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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the microchip must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 16-28 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.
Regarding claims 16, 19, 20 and 26-28, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
As to claim 16, line 4 reads “in each case one cooling plate” while line 8 reads “the cooling plate.” It is unclear if there are two cooling plates or just one. For purposes of examination the claim will be treated as one cooling plate with two cooling sides.
As to claim 16, the phrase “the two electronic components” on line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claim 17, line 3 reads “to the at least one cooling plate or to both cooling plates.” It has never been established whether there is one cooling plate, two cooling plates, or at least one cooling plate.
As to claim 19, line 3 reads “to the at least one cooling plate or to both cooling plates.” It has never been established whether there is one cooling plate, two cooling plates, or at least one cooling plate.
As to claim 20, line 3 reads “the two cooling plates.” Again, it has never been clearly established as to how many cooling plates are being claimed.
Claim 25 recites the phrase “the sub-channels” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the phrase “the return” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the phrase “the return” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,343,359 to Morton et al. in view of US 3,956,673 to Seid.
As to claim 16, Morton discloses a cooling arrangement comprising a heat sink (12) for at least one microchip, preferably a GPU or CPU, having a heat-conducting heat sink which has a channel structure (col. 4, ll. 10-12 “The preferred cold plate 12 used in the present invention is liquid cooled with liquid flowing through channels formed in the cold plate 12.”) for a cooling fluid with a feed (14) and a return (15), wherein the heat sink has, on two opposite outer sides, in each case one cooling plate (12, each outside surface of 12 can comprise one cold plate each) which is coupled thermally and mechanically to the channel structure, and having at least two microchips (44, FIG. 2) which, with their heat-emitting side facing one another, are in thermal contact with the opposite outer sides of the cooling plate, wherein the microchips are designed as plug-in cards, wherein the plug-in cards have, along an outer edge, a plug connector (16) for the vertical assembly and electrical connection of the electronic components to in each case one separate slot of a multiplicity of slots on a main circuit board. Morton fails to disclose wherein the distance between the outer sides of the heat sink is dimensioned such that the two electronic components have, between their plug connectors, a distance which corresponds to a grid spacing of the multiplicity of slots. Seid teaches a distance between outer sides of a heat sink (46, Fig 1) dimensioned such that two electronic components (48) have, between their plug connectors (62), a distance which corresponds to a grid spacing of a multiplicity of slots (64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to size the outer sides of the heat sink of Morton to be such that two electronic components have, between their plug connectors a distance which corresponds to a grid spacing of a multiplicity of slots in order to easily facilitate the cooling of multiple circuit boards in a confined area.
Claim(s) 17-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,343,359 to Morton et al. in view of US 3,956,673 to Seid. and further in view of US 2010/0084120 to Yin et al.
As to claim 17, Morton in view of Seid disclose the cooling arrangement according to Claim 16. Morton fails to disclose in which the channel structure is guided through the heat sink in a meandering manner and parallel to the at least one cooling plate or to both cooling plates. Yin teaches a channel structure (4) guided through heat sink (5) in a meandering manner and parallel to a cooling plate (8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the channel of Morton to adopt a meandering configuration in order to maximize the amount of time the coolant is in contact with the cooling plate as is well known in the art.
As to claim 25, modified Morton teaches the cooling arrangement according to Claim 17. Morton fails to disclose in which the sub- channels of all channel sections run parallel to one another, wherein the sub- channels preferably have a constant and particularly preferably a substantially identical or identical channel cross section for all sub-channels. Yin teaches sub-channels (13) of channel sections (14-21, Fig. 4) running parallel to one another, wherein the sub-channels have a substantially identical cross section for all sub-channels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the channels of Morton with the sub-channels of Yin in order to increase the surface area of heat transfer.
As to claim 26, modified Morton teach the cooling arrangement according to Claim 17. Morton fails to teach in which a channel section which opens into the return has a channel width which corresponds to at least twice, preferably at least three times and particularly preferably at least four times the width of the channel section which opens into the feed. Yin teaches a channel section (21) opening into return (12) has a channel width which corresponds to at least twice the width of the channel section which opens into the feed (11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the channel of Morton to have a larger channel at the return then the feed in order to account for expansion of the fluid due to heat intake, while maintaining constant flow distribution as taught by Yin ([0030] “As the flow moves downstream and the vapor quality increases, the mean density of the flow decreases and a greater number of channels can be used in order to accommodate the increased volumetric flow rate without compromising flow distribution.”) Further, variation of dimensions is well within the purview of a person of ordinary skill in the art depending on desired design specifications.
As to claim 27, modified Morton teach the cooling arrangement according to Claim 17. Morton fails to disclose in which the return has a cross section which is at least twice as large, preferably at least three times as large and particularly preferably at least four times as large as the feed. Yin teaches a (Fig. 3) return (12) which has a cross section which is at least twice as large as the feed (11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the channel of Morton to have a larger channel at the return then the feed in order to account for expansion of the fluid due to heat intake, while maintaining constant flow distribution as taught by Yin ([0030] “As the flow moves downstream and the vapor quality increases, the mean density of the flow decreases and a greater number of channels can be used in order to accommodate the increased volumetric flow rate without compromising flow distribution.”) Further, variation of dimensions is well within the purview of a person of ordinary skill in the art depending on desired design specifications.
