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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 1/14/2025 has been fully considered and is attached hereto.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The written description does not recite element numbers 2416, 2410, and 2408, which are provided in Fig 24 of the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
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
One or more channels are to be proximate a ball grid array associated with the one or more devices as in claim 6, and
wherein the microchannel of the heat spreader extends through an area of the heat spreader that aligns with solder connections between the circuit board and a device mounted to the circuit board, the circuit board to be between the heat spreader and the device, as in claim 18
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 § 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.
Claims 1-2, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lunsman et al. (US 10,561,040 – hereinafter, “Lunsman”).
With respect to claim 1, Lunsman teaches (In Fig 1) an apparatus comprising: a first layer (125 including 130) with one or more channels (Channels between fins 130) to receive fluid; and a second layer (105) that is more rigid than the first layer (See the rejection to claim 2 below), the second layer (105) to be mounted to the first layer (125) and separated from the first layer by a gasket (120) to reduce corrosion of the second layer.
With respect to claim 2, Lunsman further teaches wherein the first layer (125) includes copper (Col. 3, l. 65, “and cold plate 125 is composed of copper”), and the second layer (105) includes steel (Col. 3, ll. 49-50, “Cold plate 105 may be constructed of thermally conductive materials, such as aluminum, copper, stainless steel”).
With respect to claim 10, Lunsman further teaches wherein the gasket (120) includes silicone (Col. 4, ll. 16-17, “gasket 120 includes a rubberized exterior (e.g., reinforced neoprene or silicone rubber)”).
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 3-4, 7-8, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunsman in view of Takemura et al. (US 2019/0166720 – hereinafter, “Takemura”).
With respect to claim 3, Lunsman teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest that the one or more channels of the first layer are shaped to be adjacent to one or more devices connected to a circuit board
Takemura, however, teaches (In Figs 3, 6) one or more channels (6) of a first layer (2) which are shaped to be adjacent to one or more devices (51) connected to a circuit board (52).
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 Takemura with that of Lunsman such that, in Lunsman the one or more channels of the first layer are shaped to be adjacent to one or more devices connected to a circuit board, as taught by Takemura, since doing so would allow for the one or more channels to effectively cool an underlying component (The closer the underlying component is to the channels, the more effective the cooling).
With respect to claim 4, Lunsman as modified by Takemura teaches the limitations of claim 3 and Lunsman further teaches cooling a CPU (Col. 4, ll. 42-45, “In this example, cold plate 125 is affixed to the CPU where other rigid portions of cooling apparatus 100 may deflect relative to cold plate 125”) but fails to specifically teach or suggest that the CPU is connected to a circuit board.
Takemura further teaches a circuit board (52), the circuit board includes the one or more devices, and the one or more devices include one or more of: a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), a digital signal processor (DSP), an application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), a programmable logic device (PLD), a xPU, or an accelerator (¶ 0032, “The heat generating component 51 may be, for example, a semiconductor package such as, for example, a CPU or a GPU”).
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 Takemura with that of Lunsman such that the cooled CPU of Lunsman is connected to a circuit board, as taught by Takemura, since doing so would allow for the CPU of Lunsman to have functionality and to be connected to other components.
With respect to claim 7, Lunsman as modified by Takemura teaches the limitations of claim 3 as per above and Takemura further teaches a first layer (2) is to be between a second layer (3) and the circuit board (52, see Fig 6).
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 Takemura with that of Lunsman such that, in Lunsman the first layer is between the second layer and the circuit board, as taught by Takemura, since doing so would allow the first layer to provide cooling to the CPU disclosed by Lunsman.
With respect to claim 8, Lunsman as modified by Takemura teaches the limitations of claim 7 as per above and Lunsman further teaches a stud (155) to connect the second layer (105) to the circuit board (As shown in Fig 2, the stud (155) extends out of the bottom of the cold plate (125) and thus is configured to connect the second layer (105) to the circuit board), the stud to extend through the first layer (125) and to extend through the gasket (120, See Figs 2-4, see also Col. 6, ll. 17-21).
With respect to claim 11, Lunsman teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein the channels extend into the first layer from a first surface of the first layer, the first surface to face towards the second layer.
Takemura, however, teaches (In Fig 3) wherein channels (6) extend into a first layer (2) from a first surface (Top surface) of the first layer, the first surface to face towards a second layer (3).
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 Takemura with that of Lunsman such that, in Lunsman the channels extend into the first layer from a first surface of the first layer, the first surface to face towards the second layer, since doing so would reduce the overall height of the first layer by recessing the channel instead of having them extend above the top surface of the first layer.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunsman in view of Takemura and further in view of Brunschwiler et al. (US 2017/0179001 – hereinafter, “Brunschwiler”).
With respect to claim 6, Lunsman as modified by Takemura teaches the limitations of claim 3 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest the one or more channels are to be proximate a ball grid array associated with the one or more devices.
Brunschwiler, however, teaches (In Fig 1) one or more channels (113) proximate a ball grid array (101) associated with one or more devices (106).
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 Brunschwiler with that of Lunsman such that, in modified Lunsman the one or more channels are to be proximate a ball grid array associated with the one or more devices, as taught by Brunschwiler, since doing so would allow for additional areas of the device, aside from the top of the device, to be provided with coolant thus allowing for more removal of heat from the device.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunsman in view of Takemura and further in view of Katsumata et al. (US 2016/0183407 – hereinafter, “Katsumata”).
With respect to claim 9, Lunsman as modified by Takemura teaches the limitations of claim 3 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest a fluid inlet and a fluid outlet fluidly coupled to at least one of the one or more channels, the fluid inlet and the fluid outlet to extend through the circuit board to receive a fluid from a first side of the circuit board, the first layer on a second side of the circuit board opposite the first side.
Katsumata, however, teaches (In Fig 3) a fluid inlet (26 within 22a) and a fluid outlet (26 within 22b) fluidly coupled to at least one or more channels (Channel in 21b), the fluid inlet and the fluid outlet to extend through a circuit board (10) to receive a fluid from a first side (Top side) of the circuit board, a first layer (21b) on a second side (Bottom side) of the circuit board opposite the first side (Top side, see Fig 3).
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 Katsumata with that of modified Lunsman such that modified Lunsman further includes a fluid inlet and a fluid outlet fluidly coupled to at least one of the one or more channels, the fluid inlet and the fluid outlet to extend through the circuit board to receive a fluid from a first side of the circuit board, the first layer on a second side of the circuit board opposite the first side, as taught by Katsumata, since doing so would allow for the apparatus of modified Lunsman to cool components that are mounted to a second, bottom side of the circuit board.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunsman in view of Katsumata.
With respect to claim 12, Lunsman teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest a cold plate, the cold plate to be thermally coupled to a semiconductor chip, the semiconductor chip between the cold plate and a first side of a circuit board, the circuit board between the semiconductor chip and the first layer.
Katsumata, however, teaches (In Fig 3) a cold plate (21a), the cold plate to be thermally coupled to a semiconductor chip (11a), the semiconductor chip between the cold plate (21a) and a first side (Top side) of a circuit board (10), the circuit board (10) between the semiconductor chip (11a) and a first layer (21b).
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 Katsumata with that of Lunsman such that Lunsman includes a cold plate, the cold plate to be thermally coupled to a semiconductor chip, the semiconductor chip between the cold plate and a first side of a circuit board, the circuit board between the semiconductor chip and the first layer, as taught by Katsumata since doing so would allow the apparatus of Lunsman to cool components on both side of a circuit board.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunsman in view of Katsumata and further in view of Schroeder et al. (US 2019/0045662 – hereinafter, “Schroeder”).
With respect to claim 15, Lunsman as modified by Katsumata teaches the limitations of claim 12 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest a pedestal to be between the cold plate and the semiconductor chip.
Schroeder, however, teaches a pedestal (316) to be between a cold plate (400) and a semiconductor chip (326).
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 Schroeder with that of modified Lunsman such that modified Lunsman includes a pedestal to be between the cold plate and the semiconductor chip, as taught by Schroeder, since doing so would facilitate good heat transfer between the semiconductor chip and the cold plate.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunsman in view of Takemura and further in view of Olsen et al. (US 2011/0176273 – hereinafter, “Olsen”).
With respect to claim 16, Lunsman teaches (In Fig 1) an apparatus comprising: a heat spreader (125 + 130) including a channel (Channels between 130) to guide fluid between a fluid inlet (102) and a fluid outlet (103) associated with the heat spreader; and a plate (105), the plate (105, made of steel) more rigid than the heat spreader (125, made of copper, see the above rejection to claim 2).
Lunsman fails to specifically teach or suggest that the plate is coupled to a circuit board, the heat spreader between the plate and the circuit board, and the channels are microchannels.
Takemura, however, teaches (In Fig 6) a plate (3) coupled to a circuit board (52), a heat spreader (2) between the plate (3) and the circuit board (52).
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 Takemura with that of Lunsman such that, in Lunsman the plate is coupled to a circuit board, the heat spreader between the plate and the circuit board, as taught by Takemura, since doing so would allow the heat spreader (125) to be provided adjacent the disclosed CPU to cool the CPU thus providing functionality to the apparatus of Lunsman.
With respect to the limitations which require the channels to be microchannels, Olsen teaches microchannels (304) in a cold plate.
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 Olsen with that of Lunsman such that the channels in Lunsman are microchannels, as taught by Olsen, since doing so would provide increased heat transfer between the cold plate and the fluid in the cold plate.
With respect to claim 17, Lunsman further teaches a gasket (120) to separate the heat spreader (125) from the plate (105, see Fig 1).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemura in view of Campbell et al. (US 8,934,250 – hereinafter, “Campbell”).
With respect to claim 19, Takemura teaches (In Figs 4-6) an apparatus comprising: a first plate (3) having a fluid channel (8), the fluid channel extending along a first surface (Bottom surface) of the first plate (See Fig 4), the first plate including a second surface (Top surface) opposite the first surface (Bottom surface, see Fig 4); and a second plate (2) to be bonded to the first surface of the first plate (¶ 0024, “a cover 3 bonded to the base 2”), the second plate (2) to urge (Via 53, 54, 55) the first plate (3) toward a first side (Bottom side) of a circuit board (52) at a location aligned with an electronic device (51) mounted on a second side (Top side) of the circuit board (52, see Fig 6).
Takemura fails to specifically teach or suggest a gasket between the first plate and the second plate.
Campbell, however, teaches (In Fig 8B) a gasket (741) between a first plate (740) and a second plate (720).
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 Campbell with that of Takemura such that, in Takemura there is a gasket between the first plate and the second plate, as taught by Campbell, since doing so would provide a means to prevent fluid from leaking between the first and second plates.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 13-14, 18, 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.
With respect to claim 5, the allowability resides in the overall structure of the device as recited in dependent claim 5 and at least in part because claim 5 recites, “wherein the first layer includes a first cutout extending between opposing surfaces of the first layer, and the second layer includes a second cutout extending between opposing surfaces of the second layer, the first cutout aligned with the second cutout, the one or more devices to extend through the first and second cutouts”.
The aforementioned limitations in combination with all remaining limitations of claim 5 are believed to render said claim 5 patentable over the art of record.
While Lunsman and Takemura teach some of the limitations of claim 5 as per the above rejection to claim 3, neither Lunsman nor Takemura nor any other art of record – either alone or in combination – teach or suggest the above-mentioned limitations of claim 5.
With respect to claims 13-14, the allowability resides in the overall structure of the device as recited in dependent claim 13 and at least in part because claim 13 recites, “a fluid inlet to be fluidly coupled to both the cold plate and to at least one of the one or more channels of the first layer, the fluid inlet to direct a first portion of a fluid from a common fluid inlet line to the cold plate and a second portion of the fluid to the one or more channels”.
The aforementioned limitations in combination with all remaining limitations of claim 13 are believed to render said claim 13 and all claims dependent therefrom patentable over the art of record.
While Lunsman and Katsumata teach many of the limitations of claim 13 as per the above rejection to claim 12, neither Lunsman nor Katsumata nor any other art of record – either alone or in combination – teach or suggest the above-mentioned limitations of claim 13.
With respect to claim 18, the allowability resides in the overall structure of the device as recited in dependent claim 18 and at least in part because claim 18 recites, “wherein the microchannel of the heat spreader extends through an area of the heat spreader that aligns with solder connections between the circuit board and a device mounted to the circuit board, the circuit board to be between the heat spreader and the device”.
The aforementioned limitations in combination with all remaining limitations of claim 18 are believed to render said claim 18 patentable over the art of record.
While Lunsman, Takemura and Olsen teach many of the limitations of claim 18 as per the above rejection to claim 16, neither Lunsman nor Takemura nor Olsen nor any other art of record – either alone or in combination – teach or suggest the above-mentioned limitations of claim 18.
With respect to claim 20, the allowability resides in the overall structure of the device as recited in dependent claim 20 and at least in part because claim 20 recites, “a cold plate adjacent to the electronic device, the electronic device between the circuit board and the cold plate”.
The aforementioned limitations in combination with all remaining limitations of claim 20 are believed to render said claim 20 patentable over the art of record.
While Takemura and Campbell teach many of the limitations of claim 20 as per the above rejection to claim 19, neither Takemura nor Campbell nor any other art of record – either alone or in combination – teach or suggest the above-mentioned limitations of claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 208588245 to Yan et al. which teaches a copper-steel composite jacket.
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
Prosecution Insights