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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 2/10/26 is acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: para. [0008], line 5, “conductive” should be “convective”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 and 13-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 11, “coolant liquid” should be “an electronics coolant liquid”;
Claim 3, line 2, “bellow: should be “bellows”;
Claim 5, lines 4-5, “the coolant liquid” should be “the electronics coolant liquid”; and
Claim 13, line 2, “the legs” lacks antecedent basis and should be “legs”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 and 10-15 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.
Claim 2, lines 2-3 requires “at least one port defined through the cover and in fluid communication with the internal cavity of the housing.” If the at least port is in fluid communication with the internal cavity of the housing, how can there be a sealed internal cavity as claim 1, lines 7-8 requires?
Claim 10, line 2 “the heat sink” lacks antecedent basis;
Claim 10, line 3 requires “a heat sink.” Is “a heat sink” the same or different from “the heat sink” of line 2?
Claim 11, line 2 requires ”a base” and Claim 7, line 4 requires “a base layer.” Are these different elements being claimed, or are the same element. See MPE 2173.05(o) for doble inclusion;
Claim 12, line 2, requires “an S-shaped divider.” First, can the “S-shaped divider” be part of a structure that has other bends or extensions? Second, can a portion of the “S-shaped” divider be coextensive with some other structure just as “a generally L- shaped divider of claim 13 is required to be? (Note: the transitional phrase of the claim is “comprising” which is opened and allows other unclaimed elements to be present, see MPEP 2111.03);
Claim 13, line 2 requires “a generally L-shaped divider.” What is the metes and bounds of “a generally L-shaped divider”? When is “L-shaped divider” generally L-shaped and when is “L-shaped divider” not generally L-shaped? and
Claim 13, line 2-3 requires “a generally L-shaped divider.” First, can the “generally L-shaped divider” be part of a structure that has other bends or extensions? Second, can both legs of the “generally L-shaped” divider be coextensive with some other structure, such as two exterior walls that form a corner of a housing? (Note: the transitional phrase of the claim is “comprising” which is opened and allows other unclaimed elements to be present, see MPEP 2111.03); and
Claim 14, lines 1-2 requires “the electronics coolant liquid surrounds circulates between the S-shaped divider and the L-shaped divider.” What does “surrounds circulates” mean? Did Applicant intend “the electronics coolant liquid surrounds circulates between the S-shaped divider and the L-shaped divider”?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / § 103
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.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 6-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or alternately are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under Honsberg-Riedl (US 2004/0246683).
With respect to Claim 1, Honsberg-Riedl teaches an electronics module package (figs. 1 and 2) comprising: a housing (fig. 1, lower cup-shaped portion of 7) defining an internal cavity (70), therein; a first fluid aperture (fig. 2, 714 on left side) defined through a portion of the housing at a first end (fig. 2, left side of 70) thereof; a second fluid aperture (fig, 2, 714 on right side) defined through another portion of the housing at a second end (fig, 2, right side of 70) thereof; a cover (fig. 1, horizontal top portion of 70) hermetically sealed (¶[0036], l. 4, liquid-tight) to the housing defining a sealed internal cavity 70 and (¶[0036], l. 4); at least one die (fig. 1, 1 and ¶[0033], l. 2) within the internal cavity in the housing; and at least one electronic component (2,3,4 and ¶[0033], ll. 3-5) within the housing; and coolant liquid (8 and ¶[0038], ll. 1-2) in the internal cavity, and wherein the at least one die and at least one electronic component are immersed (¶[0038], ll. 1-3) in the electronics coolant liquid.
