Email Communication
Internet communication authorization acknowledged and recorded.
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to Claim 12 has overcome each and every claim objection previously set forth in non-final office action dated 03/25/2026, therefore the objection has been withdrawn.
The Applicant originally submitted Claims 1-20 in the application. In the present response, the Applicant amended Claim 12. Accordingly, Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filled 06/02/2026, with respect to rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered however not persuasive.
Applicant argues that in rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, cited US 2022/0369505 to Mizuko in view of cited US 2007/0064397 to Chiba is not a proper combination but just a hindsight rejection which suffers from physical and structural incompatibilities.
In support of this argument, the Applicant reasons that Mizuko invention is directed to cooling system of a flat heat-generating chip that are permanently fixed on a circuit board, in contrast Chiba invention directed to cooling system of an optical transceiver module. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have no proper motivation or teaching that would guide them to abandon the original air-cooling design and instead introduce the complex and bulky liquid cooling circulation drive module CDU , fluid inlet channel, and fluid outlet channel disclosed in Mizuko. Therefore, the Examiner’s combination of these two references is improper and relies on impermissible hindsight bias derived directly from the Applicant’s own disclosure.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Chiba has been cited to teach or suggest that a transceiver module could be cooled by a cooling system.
Transceiver modules could be of pluggable design such as SFP, QSFP and OSFP, however there are many transceivers modules directly integrated permanently fixed onto a motherboard.
Applicant alleges that in rejection of Claim 1, Chiba’s structural body has been incorporated in Mizuko’s cooing device, however Chiba structural body is not incorporated into Mizuko’s cooling device, but reverse, transceiver module of Chiba has been incorporated into Mizuko’s cooling device.
Simply, heat-generating element 50 of Mizuko’s cooling device 100 is replaced by the optical transceiver 2 of Chiba’s device 1.
It has been held that; the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Accordingly, Examiner submits that following MP2111 guidelines, in a broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification, combination of Mizuko with Chiba is a proper combination, and a person having ordinary skill in the art would have proper motivation to cool a fixed optical transceiver with Mizuko’s cooling device.
Applicant further argues that in rejection of Claims 6 and 16, cited US 2012/0325447 to You does not disclose limitation of Claims 6 and 16 drawn to “the cooling fluid channel comprises a hollow flat tube, a plurality of parallel flow paths are disposed inside the flat tube”.
In support of this argument, the Applicant reasons that You’s element “720” and “726” are explicitly described as a “second cooling plate” and “channel” respectively which are structurally distinct from claimed “flat tube” and “a plurality of parallel flow paths disposed inside the hollow flat tube”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2111 states that during patent examination, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and an examiner must construe claims terms in the broadest reasonable manner during prosecution as is reasonably allowed in an effort to establish a clear record of what applicant intends to claim.
Lexicon, defines tube as “a hollow elongated cylinder”, “one to covey fluid”.
You’s Fig 7 illustrates a hollow elongated flat rectangular plate 720 with several cylindrical parallel flow path channels 726 within the cavity of plate 720, teaching or suggesting a flat hollow tube with plurality of parallel flow path disposed inside the flat hollow tube.
Accordingly, Examiner submits following MPEP 2111 guidelines, in a broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification You’s Fig 7 teaches or suggests “a hollow flat tube, a plurality of parallel flow paths are disposed inside the flat tube” of Claims 6 and 16..
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 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, 10, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuko (US 2022/0369505) in view of Chiba et al (US 2007/0064397).
Regarding Claim 1, Mizuko (In Figs 1-2) disclose a cooling system (100), used for cooling at least one transceiver module (50), the system (110) comprising:
a heat sink fin (2);
a cooling fluid channel (1A), arranged between the heat sink fin (2) and the at least one transceiver module (50), (Fig 1); and
a cooling fluid drive module (3), connected to the cooling fluid channel (1A), (Fig 1);
wherein the cooling fluid drive module (3) comprises a fluid circulation drive member (CDU, ¶ 59, II. 1-5), a fluid inlet channel (3A), and a fluid outlet channel (3B); an end of the fluid inlet channel (3a) and an end of the fluid outlet channel (3B) are respectively connected to two ends of the cooling fluid channel (1A), and an another end of the fluid inlet channel (1A) and an another end of the fluid outlet channel (3B) are connected to the fluid circulation drive member (CDU, ¶ 59, II. 1-5), (Fig 1), however Mizuko does not disclose a cooling system, used for cooling at least one transceiver module.
