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 .
Email Communication
Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502, 502.05.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 2/21/2024, 7/30/2025 have been fully considered and are attached hereto.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The written description does not contain a statement regarding cross-references to related applications. See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
level of liquid coolant in the base is greater than or equal to a level of liquid coolant within the internal volume of the heat sink device, as in claim 33
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 18-32, 34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,917,796. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With respect to claims 18-32, claim 1-15, respectively, of the ‘796 reference recites the limitations therein verbatim.
With respect to claim 34, claim 16 of the ‘796 reference recites the limitations therein verbatim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 33 recites, “wherein a level of liquid coolant in the base is greater than or equal to a level of liquid coolant within the internal volume of the heat sink device” which does not appear to be supported by the originally filed written description and drawings. While there are multiple instances in the written description which state that the level of liquid coolant in the receptacle part is higher than the level of liquid coolant in the base, nowhere can the Examiner find an instance where the written description supports a level of liquid coolant in the base being greater than or equal to a level of liquid coolant within the internal volume of the heat sink device, as claimed.
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 18-24, 26-28, 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tufty et al. (US 2019/0090383 – hereinafter, “Tufty”) in view of Kawamura et al. (JP 2000277669 – hereinafter, “Kawamura”) and further in view of Flotta et al. (US 8,944,151 – hereinafter, “Flotta”).
With respect to claim 18, Tufty teaches (In Fig 2) a module (70) for housing electronic devices (86) and a liquid coolant (¶ 0058), the module comprising: a housing (70) defining a sealable chassis (¶ 0056) for containing the electronic devices and the liquid coolant (See Fig 2), the sealable chassis having a base (74); a substrate (84) in the sealable chassis approximately parallel to the base (See Fig 2), one of the electronic devices (86) being mounted on an underside of the substrate proximal the base (See Fig 2, 86 is mounted on the bottom of the substrate proximal the base 74); and a heat sink device (dispersion plenum housing, ¶ 0062).
Tufty fails to specifically teach or suggest a heat sink device, comprising a receptacle part defining an internal volume that is arranged to receive the liquid coolant and accumulate the liquid coolant therein, the heat sink device being mounted such that the one of the electronic devices or a component that is thermally conductively coupled to the one of the electronic devices is at least partially within the internal volume so as to be in contact with the liquid coolant.
Kawamura, however, teaches (In Fig 1) a heat sink device (5), comprising a receptacle part (5) defining an internal volume (Volume formed by 5) that is arranged to receive a liquid coolant and accumulate the liquid coolant therein (See Fig 1).
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 Kawamura with that of Tufty such that the heat sink device of Tufty comprises a receptacle part defining an internal volume that is arranged to receive a liquid coolant and accumulate the liquid coolant therein, as taught by Kawamura, since doing so would allow for the electronic device of Tufty to be immersed in a fluid contained by the heat sink device.
Regarding the limitations, the heat sink device being mounted such that the one of the electronic devices or a component that is thermally conductively coupled to the one of the electronic devices is at least partially within the internal volume so as to be in contact with the liquid coolant, Flotta teaches (In Fig 4) a heat sink device being mounted such that the one of the electronic devices (402) or a component (420, 422) that is thermally conductively coupled to the one of the electronic devices is at least partially within an internal volume (See Fig A below) so as to be in contact with a liquid coolant.
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 Flotta with that of modified Tufty such that, in modified Tufty the heat sink device being mounted such that the one of the electronic devices or a component that is thermally conductively coupled to the one of the electronic devices is at least partially within the internal volume so as to be in contact with the liquid coolant, as taught by Flotta, since doing so would provide for an efficient and low risk way to remove heat directly from the electronic device (Flotta, Col. 1, ll. 26-28).
PNG
media_image1.png
432
1021
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 19-21, Tufty as modified by Kawamura and Flotta teaches the limitations therein as per the above rejection to claim 18 and Flotta further teaches wherein the heat sink device further comprises a conduction part (420, 422), mounted on the one of the electronic devices (402) so as to receive heat from the one of the electronic devices by conduction and wherein the conduction part is at least partially within the internal volume of the heat sink device (See Fig 4)(cl. 19), wherein the conduction part comprises projections (422) extending into the internal volume of the heat sink device (See Fig 4)(cl. 20), wherein the projections extend from the conduction part to a surface of the internal volume of the heat sink device that is distal the one of the electronic devices (402, see Fig 4)(cl. 21).