With respect to Claim 7, Honsberg-Riedl teaches an electronics module package (figs. 1 and 2) comprising: a housing (fig. 1, lower cup-shaped portion of 7) defining an internal cavity (70) therein; a cover (fig. 1, horizontal top portion of 70) hermetically sealed (¶[0036], l. 4, liquid-tight) to the housing; a base layer (fig. 2, inner wall side of 71) within the internal cavity of the housing; a first fluid aperture (fig. 2, 714 on left side) defined through the base layer of the housing at a first end (fig, 2, left side of 70) thereof; a second fluid aperture (fig. 2, 714 on right side) defined through the base layer of the housing at a second end (fig, 2, right side of 70) thereof; a channel (71) extending under (see fig. 2) the base layer of the housing and connecting the first and second fluid apertures; at least one die (fig. 1, 1 and ¶[0033], l. 2) within the internal cavity in the housing; and at least one electronic component (2,3,4 and ¶[0033], ll. 3-5) within the housing; wherein the internal cavity is filled with an electronics coolant liquid (8 and ¶[0038], ll. 1-2) and the at least one die and at least one electronic component are immersed (¶[0038], ll. 1-3) in the electronics coolant liquid.
Alternately for claims 1 and 7, Honsberg-Riedl fails to disclose a discrete cover hermetically sealed to the housing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to for the cover to be separate part from the housing in order to provide access to an interior of the housing without having to drain the expensive electronic coolant liquid, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
With respect to Claims 6 and 11, Honsberg-Riedl further teaches a first platform (fig. 1, raised portion of 7 that element with 73s rest on) on a portion (see fig. 1) of a base (fig. 2, bottom of 7) of the housing; a second platform (fig. 1, surface that 4 rests upon) on another portion of the base of the housing; wherein the first platform and the second platform are separated by a step (see fig. 1).
With respect to Claim 8, Honsberg-Riedl further teaches the first fluid aperture further comprises: a plurality of first fluid apertures (fig. 2, 714s on left side and ¶[0049], ll. 1-3); and wherein the second fluid aperture further comprises: a plurality of second fluid apertures (fig. 2, 714s on right side and ¶[0049], ll. 1-3).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or alternately are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under Bortolini (US 6,175,501).
With respect to Claim 1, Bortolini teaches an electronics module package (fig. 2, 10) comprising: a housing (24,14 and vertical sides of 22) defining an internal cavity (fig. 2, 54 which is between 24 and 14) therein; a first fluid aperture (fig. 5, 70) defined through a portion of the housing at a first end (fig. 5, top of 24,14) thereof; a second fluid aperture (72) defined through another portion of the housing at a second end (fig. 5, bottom of 24,14) thereof; a cover (horizontal upper portion of 22) hermetically sealed to the housing defining a sealed (col. 5, ll. 56-67) internal cavity (28); at least one die (30 and col. 7, l. 21, integrated circuit) within the internal cavity in the housing; and at least one electronic component (another 30 and col. 3, ll. 16-17) ) within the housing; and coolant liquid (32 and col. 5, l. 49) in the internal cavity, and wherein the at least one die and at least one electronic component are immersed (col. 5, 43-44) in the electronics coolant liquid.
With respect to Claim 7, Bortolini teaches an electronics module package (fig. 2, 10) comprising: a housing (24, 14 and vertical sides of 22) defining an internal cavity (fig. 2, 52,54 which is between 22 and 24) therein; a cover (horizontal upper portion of 22) hermetically sealed (col. 5, ll. 56-67) to the housing; a base layer (14) within the internal cavity of the housing; a first fluid aperture (fig. 5, 70) defined through the base layer of the housing at a first end (fig. 5, top of 24,14) thereof; a second fluid aperture (fig. 5, bottom of 24,14) defined through the base layer of the housing at a second end (fig. 5, bottom of 24,14) thereof; a channel (54) extending under the base layer of the housing and connecting the first and second fluid apertures; at least one die (30 and col. 7, l. 21, integrated circuit) within the internal cavity in the housing; and at least one electronic component (another 30 and col. 3, ll. 16-17) within the housing; wherein the internal cavity is filled with an electronics coolant liquid (32 and col. 5, l. 49) and the at least one die and at least one electronic component are immersed (col. 5, 43-44) in the electronics coolant liquid.
Alternately for claims 1 and 7, Bortolini fails to disclose a discrete cover hermetically sealed to the housing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to for the cover to be separate part from the housing in order to provide access to an interior of the housing without having to drain the expensive electronic coolant liquid, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
With respect to Claim 2, Bortolini further teaches at least one port (col. 5, l. 32) defined through the cover and in fluid communication with the internal cavity of the housing.
