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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Chen and Zhou were disclosed in the IDS filed on 3/10/2025.
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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation 50mm to 100mm, and the claim also recites “about” 50mm-“about” 100mm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 16 recites the broad recitation 0.15mm-0.3mm, and the claim also recites “about” 0.15mm – “about” 0.3mm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 12-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (TW M524617 U) in view of Zhou (CN 109285816 A).
In regards to Claim 1, Chen discloses a computing system comprising: a system chassis (Fig.1-2, #5) configured to perform as a heatsink (Fig.2, #521 are fins for radiating heat); a printed circuit board (PCB) (Fig.2, #11) enclosed within the system chassis (Fig.1-2); a central processing unit (CPU) (Fig.2, #12) mounted on the PCB within the system chassis (Fig.2); heater (Fig.2, #3) enclosed within the system chassis (Fig.1-2, #3 is enclosed with #5), the film heater being configured to generate heat for maintaining the CPU within an operable temperature range (Fig.2, #3 and “the heat generated by the heating device 3 is conducted to the heating auxiliary device 2, and then the heating auxiliary device 2 is used to conduct the heat uniformly. To the wafer unit 12, to heat the wafer 121 of the wafer unit 12, and to operate normally when the wafer 121 is heated to an allowable operating temperature range (such as99 0 ° C ~ +75 ° C)”); and a heat spreader (Fig.2, #2) mounted between the CPU and the film heater (Fig.2, #2 is placed between #12 and #3), the heat spreader being configured to conduct the heat from the film heater to the CPU (Fig.2, #2, “the heat generated by the heating device 3 is conducted to the heating auxiliary device 2, and then the heating auxiliary device 2 is used to conduct the heat uniformly. To the wafer unit 12, to heat the wafer 121 of the wafer unit 12”).
Chen fails to disclose: A film heater.
However, Zhou discloses: A film heater (Abstract and Figure 3, #3, as such the office notes that with the combination of Chen in view of Zhou, the heater used to warm the CPU in cold conditions (as taught by Chen) would be modified to be a film heater (as taught by Zhou) to warm the CPU in an cold environment).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the heater used to warm the CPU in cold conditions (as taught by Chen) to be replaced by a film heater (as taught by Zhou) to maintain the CPU within an operable temperature range. By utilizing a film heater allows for design flexibilities, precision heat conduction in conjunction with a heat spreader, and better thermal isolation which leaves the surrounding PCB unaffected by heat.
In regards to Claim 2, Chen in view of Zhou disclose the computing system of claim 1, further comprising a thermal pad (Chen, Fig.5, #41 is interpreted as the thermal pad) mounted in direct contact between the heat spreader and the system chassis (Chen, Fig.2, #41 is mounted in direct contact with #2 and #52, see figure 4).
In regards to Claim 3, Chen in view of Zhou disclose the computing system of claim 1, wherein an area of the heat spreader is greater than an area of the CPU (Chen, Fig.2, #2 has greater area than #12).
In regards to Claim 4, Chen in view of Zhou disclose the computing system of claim 1, wherein: the heat spreader has a shape of a rectangle (Chen, Fig.2, #2 has a shape of a rectangle).
Chen in view of Zhou fail to disclose: a length of the heat spreader is 50 millimeters (mm)-100 mm or about 50 mm-about 100 mm; a width of the heat spreader is 50 mm-100 mm or about 50 mm-about 100 mm; and
However, MPEP 2144.04 (IV) A notes that a mere change in size/proportion from the prior art teachings is considered obvious as being well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art, as there is no criticality established within the specification. Thus, wherein the a length of the heat spreader is 50 millimeters (mm)-100 mm or about 50 mm-about 100 mm; a width of the heat spreader is 50 mm-100 mm or about 50 mm-about 100 mm, is simply a mere change in the size of the heat spreader to have a length and width of about 50MM to 100mm is obvious as being well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04, citing, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)MPEP 2144.04 (IV) A Change in size/proportion).
In regards to Claim 5, Chen in view of Zhou disclose the computing system of claim 1, wherein the film heater is mounted on peripheral areas or near four side edges of the heat spreader (Chen, Fig.2, #3 is mounted near four side edges of the heat spreader #2).