Instead, Chiba (In Fig 1) teaches a cooling system (11/12/21/22), used for cooling at least one transceiver module (2), (Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuko with Chiba with a cooling system used for cooling at least one transceiver module to benefit from reducing the temperature by external air cooling to ensure stable operation of the device (Chiba, ¶ 5, II. 9-11).
Regarding Claim 10, Mizuko (In Figs 1-2) disclose a communication apparatus (100), comprising:
a circuit board (30), comprising at least one transceiver module (50); and
a cooling system (110), comprising:
a heat sink fin (2);
a cooling fluid channel (1A), arranged between the heat sink fin (2) and the at least one transceiver module (50); and
a cooling fluid drive module (3), connected to the cooling fluid channel (1A); wherein the cooling fluid drive module (3) comprises a fluid circulation drive member (CDU, ¶ 59, II. 1-5), a fluid inlet channel (3A), and a fluid outlet channel (3B); an end of the fluid inlet channel (3A) and an end of the fluid outlet channel (3B) are respectively connected to two ends of the cooling fluid channel (1A), and an another end of the fluid inlet channel (3A) and an another end of the fluid outlet channel (3B) are connected to the fluid circulation drive member (CDU, ¶ 59, II. 1-5), (Fig 1) however Mizuko does not disclose a cooling system, used for cooling at least one transceiver module.
Instead, Chiba (In Fig 1) teaches a cooling system (11/12/21/22), used for cooling at least one transceiver module (2), (Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuko with Chiba with a cooling system used for cooling at least one transceiver module to benefit from reducing the temperature by external air cooling to ensure stable operation of the device (Chiba, ¶ 5, II. 9-11).
Regarding Claim 15, Mizuko in view of Chiba discloses the limitations of Claim 10, however Mizuko (In Figs 1-2) further discloses wherein the communication apparatus (100) further comprising a housing (housing of 10), (Fig 2) and at least one fan (14), wherein the cooling system (110), the circuit board (30), and the at least one fan (14) are disposed in the housing (housing of 10), (Fig 2), the cooling system (110) and the at least one fan (14) are separately disposed at two corresponding ends of the housing (housing of 10), (Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 18, Mizuko (In Figs 1-2) disclose a cooling system (100), used for cooling a plurality of transceiver modules (50) configured in multi-tiered arrangement (Fig 2), the system (100) comprising:
a plurality of heat sink fins (2);
a plurality of cooling fluid channels (1A); and
a cooling fluid drive module (3), connected to the plurality of cooling fluid channels (1A), (Fig 1);
wherein the plurality of cooling fluid channels (1A) are respectively arranged with the plurality of heat sink fins (2), (Fig 1), and one of the plurality of cooling fluid channels (1A) is sandwiched between one tier of the plurality of transceiver modules (50) and one of the plurality of heat sink fins (2), (Fig 1), however Mizuko does not disclose a cooling system, used for cooling a plurality of transceiver module.
Instead, Chiba (In Fig 1) teaches a cooling system (11/12/21/22), used for cooling a plurality of transceiver module (2), (Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuko with Chiba with a cooling system used for cooling a plurality of transceiver module to benefit from reducing the temperature by external air cooling to ensure stable operation of the device (Chiba, ¶ 5, II. 9-11).
Examiner Notes; it should be mentioned that, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See: St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bernis Co., 193: USPQ 8, see: MPEP 214404 section VI.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuko in view of Chiba and further in view of So et al (US 2006/0266501).
Regarding Claim 5, Mizuko in view of Chiba discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Mizuko as modified does not disclose wherein the heat sink fin is a wavy fin.
Instead, So (In Fig 3) teaches wherein the heat sink fin (56) is a wavy fin (56), (Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuko with Chiba and further with So with the heat sink fin being a wavy fin to benefit from maximizing fluid contact surface area such that heat energy could be transferred efficiently between any one of fluid conduit and each of the other fluid conduit (So, ¶ 8, II. 1-4).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuko in view of Chiba and further in view of You et al (US 2012/0325447).
Regarding Claim 6, Mizuko in view of Chiba discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Mizuko as modified does not disclose wherein the cooling fluid channel comprises a hollow flat tube, and a plurality of parallel flow paths are disposed inside the hollow flat tube.