With respect to Claim 4, Bortolini further teaches the electronics coolant liquid is circulated without a pump (no pump present and col. 6, 32-59 explains the passive convection flow of the 32).
With respect to Claims 6 and 11, Bortolini further teaches a first platform (fig. 2, bottom of 54) on a portion of a base (24) of the housing; a second platform (fig. 2, portion with 40) on another portion of the base of the housing; wherein the first platform and the second platform are separated by a step (see fig. 2).
With respect to Claim 8, Bortolini further teaches the first fluid aperture further comprises: a plurality of first fluid apertures (70s); and wherein the second fluid aperture further comprises: a plurality of second fluid apertures (72s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2, 3, 5, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under Honsberg-Riedl (US 2004/0246683).
With respect to Claim 2, Honsberg-Riedl discloses the claimed invention except for at least one port defined through the cover and in fluid communication with the internal cavity of the housing. Official Notice is taken that a port defined through the cover and is selectively in fluid communication with the internal cavity of the housing. 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 package of Honsberg-Riedl with a well-known port for the purpose of being able to fill the electronics coolant liquid into the sealed internal cavity between the housing and the cover.
With respect to Claim 3, Honsberg-Riedl discloses the claimed invention except for at least one bellow[s] defined through the cover and in fluid communication with the internal cavity of the housing that is adapted to provide space for fluid expansion. Official Notice is taken that a bellows defined through the cover and in fluid communication with the internal cavity of the housing that is adapted to provide space for fluid expansion is well known in the art. 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 package of Honsberg-Riedl with a well-known bellows for the purpose of being able to compensate for different pressures that lead to volumetric changes of the electronics coolant liquid.
With respect to Claim 5, Honsberg-Riedl further teaches a back (fig. 2, bottom of 7) of the housing, wherein the back of the housing is a heat sink that contacts (see fig. 2, liquid runs thru 711) the electronics coolant liquid on a side (side is defined by 711) opposite the exterior surface (fig.2, exterior of 7) thereof; a channel (71) that extend through the heat sink, wherein the coolant liquid circulates through the channel, wherein one channel (711) extends between (see fig. 2) and is in fluid communication with the first fluid aperture and the second fluid aperture. Honsberg-Riedl fails to disclose a plurality of channels. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to duplicate the channel forming channels allowing for additional fluid flow through other portions of housing for increase heat transfer between the housing and electronic coolant liquid, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
With respect to Claim 9, Honsberg-Riedl discloses the claimed invention except for the channel further comprises: a plurality of channels wherein each channel of the plurality of channels connects a single aperture from the plurality of first apertures to a single aperture from the plurality of second apertures. Honsberg-Riedl fails to disclose a plurality of channels, each with a single aperture from the plurality of first apertures to a single aperture from the plurality of second apertures. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to duplicate the channel with a first aperture and a second aperture forming channels with a single first aperture and a single second aperture allowing for additional fluid flow through other portions of housing for increase heat transfer between the housing and electronic coolant liquid, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
With respect to Claim 10 (as best understood), Honsberg-Riedl further teaches an exterior surface (fig. 2, exterior of bottom of 7) of the heat sink (fig. 2, bottom of 7); a heat sink (fig. 2, bottom of 7) in fluid communication (fig. 2, 711 borders bottom of 7) with the electronics coolant liquid via the channel extending under the base layer and the first and second fluid apertures, wherein the heat sink further comprises: a thermally conductive heat sink defining a back (fig. 2, bottom of 7) of the housing; wherein the heat sink contacts (see fig. 2, liquid runs thru 711) the electronics coolant liquid within the channel and is operable to draw heat out of the electronics coolant liquid and into an environment (fig. 2, outside of 7) surrounding the electronic module package. Honsberg-Riedl fails to disclose a copper heat sink. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to for the heat sink to made from a good heat conducting material of copper for improved thermal management of the electrical components within the electronics module package, 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 a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 3, 5, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under Bortolini (US 6,175,501).