In regards to Claim 6, Chen in view of Zhou disclose the computing system of claim 5, wherein the film heater surrounds an area of the heat spreader having a shape of a rectangle (Chen, Fig.2, #3 surrounds a portion of #2 shaped like a rectangle).
In regards to Claim 12, Chen in view of Zhou disclose the computing system of claim 1, wherein the film heater does not contact the system chassis, the CPU, and the PCB directly (Chen, Fig.2, #3 doesn’t directly touch the CPU #12 or #11 or #5).
In regards to Claim 13, Chen in view of Zhou disclose the computing system of claim 1, wherein a space is formed between the heat spreader and the PCB such that a PCB layout is not affected by the film heater (Chen, Fig.2, there is a space formed (see #231 creating space between #11 and #2) between #2 and #11 such that the PCB layout is not affected by #3).
In regards to Claim 15, Chen in view of Zhou disclose the computing system of claim 1, wherein the operable temperature range is above 0 °C prior to booting up of the computing system (Chen “To the wafer unit 12, to heat the wafer 121 of the wafer unit 12, and to operate normally when the wafer 121 is heated to an allowable operating temperature range (such as 0 ° C ~ +75 ° C”), even when an environmental temperature is below 0 °C, or when the environmental temperature is -10 °C, -20 °C, -30 °C, or -40 °C (Chen, Fig.2, and “However, today's computer equipment is used in industries where demand for wide temperature and harsh environments, and the operating temperature range is between -40 ° C and +80 ° C, but because the wafer unit on a typical circuit board can operate normally at a temperature of about 0°C~+75°C, so in a cold outdoor environment with a temperature below 0°C, if the computer equipment is to operate normally, the computer equipment must be maintained within a certain normal operating temperature range. When the temperature is lower than 0 ° C, the heating device is activated to heat the wafer unit to raise the temperature of the wafer unit to a temperature at which normal operation can be performed”).
In regards to Claim 16, Chen in view of Zhou disclose the computing system of claim 1.
Chen in view of Zhou fail to disclose: Wherein a thickness of the film heater is in a range of 0.15 mm - 0.3 mm or about 0.15 mm – about 0.3 mm, and a thickness of the heat spreader is in a range of 0.6 mm to 2.0 mm or about 0.6 mm to about 2.0 mm.
However, MPEP 2144.04 (IV) A notes that a mere change in size/proportion from the prior art teachings is considered obvious as being well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art, as there is no criticality established within the specification. Thus, wherein the thickness of the film heater is in a range of 0.15 mm - 0.3 mm or about 0.15 mm – about 0.3 mm, and a thickness of the heat spreader is in a range of 0.6 mm to 2.0 mm or about 0.6 mm to about 2.0 mm, is simply a mere change in the thickness of the heat spreader and film heater to have a thickness of about 0.15 MM to 0.3 mm and about 0.6mm to 2.0 MM respectfully is obvious as being well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04, citing, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)MPEP 2144.04 (IV) A Change in size/proportion).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (TW M524617 U) in view of Zhou (CN 109285816 A) and, further, in view of Bayles (U.S 2018/0261804 A1).
In regards to Claim 14, Chen in view of Zhou disclose the computing system of claim 1.
Chen in view of Zhou fail to explicitly disclose: Heat spreader is made of aluminum or copper.
However, Bayles discloses: Heat spreader is made of aluminum or copper (Paragraph [0068], #134 can be made of copper or aluminum, as such the office notes that with the combination of Chen in view of Zhou and Bayles, the heat spreader used to transfer heat from a film heater (as taught by Chen) would be modified to be made of aluminum (as taught by Bayles) to efficiently conduct heat from the filter to the CPU).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the heat spreader used to transfer heat from a film heater (as taught by Chen) would be modified to be made of aluminum (as taught by Bayles) to efficiently conduct heat from the filter to the CPU. By utilizing aluminum as the material, would help reduce weight of the overall computing device while also providing high thermal conductivity for heat transfer.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (TW M524617 U) in view of Zhou (CN 109285816 A) and, further, in view of Li (U.S 6,888,238).