Instead, You (In Fig 7) teaches wherein the cooling fluid channel (720) comprises a hollow flat tube (720), (Fig 7), and a plurality of parallel flow paths (726) are disposed inside the hollow flat tube (720), (Fig 7).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuko with Chiba and further with You with the cooling fluid channel comprising a hollow flat tube and a plurality of parallel flow paths being disposed inside the hollow flat tube to benefit from properly dissipating significant amount of heat which otherwise would cause damage or deterioration of the performance of the power system (You, ¶ 3, II. 6-11).
Regarding Claim 16, Mizuko in view of Chiba discloses the limitations of Claim 10, however Mizuko as modified does not disclose wherein the cooling fluid channel comprises a hollow flat tube, a plurality of parallel flow paths are disposed inside the flat tube, and the parallel flow paths extend along a side end surface of the circuit board.
Instead, You (In Fig 7) teaches wherein the cooling fluid channel (720) comprises a hollow flat tube (720), (Fig 7), a plurality of parallel flow paths (726) are disposed inside the flat tube (720), (Fig 7), and the parallel flow paths (720) extend along a side end surface of the circuit board (printed circuit board, ¶ 60 II. 8-10), (Fig 7).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuko with Chiba and further with You with the cooling fluid channel comprising a hollow flat tube and a plurality of parallel flow paths being disposed inside the flat tube and the parallel flow paths extending along a side end surface of the circuit board to benefit from properly dissipating significant amount of heat which otherwise would cause damage or deterioration of the performance of the power system (You, ¶ 3, II. 6-11).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuko in view of Chiba and further in view of Lunsman et al (US 2017/0135246).
Regarding Claim 7, Mizuko in view of Chiba discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Mizuko as modified does not disclose wherein a thermal interface material is disposed between the cooling fluid channel and the at least one transceiver module.
Instead, Lunsman (In Fig 4) teaches wherein a thermal interface material (450) is disposed between the cooling fluid channel (440) and the at least one transceiver module (410), (Fig 4).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuko with Chiba and further with Lunsman with a thermal interface material being disposed between the cooling fluid channel and transceiver module to benefit from transferring heat from electronic component through to the floating heat sink and to the liquid within the liquid cooling tubes through a soft thermal transfer pad (Lunsman, ¶ 7, II. 10-14).
Regarding Claim 17, Mizuko in view of Chiba discloses the limitations of Claim 10, however Mizuko as modified does not disclose wherein a thermal interface material is disposed between the cooling fluid channel and the at least one transceiver module.
Instead, Lunsman (In Fig 4) teaches wherein a thermal interface material (450) is disposed between the cooling fluid channel (440) and the at least one transceiver module (410), (Fig 4).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuko with Chiba and further with Lunsman with a thermal interface material being disposed between the cooling fluid channel and transceiver module to benefit from transferring heat from electronic component through to the floating heat sink and to the liquid within the liquid cooling tubes through a soft thermal transfer pad (Lunsman, ¶ 7, II. 10-14).
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuko in view of Chiba and further in view of Paul et al (2024/0064944).
Regarding Claim 8, Mizuko in view of Chiba discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Mizuko as modified does not disclose wherein the cooling system further comprising another cooling fluid channel, wherein the cooling fluid channel and the another cooling fluid channel are separately disposed on two surfaces of the at least one transceiver module; and the fluid inlet channel and the fluid outlet channel are respectively connected to two ends of the another cooling fluid channel.
Instead, where Chiba (In Fig 1) teaches the cooling system (11/12/21/22) for the transceiver module (2), (Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuko with Chiba with the cooling system for the transceiver module to benefit from reducing the temperature by external air cooling to ensure stable operation of the device (Chiba, ¶ 5, II. 9-11).
Instead, Paul (In Fig 1A-2) teaches wherein the cooling system (200) further comprising another cooling fluid channel (155-2), wherein the cooling fluid channel (155-1) and the another cooling fluid channel (155-2) are separately disposed on two surfaces of the at least one transceiver module (200A); and the fluid inlet channel (channels within 122) and the fluid outlet channel (channels 124) are respectively connected to two ends of the another cooling fluid channel (155-2), (Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuko with Chiba and further with Paul with the cooling system further comprising another cooling fluid channel and the cooling fluid channel and the another cooling fluid channel being separately disposed on two surfaces of transceiver module with the fluid inlet channel and the fluid outlet channel being respectively connected to two ends of the another cooling fluid channel to benefit from removing the heat generated in the power electronics module (Paul, ¶ 23, II. 8-11).