With respect to Claim 3 Bortolini discloses the claimed invention except for at least one bellow[s] defined through the cover and in fluid communication with the internal cavity of the housing that is adapted to provide space for fluid expansion. Official Notice is taken that a bellows defined through the cover and in fluid communication with the internal cavity of the housing that is adapted to provide space for fluid expansion is well known in the art. 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 package of Bortolini with a well-known bellows for the purpose of being able to compensate for different pressures that lead to volumetric changes of the electronics coolant liquid.
With respect to Claim 5, Bortolini further teaches a back (horizontal portion of 24) of the housing, wherein the back of the housing is a heat sink (col. 6, ll. 11-12 is made of a heat conducting material) that contacts the electronics coolant liquid on a side (fig. 2, inner side of 24) opposite the exterior surface thereof; a plurality of channels (dup of parts) that extend through the heat sink, wherein the coolant liquid circulates (fig. 5, 76) through the plurality of channels, wherein one channel (e.g., channel sown by figs. 2 and 5) from the plurality of channels extends between and is in fluid communication (see fig. 5) with the first fluid aperture and the second fluid aperture. Bortolini fails to disclose a plurality of channels. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to duplicate the channel forming channels allowing for additional fluid flow through other portions of housing for increase heat transfer between the housing and electronic coolant liquid, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
With respect to Claim 9, Bortolini discloses the claimed invention except for the channel further comprises: a plurality of channels wherein each channel of the plurality of channels connects a single aperture from the plurality of first apertures to a single aperture from the plurality of second apertures. Bortolini fails to disclose a plurality of channels, each with a single aperture from the plurality of first apertures to a single aperture from the plurality of second apertures. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to duplicate the channel with a first aperture and a second aperture forming channels with a single first aperture and a single second aperture allowing for additional fluid flow through other portions of housing for increase heat transfer between the housing and electronic coolant liquid, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
With respect to Claim 10 (as best understood), Bortolini further teaches an exterior surface (fig, 2, surface with 48s) of the heat sink (24); a heat sink (24) in fluid communication (See fig. 2) with the electronics coolant liquid via the channel extending under the base layer and the first and second fluid apertures, wherein the heat sink further comprises: a thermally conductive heat sink (col. 6, l. 13, “heat conducting material such as aluminum” defining a back (24) of the housing; wherein the heat sink contacts (See fig. 2) the electronics coolant liquid within the channel and is operable to draw heat out of the electronics coolant liquid and into an environment (fig. 2, outside of 10) surrounding the electronic module package. Bortolini fails to disclose a copper heat sink. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to for the heat sink to made from a good heat conducting material of copper for improved thermal management of the electrical components within the electronics module package, 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 a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under Bortolini (US 6,175,501) and De Sousa (US 2002/0015271).
With respect to Claims 12-14, Bortolini discloses the claimed invention except for an S-shaped divider (fig. 6, 28 and ¶[0040], l. 2) in the internal cavity and a generally L-shaped divider wherein at least one of the legs of the L-shaped divider is coextensive with an exterior wall of the housing (claim13). De Sousa teaches an S-shaped divider in the internal cavity (fig. 3, 30) (claim 12), a generally L-shaped divider (two wall forming a corner of the housing of fig. 6)wherein at least one (both legs) of the legs of the L-shaped divider is coextensive with an exterior wall (outer wall of fig. 6) of the housing (fig. 5, housing of 80) (claim 13) and the electronics coolant liquid surrounds circulates between (see fig. 6) the S-shaped divider and the L-shaped divider (claim 14). 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 package of Bortolini with the S-shaped divider of De Sousa for the purpose of providing a divider while maintaining a laminar flow due to gentle directional changes of the S-shaped divider.
With respect to Claim 15, Bortolini and De Sousa disclose the claimed invention except for the electronics coolant liquid is operable to reduce the temperature of the at least one die by at least twenty degrees Celsius. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to for the electronics coolant liquid to have any heat capacity including a heat capacity of operable to reduce the temperature of the at least one die by at least twenty degrees Celsius to maintain reliable operation of the die, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 12,207,442 discloses a plurality of channels embedded in a wall.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J HOFFBERG whose telephone number is (571) 272-2761. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
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 Gandhi can be reached on (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.
RJH 3/13/2026
/ROBERT J HOFFBERG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835