In regards to Claim 17, Chen in view of Zhou disclose the computing system of claim 1.
Chen in view of Zhou fail to explicitly disclose: Wherein a thermal grease is used as an interface between the heat spreader and the CPU.
However, Li discloses: Wherein a thermal grease is used as an interface between the heat spreader and the CPU (Fig.5, #570 (thermal grease) is used between heat spreader #550 and CPU #510, as such the office notes that with the combination of Chen in view of Zhou and Li, the heat spreader mounted on top of the CPU (as taught by Chen) would be modified to include a thermal grease (as taught by Li) disposed between the CPU and heat spreader).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the heat spreader mounted on top of the CPU (as taught by Chen) would be modified to include a thermal grease (as taught by Li) disposed between the CPU and heat spreader. By utilizing a thermal grease between the heat spreader and CPU, would reduce thermal resistance by filling any gaps, thus resulting in better heat dissipation/transfer.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (TW M524617 U) in view of Bayles (U.S 2018/0261804 A1) and further, in view of Zhou (CN 109285816 A).
In regards to Claim 18, Chen discloses a heating module (Fig.2, #3) configured to heat a central processing unit (CPU) (Fig.2, #12), the heating module comprising: a heater configured to generate heat (Fig.2, #3 generates heat to warm CPU #12); and a heat spreader (Fig.2, #2) the heat spreader being configured to conduct the heat from the film heater to the CPU (Fig.2, #3 conduct heats through #2 to #12 for warming), wherein the film heater is mounted on the heat spreader (Fig.2, #3 is mounted on #2), wherein the heating module is configured to be mounted on the CPU (Fig.2-4, #3 is mounted on the CPU #12), and wherein an area of the heat spreader is greater than an area of the CPU (Fig.2, #2 has a greater area than #12).
Chen fails to disclose: A film heater.
However, Zhou discloses: A film heater (Abstract and Figure 3, #3, as such the office notes that with the combination of Chen in view of Zhou, the heater used to warm the CPU in cold conditions (as taught by Chen) would be modified to be a film heater (as taught by Zhou) to warm the CPU in an cold environment).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the heater used to warm the CPU in cold conditions (as taught by Chen) to be replaced by a film heater (as taught by Zhou) to maintain the CPU within an operable temperature range. By utilizing a film heater allows for design flexibilities, precision heat conduction in conjunction with a heat spreader, and better thermal isolation which leaves the surrounding PCB unaffected by heat.
Furthermore, Chen in view of Zhou fail to explicitly disclose: Heat spreader is made of aluminum or copper.
However, Bayles discloses: Heat spreader is made of aluminum or copper (Paragraph [0068], #134 can be made of copper or aluminum, as such the office notes that with the combination of Chen in view of Zhou and Bayles, the heat spreader used to transfer heat from a film heater (as taught by Chen) would be modified to be made of aluminum (as taught by Bayles) to efficiently conduct heat from the filter to the CPU).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the heat spreader used to transfer heat from a film heater (as taught by Chen) would be modified to be made of aluminum (as taught by Bayles) to efficiently conduct heat from the filter to the CPU. By utilizing aluminum as the material, would help reduce weight of the overall computing device while also providing high thermal conductivity for heat transfer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to Claim 7, no prior art fairly suggests or discloses “further comprising a thermal pad mounted on the area of the heat spreader such that the thermal pad is surrounded by the film heater”, in conjunction with claims 6 and 5.
Dependent claims 8-11 are allowably by virtue of their dependency from claim 7.
In regards to Claim 19, no prior art fairly suggests or discloses “a thermal pad placed on the heat spreader, the thermal pad being surrounded by the film heater”, conjunction with the remaining elements.
Dependent claim 20 is allowably by virtue of its dependency from claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Leech (U.S 8,812,169) – Discloses a computing system comprising a chassis, PCB having a CPU mounted on said CPU and a thermal pad between the CPU and a heatsink for conducting heat outwards.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDEEP S BUTTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4768. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-4:00PM.
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 5712723740. 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.
/MANDEEP S BUTTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835