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 Flotta with that of modified Tufty, such that the heat sink device further comprises a conduction part, mounted on the one of the electronic devices so as to receive heat from the one of the electronic devices by conduction and wherein the conduction part is at least partially within the internal volume of the heat sink device (cl. 19), wherein the conduction part comprises projections extending into the internal volume of the heat sink device (cl. 20), wherein the projections extend from the conduction part to a surface of internal volume of the heat sink device that is distal the one of the electronic devices (cl. 21), as taught by Flotta, since doing so would provide for an efficient and low risk way to remove heat directly from the electronic device (Flotta, Col. 1, ll. 26-28).
With respect to claim 22, Tufty as modified by Kawamura and Flotta teaches the limitations of claim 18 as per above and Flotta further teaches that the receptacle part is wider than a width of the one of the electronic devices and/or component that is thermally conductively coupled to the one of the electronic devices (See Fig 4, the vertical portions of the heat sink device extend on opposite sides of the device and component).
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 Flotta with that of Tufty, such that the receptacle part is wider than a width of the one of the electronic devices and/or component that is thermally conductively coupled to the one of the electronic devices, as taught by Flotta, since doing so would ensure that the entire device receives liquid coolant.
With respect to claims 23-24, Tufty as modified by Kawamura and Flotta teaches the limitations of claim 18 as per above and Kawamura further teaches the receptacle part (5) comprises a liquid inlet (Inlet where 3 passes through) for receiving the liquid coolant into the internal volume and wherein the liquid inlet is located on a portion of the receptacle part distal the one of the electronic devices (1, see Fig 1)(cl. 23), wherein the liquid inlet is located in a central portion of the receptacle part (See Fig 1)(cl. 24).
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 Kawamura with that of Tufty, such that the receptacle part comprises a liquid inlet for receiving the liquid coolant into the internal volume and wherein the liquid inlet is located on a central portion of the receptacle part distal the one of the electronic devices, as taught by Kawamura, since doing so would allow for liquid to be received into the heat sink device and then, after being conditioned, expelled onto the electronic device.
With respect to claim 26, Tufty as modified by Kawamura and Flotta teaches the limitations of claim 18 and Kawamura further teaches the receptacle part (5) comprises a liquid inlet (Inlet where 3 extends through 5) for receiving the liquid coolant into the internal volume of the heat sink device, the module further comprising one or both of: a nozzle arrangement, arranged to direct the liquid coolant into the liquid inlet; and a pipe (3), arranged to direct the liquid coolant to the liquid inlet (See Fig 1).
With respect to claim 27, Tufty as modified by Kawamura and Flotta teaches the limitations of claim 18 as per above and Tufty further teaches an arrangement for the liquid coolant to flow in operation, such that the liquid coolant in the base (72) is directed towards the receptacle part (Liquid coolant from the housing flows into the return manifold (20) where it is cooled and recycled back to manifold 94 and into tube 100 which supplies the heat sink device/receptacle part. See ¶0041, 0062).
With respect to claim 28, Tufty further teaches a pump (22), configured to cause the liquid coolant to flow.
With respect to claim 31, Tufty as modified by Kawamura and Flotta teaches the limitations of claim 18 as per above and Flotta further teaches that the heat sink device is configured such that the liquid coolant flows out the receptacle part (“The substantially conical shape of the outlet 418 acts as a nozzle that allows the expanded, partly warmed exiting fluid to be ducted and directed over other components or low-grade heat sources in the blade (e.g., components 426 and 428 on the printed circuit board 424), providing additional cooling to these components. These other components also generate heat, but do not require as high a degree of cooling as the heat-generating device 402.”, Col. 6, l. 62 – Col. 7, l. 3).
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 Flotta with that of Tufty, such that the heat sink device is configured such that the liquid coolant flows out the receptacle part and is directed to the base of the sealable internal volume, as taught by Flotta, since doing so would allow for additional cooling of downstream components (Tufty, Col. 6, l. 62- Col. 7, l. 3).
With respect to claim 32, Tufty as modified by Kawamura and Flotta teaches the limitations of claim 18 as per above and Flotta further teaches at least one further electronic device (426) is mounted closer to a base (424) than one of the electronic devices (402) mounted on a substrate (404) on the base, the at least one further electronic device being at least partially immersed by a level of liquid coolant in the base (See Fig 4).
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 Flotta with that of Tufty, such that additional components are mounted on the base (74) of Tufty, and thus at least one further electronic device is mounted closer to the base than the one of the electronic devices mounted on a side of the substrate proximal the base, the at least one further electronic device being at least partially immersed by a level of liquid coolant in the base, as claimed, since doing so would allow for additional components to be mounted within the housing of Tufty thus increasing its IT capabilities. See Fig B below for how Tufty is modified in view of Fig 4 of Flotta.