Regarding Claim 19, Mizuko in view of Chiba discloses the limitations of Claim 18, however Mizuko as modified does not disclose wherein the plurality of transceiver modules are configured in two tiers, and the plurality of cooling fluid channels are arranged in two corresponding surfaces of the plurality of transceiver modules.
Instead, where Chiba (In Fig 1) teaches the cooling system (11/12/21/22) for the transceiver module (2), (Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuko with Chiba with the cooling system for the transceiver module to benefit from reducing the temperature by external air cooling to ensure stable operation of the device (Chiba, ¶ 5, II. 9-11).
Instead, Paul (In Fig 1A-2) teaches wherein the plurality of transceiver modules (200A) are configured in two tiers (Fig 2), and the plurality of cooling fluid channels (155-1/155-2) are arranged in two corresponding surfaces of the plurality of transceiver modules (200A), (Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuko with Chiba and further with Paul with the plurality of transceiver modules being configured in two tiers and the plurality of cooling fluid channels being arranged in two corresponding surfaces of the plurality of transceiver modules to benefit from removing the heat generated in the power electronics module (Paul, ¶ 23, II. 8-11).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuko in view of Chiba and further in view of Paul and further in view of Wenke (US 4,958,257).
Regarding Claim 9, Mizuko in view of Chiba and further in view of Paul discloses the limitations of Claim 8, however Mizuko as modified does not disclose wherein the cooling system further comprising another heat sink fin, the heat sink fin and the another heat sink fin are wavy fins; wherein the another heat sink fin is disposed on the another cooling fluid channel.
Instead, Paul (In Figs 1A-2) further teaches wherein the cooling system (200) further comprising another heat sink fin (232), wherein the another heat sink fin (232) is disposed on the another cooling fluid channel (155-2), (Fig 2), however Mizuko as modified does not disclose wherein the heat sink fin and the another heat sink fin are wavy fins.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuko with Chiba and further with Paul with the cooling system further comprising another heat sink fin and the another heat sink fin being disposed on the another cooling fluid channel to benefit from removing the heat generated in the power electronics module (Paul, ¶ 23, II. 8-11), however Mizuko as modified does not disclose wherein the heat sink fin and the another heat sink fin are wavy fins.
Instead Wenke (In Fig 4) teaches the heat sink fin (74) and the another heat sink fin (74) are wavy fins (Fig 4).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuko with Chiba further with Paul and further with Wenke with the heat sink fin and the another heat sink fin being wavy fins to benefit from more efficient method of heat removal (Wenke, Col 1, II. 14-21).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 11 and 20 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to Claims 2, 11 and 20, the allowability resides in the overall structure of the device as recited in dependent Claims 2, 11 and 20, and at least in part because Claims 2, 11 and 20 recite, “a cooling fluid return channel; wherein the cooling fluid channel and the cooling fluid return channel are separately disposed on two surfaces of the heat sink fin, and the cooling fluid channel is connected to the fluid outlet channel through the cooling fluid return channel” in Claim 2, “a cooling fluid return channel, wherein the cooling fluid channel and the cooling fluid return channel are separately disposed on upper and lower sides of the heat sink fin and are connected to each other” in Claim 11, and “a plurality of cooling fluid return channels and a cooling fluid supply channel; wherein the plurality of cooling fluid channels and the plurality of cooling fluid return channels are separately disposed on two corresponding surfaces of the plurality of heat sink fins; two ends of each of the plurality of cooling fluid channels are separately connected to the cooling fluid drive module through the plurality of cooling fluid return channels and the cooling fluid supply channel” in Claim 20.
The aforementioned limitations in combination with all remaining limitations of Claims 2, 11 and 20 are believed to render said Claim 2, 11 and 20, and all Claims dependent therefrom (Claims 3-4 and 12-14) patentable over the art of record.
The closest art of record is believed to be that of Mizuko (US 2022/0369505 – hereafter “Mizuko”).
While Mizuko Figs 1-2 teach many of limitations of base Claims 1, 10 and 18 as per rejection of Claims 1, 10 and 18, however neither Mizuko nor any other art of record either alone or in a combination, teach or suggest above-mentioned limitations of Claims 2, 11 and 20.
Any comment considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submission should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR JALALI whose telephone number is (303)297-4308. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm, Mountain Time. 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMIR A JALALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights