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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 6/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from consideration at this time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Forostovsky (GB 2565850).
With respect to claim 1, Forostovsky teaches (In Figs 1, 3) a thermally conductive foam cooling system comprising: a foam block (21) having a surface with a contour that matches the contour of an electrical component (20); and a coolant pipe (24) immersed within the foam block (See Fig 3), wherein the coolant pipe is configured to pass a coolant fluid through the foam block, wherein the foam block is thermally conductive to convey heat from the electrical component to the coolant pipe (“Heat from the heat generating components is transferred away by transfer through the upper sheet 22 of 25 the lower panel 18 and into the thermal fluid circulating through the pipes 24.” where, in order for the heat to move from the component to the pipe, it must move through the foam meaning that the foam must be thermally conductive.).
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meijer et al. (US 8,659,897 – hereinafter, “Meijer”) in view of Hosseini et al. (US 2015/0077941 – hereinafter, “Hosseini”).
With respect to claim 1, Meijer teaches (In Figs 1, 4) a thermally conductive cooling system comprising: a block (52) having a surface with a contour (Relatively planar) that matches the contour of an electrical component (20, which is also relatively planar); and a coolant pipe (50) immersed within the block (See Figs 1, 4), wherein the coolant pipe is configured to pass a coolant fluid through the block (See Figs 1-2), wherein the block (52) is thermally conductive to convey heat from the electrical component to the coolant pipe (Col. 4, l. 53 – Col. 5, l. 23).
Franz fails to specifically teach or suggest that the block is made of foam.
Hosseini, however, teaches a heat spreader (370) which is made of foam (¶ 0066) and is used to spread heat from a component (510) to a heat sinking device (592).
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 Franz with that of Meijer, such that, in Meijer the conductive block is made of foam, as taught by Franz, since doing so would provide for a conductive block which is able to act as a mechanical cushion to effectively equilibrate and absorb contact pressure peaks (Hosseini: ¶ 0064).
With respect to claim 2, Franz further teaches that the electrical component (20) comprises a plurality of dual inline memory modules (DIMMs)(Col. 6, l. 60, “the DIMM 20”, see also Fig 4).
With respect to claim 3, Franz further teaches that the coolant pipe (50) has a cross-sectional shape sufficiently thin to fit between the DIMMs (See Fig 4).
With respect to claim 4, Franz further teaches wherein the coolant pipe comprises a plurality of coolant pipes (50) each configured to be placed between adjacent DIMMs (20, see Fig 2).
With respect to claim 5, even though the claims are limited and defined by the recited process, the determination of patentability of the product is based on the product itself, and does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process1. In the present case, claim 5 is obvious from a product of the prior art and is thus not patentable.
With respect to claim 6, Franz further teaches a casing frame (30 + 60) that provides a structure for the foam block (When Franz is modified such that 52 is made of foam as per the above rejection to claim 1, then as in Fig 4 of Franz, 30 + 60 combine to form a structure for foam block 52).
With respect to claim 7, Franz further teaches wherein the casing frame (30 + 60) is configured with a plurality of slots (30) into which the DIMMs (20) may be inserted (See Fig 4).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meijer in view of Hosseini and further in view of Pillai (US 2012/0033384).
With respect to claim 8, Meijer as modified by Hosseini teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest an elongated section of graphite tape that is wrapped around the foam block.
Pillai, however, teaches (In Fig 1) an elongated section of graphite tape (30 + 40) that is wrapped around a foam block (20, ¶ 0029, “Flexible material block 20 may be fabricated from any flexible material. In some embodiments, flexible material block 20 is fabricated from a foam or elastomer.”).
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 Pillai with that of modified Meijer such that, in modified Meijer an elongated section of graphite tape is wrapped around the foam block, as taught by Pillai, since doing so would ensure good thermal transfer from the electrical component to the foam block.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalouette (US 2005/0257949) in view of Forostovsky.
With respect to claim 9, Lalouette teaches (In Fig 6) a thermally conductive foam cooling system comprising: a foam block (660) having a surface with a contour that matches the contour of an electrical component (650, see Fig 6, 660 abuts 650); wherein the foam block (660) is thermally conductive to convey heat from the electrical component (650, ¶ 0051, “For example, the foam cushion portions 660 and 670 and foam corner cushions 680 may be formed from a thermally conductive visoelastic material.”), wherein the electronic component (650) comprises at least one of a PCIe card or a storage drive (¶ 0047, “the storage device 650”).
Lalouette fails to specifically teach or suggest a coolant pipe immersed within the foam block, wherein the coolant pipe is configured to pass a coolant fluid through the foam block and the foam block conveys heat to the coolant pipe.
Forostovsky, however, teaches a coolant pipe (24) immersed within a foam block (21), wherein the coolant pipe is configured to pass a coolant fluid through the foam block and the foam block conveys heat to the coolant pipe (“Heat from the heat generating components is transferred away by transfer through the upper sheet 22 of 25 the lower panel 18 and into the thermal fluid circulating through the pipes 24.” where, in order for the heat to move from the component to the pipe, it must move through the foam meaning that the foam must be thermally conductive.).
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 Forostovsky with that of Lalouette such that, in Lalouette a coolant pipe is immersed within the foam block, wherein the coolant pipe is configured to pass a coolant fluid through the foam block and the foam block conveys heat to the coolant pipe, as taught by Forostovsky, since doing so would increase cooling to the storage device which, in turn, would reduce the chances that the device breaks down due to thermal conditions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12,501,587 to Chen et al. which teaches an arrayed cold plate for DIMMs; and
US 2023/0254994 to Ghannam et al. which teaches an application interface for metal foam cooling of electronics.
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 Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Prosecution Insights