PNG
media_image2.png
405
790
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 33, Tufty as modified by Kawamura and Flotta teaches the limitations of claim 18 as per above and Tufty further teaches wherein a level (88) of liquid coolant in the base (70) is greater than or equal to a level of liquid coolant within the internal volume of the heat sink device (dispersion plenum housing, ¶ 0062, see Fig 2 where the liquid level in the base is shown to above any dispersion plenum housing on 86 and thus the level of coolant in the base would be greater than a level of liquid coolant within the dispersion plenum housing).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tufty in view of Kawamura in view of Flotta and further in view of Attlesey (US 7,911,793).
With respect to claim 25, Tufty as modified by Kawamura and Flotta teaches the limitations of claim 23 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein the liquid inlet is located on a side of the receptacle part.
Attlesey, however, teaches (In Fig 19) a heat sink device which comprises a liquid inlet (714) located at a side of a receptacle part (700).
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 Attlesey with that of Tufty as modified by Kawamura and Flotta, such that the liquid inlet is located on a side of the receptacle part, as taught by Attlesey, since doing so would allow for any supply hose or conduit to run parallel to the substrate and attach to the heat sink device without having a curve or turn which would reduce the likelihood that a kink or rupture develops in the hose or conduit.
Further it has been held that mere rearrangement of parts is obvious1.
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tufty in view of Kawamura in view of Flotta and further in view of Campbell et al. (US 2010/0103620 – hereinafter, “Campbell”).
With respect to claims 29-30, Tufty as modified by Kawamura and Flotta teaches the limitations of claim 18 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein the heat sink device further comprises a fixing for mounting the receptacle part of the heat sink device to one or more of: the substrate; the one of the electronic devices; and the component that is thermally conductively coupled to the one of the electronic devices (cl. 29), wherein the fixing comprises a clip, arranged to hold the receptacle part of the heat sink device on the substrate or the component that is thermally conductively coupled to the one of the electronic devices (cl. 30).
Campbell, however, teaches (In Fig 4A) a heat sink device (300 + 314) which comprises a fixing (314) for mounting a receptacle part (300) of the heat sink device to one or more of: a substrate (406); an electronic device; and a component that is thermally conductively coupled to the electronic device (cl. 29), wherein the fixing comprises a clip (315), arranged to hold the receptacle part (300) of the heat sink device on the substrate (406) or the component that is thermally conductively coupled to the one of the electronic devices (cl. 30) (See Fig 4A, see also ¶ 0035, 0037, “In the embodiment of FIGS. 3, 4A and 4B, the chips will be attached to a substrate (404 in FIG. 4A) to which the open flow cold plate 300 will also be secured. In a preferred embodiment the cold plate 300 will be secured to the substrate via mechanical means as known to those skilled in the art but other means can be used in alternate embodiments. For example, in a preferred embodiment, a mechanical clamp 315 including tie down bar(s) 314 can be provided for securing the cold plate further to one or more surfaces of the substrate.”, “. As shown in the figure, in one embodiment of the present invention, the mechanical clamp 315 can be used to connect and secure the cold plate to the substrate. The clamp, in one embodiment, comprises tie down bars 314 as shown.”).
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 Campbell with that of Tufty as modified by Kawamura and Flotta, such that the heat sink device further comprises a fixing for mounting the receptacle part of the heat sink device to one or more of: the substrate; the one of the electronic devices; and the component that is thermally conductively coupled to the one of the electronic devices, wherein the fixing comprises a clip, arranged to hold the receptacle part of the heat sink device on the substrate or the component that is thermally conductively coupled to the one of the electronic devices, as taught by Campbell, since doing so would allow for the heat sink device to be selectively secured to the substrate.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tufty in view of Kawamura in view of Flotta and further in view of Smith (US 2018/0343774).
With respect to claim 34, Tufty as modified by Kawamura and Flotta teaches the limitations of claim 18 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest a heat exchanger, arranged in the module to receive the liquid coolant and to transfer heat from the liquid coolant to a secondary coolant.
Smith, however, teaches (In Fig 9) a module (901) which has components (104) immersed in a fluid (106) and a heat exchanger (935), arranged in the module to receive the liquid coolant and to transfer heat from the liquid coolant to a secondary coolant (120).
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 Smith with that of Tufty, such that a heat exchanger is arranged in the module to receive the liquid coolant and to transfer heat from the liquid coolant to a secondary coolant, as taught by Smith, since doing so would reduce the amount of heat within the module thus extending the life of the components and reducing the chances that the components overheat and break down.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Annex to the communication for EP 20812404 dated 3/14/2025.
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 In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)