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 .
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.
Claims 1-11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second port of the other of the condenser blocks so fluidically couples". This limitation is unclear and confusing.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second end of the liquid-cooled cold plate that liquid-cooled cold plate extends". This limitation is unclear and confusing.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the first passive cold". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "first major surface major surface". This limitation is unclear and confusing.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the respective cold plate". This limitation is unclear and confusing because is not clear to which of the cold plates applicant is referring to.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the second liquid cooler". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12-13, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Re claim 12, Zakaib teaches a hybrid cooler, comprising:
a first condenser block (709) and a second condenser block (719);
a liquid-cooled cold plate (e.g. 702b) having opposed first and second external major surfaces (front and back side) and an internal passageway (e.g. Fig 4) to direct a flow of coolant through the liquid-cooled cold plate to cool the opposed first and second external major surfaces, the internal passageway being fluidically coupled with the first condenser block and the second condenser block (e.g. Fig 4 and 12);
a first passive cold plate (e.g. 702a) and a second passive cold plate (e.g. 702c), each of the first passive cold plate and the second passive cold plate extending from the first condenser block to the second condenser block (see Fig 12), each of the first passive cold plate and the second passive cold plate having a respective major surface positioned opposite the opposed first and second external major surfaces of the liquid-cooled cold plate (see Fig 12), wherein the liquid-cooled cold plate is positioned between the first passive cold plate and the second passive cold plate (see Fig 12).
Re claim 13, Zakaib teaches the hybrid cooler according to claim 12, wherein the first passive cold plate is so spaced apart from the liquid-cooled cold plate as to define a first gap therebetween, wherein the second passive cold plate is so spaced apart from the liquid-cooled cold plate as to define a second gap therebetween, wherein the first gap and the second gap are so sized as to receive a first multi-chip module (e.g. 803) and a second multi-chip module (e.g. 801), respectively (see Fig 15).
Re claim 18, Zakaib teaches the hybrid cooler according to claim 12, wherein the first condenser block comprises an inlet port (705) and the second condenser block comprises an outlet port (715).
Re claim 19, Zakaib teaches the hybrid cooler according to claim 18, wherein the inlet port is a first inlet port, the first condenser block further comprising a second inlet port (715).
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zakaib et al. (US 20220104395), hereinafter referred to as Zakaib, in view of Chialastri (US 20240256016), hereinafter referred to as Chialastri
Re claim 1, Zakaib teaches a liquid cooling system, comprising:
a pair of opposed condenser blocks (709 and 719), each condenser block defining an internal fluid passage (e.g. 701 and 703), the internal fluid passage having a first port (705 and 715)
a liquid-cooled cold plate (e.g. 702a) having a first end (e.g. 241a) and an opposed second end (e.g. 242a), opposed first and second major surfaces (front and back side), and an internal passageway (e.g. Fig 4) positioned between the opposed first and second major surfaces and extending from the first end to the opposed second end (e.g. Fig 4), wherein the first port of each condenser block is configured to fluidically couple with a coolant supply (130), and
a passive cold plate (e.g. 702b) having a first major surface (front side) positioned opposite and spaced apart from the first major surface of the liquid-cooled cold plate, defining a gap (e.g. Fig 12) therebetween sized to receive a multi-chip module (803) to be cooled by the liquid cooling system, the passive cold plate extending from a first end (241b) to an opposed second end (242b), wherein one of the opposed condenser blocks defines a recessed slot (706b) configured to receive the first end of the passive cold plate and the other of the opposed condenser blocks defines a recessed slot (respective 706b) configured to receive the second end of the passive cold plate.
Zakaib does not explicitly teach the limitation of the internal fluid passage having a second port and wherein the second port of one of the condenser blocks fluidically couples with the first end of the liquid-cooled cold plate and the second port of the other of the condenser blocks so fluidically couples with the second end of the liquid-cooled cold plate that liquid-cooled cold plate extends from one in the pair of opposed condenser blocks to the other in the pair of opposed condenser blocks.
However, Chialastri teaches a liquid cooling system comprising opposing blocks (31 and 41) each having an internal fluid passage (see arrow indicating fluid flow) having a first port (left port of each 31 and 41) and a second port (right port of each 31 and 41) and wherein the second port of one of the blocks fluidically couples with a first end of a liquid-cooled cold plate (tube between 31 and 41) and the second port of the other of the blocks so fluidically couples with the second end of the liquid-cooled cold plate that liquid-cooled cold plate extends from one in the pair of opposed condenser blocks to the other in the pair of opposed condenser blocks.
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Zakaib and integrated the internal fluid passage having a second port and wherein the second port of one of the condenser blocks fluidically couples with the first end of the liquid-cooled cold plate and the second port of the other of the condenser blocks so fluidically couples with the second end of the liquid-cooled cold plate that liquid-cooled cold plate extends from one in the pair of opposed condenser blocks to the other in the pair of opposed condenser blocks, as taught by Chialastri, in order to provide proper maintenance (Chialastri ¶ 13).
Re claim 20-21, see rejection for claim 1 above
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (see PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON NIEVES whose telephone number is (571)270-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/NELSON J NIEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 6/9/2026
Prosecution Insights