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The objection to the specification has been withdrawn in view of the amendment thereto.
Drawings
The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn in view of the cancellation of claim 33.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 6/25/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 11,917,796 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 112 rejection to claim 33 has been withdrawn in view of the cancellation thereof.
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, 22-24, 26-28, 31, 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (JP 2000277669 – hereinafter, “Kawamura”) in view of Tufty et al. (US 2019/0090383 – hereinafter, “Tufty”)
With respect to claim 18, Kawamura teaches (In Fig 1) a module for housing electronic devices and a liquid coolant, the module comprising: a housing (7) defining a sealable chassis for containing the electronic devices (1) and the liquid coolant (4), the sealable chassis having a base (Bottom horizontal member of 7); a substrate (2), one of the electronic devices (1) being mounted on an underside of the substrate (2, see Fig 1); and a heat sink device (5), arranged to receive the liquid coolant and accumulate the liquid coolant therein so that the liquid coolant in the heat sink device is higher than a level of liquid coolant in the base (See Fig 1), the heat sink device being mounted such that the one of the electronic devices (1) or a component that is thermally conductively coupled to the one of the electronic devices is in contact with the liquid coolant (See Fig 1, “an insulating liquid supplied from a pump device 8, is ejected from the nozzle 3. It is sprayed on the semiconductor device 1”).
Kawamura fails to specifically teach or suggest that the substrate is in the sealable chassis.
Tufty, however, 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), a substrate (84) in the sealable chassis.
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 Tufty with that of Kawamura such that the substrate of Kawamura is within the sealable chassis, as taught by Tufty, since doing so would provide a measure of mechanical protection to the substrate of Kawamura.
With respect to claim 22, Kawamura further teaches that the heat sink device (5) further comprises a receptacle part (Portion defined by the horizontal and vertical walls of 5) defining an internal volume, wherein the receptacle part is wider than a width of the one of the electronic devices (See Fig 1, the electronic device (1) fits within the receptacle part) 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).
With respect to claim 23, Kawamura further teaches wherein the heat sink device (5) further comprises a receptacle part defining an internal volume (Volume which accommodates the coolant 4, see Fig 1), wherein the receptacle part comprises a liquid inlet (Opening in 5 which accepts 3) for receiving the liquid coolant into the internal volume of the heat sink device and wherein the liquid inlet is located on a portion of the receptacle part distal the one of the electronic devices (See Fig 1, the inlet is opposite the device (1)).
With respect to claim 24, Kawamura further teaches that the liquid inlet is located in a central portion of a surface area of the receptacle part (See Fig 1).
With respect to claim 26, Kawamura further teaches wherein the heat sink device further comprises a receptacle part (Portion defined by the horizontal and vertical walls of 5) defining an internal volume, wherein the receptacle part 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, Kawamura further teaches arranged for the liquid coolant to flow in operation, such that the liquid coolant in the base is directed towards a receptacle part (5) of the heat sink device (See Fig 1, coolant 4 flows up toward the receptacle part).
With respect to claim 28, Kawamura further teaches a pump (8), configured to cause the liquid coolant to flow.
With respect to claim 31, Kawamura further teaches that the heat sink device is configured such that the liquid coolant (4) flows out the receptacle part (5, see Fig 1).
With respect to claim 35, modified Kawamura further teaches that the substrate in the sealable chassis is approximately parallel to the base (When the substate of Kawamura is modified to be within the chassis, as taught by Tufty, the substrate would be approximately parallel to the base, as claimed, since both Kawamura and Tufty teach substrates which are approximately parallel to the base).
With respect to claim 36, Kawamura further teaches a receptacle part (Portion defined by the horizontal and vertical walls of 5) defining an internal volume (See Fig 1).
Claims 19-21, 32, 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura in view of Tufty and further in view of Flotta et al. (US 8,944,151 – hereinafter, “Flotta”).
With respect to claims 19-21, Kawamura as modified by Tufty teaches the limitations therein as per the above rejection to claim 18 but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein 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 an internal volume of the heat sink device, wherein the conduction part comprises projections extending into the internal volume of the heat sink device, 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.
Flotta, however, teaches a 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 Kawamura, 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 32, Kawamura as modified by Tufty teaches the limitations of claim 18 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein 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 the level of liquid coolant in the base.
Flotta, however, 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 modified Kawamura, such that additional components are mounted on the base (74) of Kawamura, 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 Kawamura thus increasing its IT capabilities.
With respect to claim 37, Kawamura as modified by Tufty teaches the limitations of claim 36 as per above and Kawamura further teaches that the electronic device (1) is in contact with the liquid coolant (4, see Fig 1) but fails to specifically teach or suggest that the electronic device is at least partially within the internal volume.
Flotta, however, teaches (In Fig 3) an electronic device (302) that is at least partially within an internal volume of a heat sink (316).
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 Kawamura such that the electronic device of Kawamura is at least partially within the internal volume of the heat sink device, as taught by Flotta, since doing so would provide a measure of mechanical protection to the electronic device.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura in view of Tufty and further in view of Attlesey (US 7,911,793).
With respect to claim 25, Kawamura as modified by Tufty 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 Kawamura as modified by Tufty, 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 Kawamura in view of Tufty and further in view of Campbell et al. (US 2010/0103620 – hereinafter, “Campbell”).
With respect to claims 29-30, Kawamura as modified by Tufty 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 Kawamura as modified by Tufty 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 Kawamura in view of Tufty and further in view of Smith (US 2018/0343774).
With respect to claim 34, Kawamura as modified by Tufty 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 modified Kawamura, 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.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s remarks to claim 18 that, “Accordingly, the combination of Tufty, Kawamura, and Flotta fails to teach or suggest a heat sink device configured so that liquid coolant accumulates therein at a level higher than the level of liquid coolant in the base of the housing, as now required by claim 18. Therefore, claim 18 and its dependent claims thereof are both novel and nonobvious over the prior art.” (Present remarks page 8) the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As per the above new grounds rejection to claim 18, Kawamura is believed to teach many of the limitations of claim 18, including the newly recited limitations which require that the liquid coolant in the heat sink device is higher than a level of liquid coolant in the base. Indeed, Kawamura shows (In Fig 1) accumulated coolant (4) in the heat sink device (5) which is above a level of liquid coolant (4) in the base. In support of Fig 1, Kawamura recites, “That is, the heat generated in the semiconductor device 1 is transmitted to the coolant 4, which overflows from the periphery of the reservoir 5 and also drops from the drip hole 6. The heat [sic] collected at the lower part of the liquid reservoir (second liquid reservoir) 7 is guided to the heat exchanger 11, and the heat transmitted to the coolant 4 is removed by the heat exchanger 11 to the outside.” (emphasis added, where “heat” is believed to refer to “coolant” given the context of the passage). Accordingly, Kawamura is believed to teach, both in the figures and in the written description, that the level of coolant in the heat sink device is higher than a level of liquid coolant in the base, as claimed. And while Kawamura shows the substrate (1) as being outside the housing, this is easily remedied by Tufty which teaches a substrate that resides within a housing.
Accordingly, claim 1 is believed to be prima facie obvious in view of Kawamura and Tufty.
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 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 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 2841
1 In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)
Prosecution Insights