As to claim 18, modified Morton teach the cooling arrangement according to Claim 16. Morton fails to disclose in which the channel structure consists of a plurality of channel sections which are connected to one another via fluidic transitions, wherein at least one of the channel sections consists, at least in sections, of a plurality of sub-channels which are fluidically separated from one another along the channel section. Yin teaches a channel structure (4) consisting of a plurality of channel sections (14-21) which are connected to one another via fluidic transitions (e.g. 22, 24, Fig. 3), wherein at least one of the channel sections consists, at least in sections, of a plurality of sub-channels (13) which are fluidically separated from one another along the channel section. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the channel of Morton with the channel structure of Yin in order to maximize the cooling efficiency of the system.
As to claim 19, modified Morton teach the cooling arrangement according to Claim 18. Morton fails to disclose in which the sub- channels which are separated from one another are coupled thermally to the at least one cooling plate or to both cooling plates, wherein the sub-channels are preferably fluidically separated from one another via partition walls which are coupled thermally and mechanically to the at least one cooling plate or to both cooling plates and are particularly preferably formed in one piece with the at least one cooling plate or with both cooling plates. Yin teaches in which the sub- channels (13) which are separated from one another are coupled thermally to the at least one cooling plate (8), wherein the sub-channels are preferably fluidically separated from one another via partition walls ([0027], “Adjacent ones of the channels 13 are generally non-communicative with each other, except in the manifold regions to be described later on.”) which are coupled thermally and mechanically to the at least one cooling plate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the channel of Morton with the channel structure of Yin in order to maximize the cooling efficiency of the system. Morton also fails to disclose wherein the cooling plate and the sub-channels are particularly preferably formed in one piece with the at least one cooling plate or with both cooling plates. However, it has been held that to make that to make integral what was in the prior art multiple pieces requires only routine skill in the art (In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349). Therefore It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the channel and cold plate of Morton to be constructed in one piece as a mere choice of design, to for example expedite production.
As to claim 20, modified Morton teaches the cooling arrangement according to Claim 18. Morton fails to disclose in which the sub- channels extend at least in part and preferably all over a complete distance between the two cooling plates when the heat sink has, on the opposite outer sides, in each case one cooling plate. Yin teaches sub-channels (13) which extend at least in part all over a complete distance between two heat transfer surfaces (8 and bottom side of 5, Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the channel of Morton with the channel structure of Yin in order to maximize the cooling efficiency of the system.
As to claim 21, modified Morton teaches the cooling arrangement according to Claim 18. Morton fails to disclose in which the channel section with the plurality of sub-channels which are fluidically separated from one another along the channel section opens directly into the fluidic transition with all sub-channels. Yin teaches a channel section (14-21) with a plurality of sub-channels (13) which are fluidically separated from one another ([0027], “Adjacent ones of the channels 13 are generally non-communicative with each other, except in the manifold regions to be described later on.”) along the channel section opens directly into the fluidic transition (e.g. 22, and 24) with all sub-channels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the channel of Morton with the channel structure of Yin in order to maximize the cooling efficiency of the system.
As to claim 22, modified Morton teaches the cooling arrangement according to Claim 18. Morton fails to disclose in which the channel structure has a plurality of channel sections which consist, at least in sections, of a plurality of sub-channels which are fluidically separated from one another along the respective channel section, wherein the channel sections have a different number of sub-channels. Yin teaches a channel structure (4) having a plurality of channel sections (14-21) which consist, at least in sections, of a plurality of sub-channels (13) which are fluidically separated from one another along the respective channel section ([0027], “Adjacent ones of the channels 13 are generally non-communicative with each other, except in the manifold regions to be described later on.”), wherein the channel sections have a different number of sub-channels (Fig. 4, 16 has less sub channels than 17 etc.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the channel of Morton with the channel structure of Yin in order to maximize the cooling efficiency of the system.
As to claim 23, modified Morton teaches the cooling arrangement according to Claim 22. Morton fails to teach in which, in the flow direction from the feed to the return, a second channel section which follows a first of the channel sections has a greater number of sub-channels than the first channel section. Yin teaches in the flow direction from the feed to the return, a second channel section (17) which follows a first of the channel sections (16) has a greater number of sub-channels than the first channel section. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the channel of Morton with the channel structure of Yin in order to maximize the cooling efficiency of the system.
As to claim 24, modified Morton teaches the cooling arrangement according to Claim 22. Morton fails to disclose in which the channel sections, in the flow direction from the feed to the return, have a constantly increasing number of sub-channels from channel section to channel section. Yin teaches channel sections (14-21) in the flow direction from the feed to the return having a constantly increasing number of sub-channels from channel section to channel section (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the channel of Morton with the channel structure of Yin in order to maximize the cooling efficiency of the system.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,343,359 to Morton et al. in view of US 3,956,673 to Seid. and further in view of US 10,485,143 to Gao et al.
As to claim 28, Morton in view of Seid teach the cooling arrangement according to Claim 16. Morton fails to disclose in which the microchips and the opposite outer sides of the cooling plates have complementary fastening means, preferably through-holes and threaded receptacles. Gao teaches microchip (402) and cooling plate (401) having complementary fastening means (431B, 432B, 415-418, 421-424, FIG. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the assembly of Morton with the fastening means of Gao in order to facilitate removable construction of the device, i.e. to replace damaged parts.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 7,888,786 to Andry disclosing a cold plate between two PCBs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIL ALEXANDER DECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6578. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm Mon-Fri.
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.
/JAMIL ALEXANDER DECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/Jayprakash N Gandhi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights