the downstream main piping 30 includes a downstream flow path 30A, through which the cooling medium flows, in an internal portion. In addition, the sub-piping 40 has a flow path 40A, through which the cooling medium flows, in an internal portion. Those upstream main piping 22, downstream main piping 30, and sub-piping 40 form a circulation flow path through which the cooling medium circulate”) wherein one or more heat sinks (50, 80) are placed making it possible to cool electronic components (14) of a printed circuit (12, Col. 7, ll. 58-64, “As illustrated in FIG. 6, the cooling module 80 according to the second embodiment includes the cooling apparatus (cooler) 82. The cooling apparatus 82 performs heat exchange between the cooling medium supplied from one piece of the sub-piping 40 of the pair of pieces of the sub-piping 40 and the electronic component 14 and thereby cools the electronic component 14.”).
Accordingly, Takemura is believed to teach a cold plate, as claimed.
With regard to the limitations, “for a supercomputer compute blade” the Examiner respectfully notes that these limitations are intended use limitations, I.E. the cold plate is intended to be used with a supercomputer compute blade. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the present case, the prior art structure as taught by Takemura is capable of being used with a supercomputer compute blade and thus meets the claim.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 8 are believed to be prima facie obvious in view of Takemura and Arvelo and the 103(a) rejections thereto are maintained.
With respect to the Applicant’s additional remarks to Arvelo ‘231, Cronin ‘119, Tsai, ‘736, Pietrantonio ‘016, Straznicky ‘418 (Present remarks pages 9-15) the Examiner notes that, as per above, Takemura is not believed to be deficient in the teaching of a cold plate and thus none of Arvelo, Cronin, Tsai, Pietrantonio, and Straznicky are relied upon to teach such a limitation. Accordingly, Applicant’s remarks to each of these references is moot.
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 ZACHARY M PAPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2201. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am - 6pm EST.
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, Jayprakash N Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/ZACHARY PAPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835
1 Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)
2 MPEP 2111