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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramakrishnan et al. (US 20230341910 A1) in view of Adebiyi et al. (US 20230253288 A1), hereafter referred to as Ramakrishnan and Adebiyi, respectively.
With regards to claim 1, Ramakrishnan discloses:
A liquid immersion cooling device (100) (Fig. 1) comprising: an electronic device (324, 326) (Fig. 3) including a circuit board (326) (Fig. 3), a heat generator (324) (Fig. 3) mounted on the circuit board (See Fig. 3), a heat dissipator (330) (Fig. 3), and a thermal conductive sheet (328) (Fig. 3) interposed between the heat generator and the heat dissipator (Between 324 and 330) (See Fig. 3); and a cooling medium (308) (Fig. 3) arranged to immerse the electronic device (326, 324) (Fig. 3) at least partially (324 is immersed) (See Fig. 3).
Ramakrishnan does not disclose:
at least part of the thermal conductive sheet being made of a porous material.
However, Adebiyi discloses:
at least part of the thermal conductive sheet (260) (Fig. 5) being made of a porous material (Paragraph [0066] discusses 260 being porous).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ramakrishnan with the porous sheet of Adebiyi. One of ordinary skill in related art(s) would have been motivated to do so in order to enhance boiling within the immersion tank, improving heat dissipation from the heat source.
Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With regards to claim 8, Ramakrishnan discloses:
A liquid immersion cooling device (100) (Fig. 1) comprising: an electronic device (324, 326) (Fig. 3) including a circuit board (326) (Fig. 3), a heat generator (324) (Fig. 3) mounted on the circuit board (See Fig. 3), a heat dissipator (330) (Fig. 3), and a thermal conductive sheet (328) (Fig. 3) interposed between the heat generator and the heat dissipator (Between 324 and 330) (See Fig. 3); and a cooling medium (308) (Fig. 3) arranged to immerse the electronic device (326, 324) (Fig. 3) at least partially (324 is immersed) (See Fig. 3).
Ramakrishnan does not disclose:
the thermal conductive sheet having at least one selected from the group consisting of unevenness, a slit, a groove, and a pore.
However, Adebiyi discloses:
the thermal conductive sheet (260) (Fig. 5) having at least one selected from the group consisting of unevenness, a slit, a groove, and a pore (Paragraph [0066] discusses 260 being porous, which would imply having at least one pore.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ramakrishnan with the porous sheet of Adebiyi. One of ordinary skill in related art(s) would have been motivated to do so in order to enhance boiling within the immersion tank, improving heat dissipation from the heat source.
See also KSR, supra.
With regards to claims 2 and 9, Ramakrishnan and Adebiyi disclose all as applied to claims 1 and 8, respectively, but Ramakrishnan does not disclose:
wherein the thermal conductive sheet has an air gap, and at least a part of the air gap is infiltrated with the cooling medium.
However, the Ramakrishnan-Adebiyi combination of claims 1 and 8 discloses:
wherein the thermal conductive sheet (260) (Fig. 5) (Adebiyi) has an air gap (i.e., the pores of the porous material of 260) (Fig. 5) (Adebiyi), and at least a part of the air gap is infiltrated with the cooling medium (In Fig. 5 of Adebiyi, 260 is immersed in coolant 120 – see Paragraph [0068], which would allow infiltration of the cooling medium. Were the combination made, 260 would instead be immersed in the coolant 308 of Ramakrishnan, which would similarly allow for infiltration.).
See also KSR, supra.
With regards to claims 3 and 10, Ramakrishnan and Adebiyi disclose all as applied to claims 1 and 8, respectively, but Ramakrishnan does not disclose:
wherein the thermal conductive sheet has at least one structure selected from the group consisting of a sponge, a honeycomb, a fiber, and a stack.
However, the Ramakrishnan-Adebiyi combination of claims 1 and 8 discloses:
wherein the thermal conductive sheet (260) (Fig. 3) (Adebiyi) has at least one structure selected from the group consisting of a sponge (Paragraph [0048] of Adebiyi notes that 260 may be a metal foam or mesh, which may be considered a sponge. Also, generically, a porous material would be sponge-like.), a honeycomb, a fiber, and a stack.
See also KSR, supra.
With regards to claims 4 and 11, Ramakrishnan and Adebiyi disclose all as applied to claims 1 and 8, respectively, but do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the thermal conductive sheet is neither reactive to, nor dissolvable in, the cooling medium.
However, the Office notes that when designing cooling systems, it is generally known to avoid use of cooling mediums that would react with or dissolve the cooling components, typically through choice of cooling medium to suit the materials used. As the systems of Ramakrishnan and Adebiyi are intended for cooling of electronics, one of ordinary skill would know to not choose a combination of coolant and metal that would react, corrode, or dissolve, in order to avoid excessive maintenance and damage to the electronics via overheating or coolant leaks, due to corroded components.
"[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
See also KSR, supra.
With regards to claims 7 and 14, Ramakrishnan and Adebiyi disclose all as applied to claims 1 and 8, respectively, and Ramakrishnan additionally discloses:
further comprising a heat exchanger (106) (Fig. 1) configured to cool the cooling medium (See paragraph [0034], condenser 106 condenses vaporized working fluid to remove heat from the immersion bath.).
See also KSR, supra.
Claims 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramakrishnan in view of Yang et al. (US 20250040090 A1), hereafter referred to as Yang.
With regards to claim 15, Ramakrishnan discloses:
A liquid immersion cooling device (100) (Fig. 1) comprising: an electronic device (324, 326) (Fig. 3) including a circuit board (326) (Fig. 3), a heat generator (324) (Fig. 3) mounted on the circuit board (See Fig. 3), a heat dissipator (330) (Fig. 3), and a thermal conductive sheet (328) (Fig. 3) interposed between the heat generator and the heat dissipator (Between 324 and 330) (See Fig. 3); and a cooling medium (308) (Fig. 3) arranged to immerse the electronic device (326, 324) (Fig. 3) at least partially (324 is immersed) (See Fig. 3).
Ramakrishnan does not disclose:
the thermal conductive sheet being made of graphite.
However, Yang discloses:
the thermal conductive sheet (140) (Fig. 1) being made of graphite (Paragraph [0085] discusses that 140 may be comprised of porous graphite.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thermal conductive sheet of Ramakrishnan to instead be comprised of porous graphite, as suggested by Yang. One of ordinary skill in related art(s) would have been motivated to do so in order to improve thermal conductivity and to create additional nucleation sites for boiling action.
Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With regards to claim 16, Ramakrishnan and Yang disclose all as applied to claim 15, but Ramakrishnan does not disclose:
wherein the thermal conductive sheet has an air gap, and at least a part of the air gap is infiltrated with the cooling medium.
However, the Ramakrishnan-Yang combination of claim 15 discloses:
wherein the thermal conductive sheet (140) (Fig. 1) (Yang) has an air gap (i.e., the pores of the porous graphite of 140) (Fig. 1) (Yang), and at least a part of the air gap is infiltrated with the cooling medium (In Fig. 1 of Yang, 140 is immersed in coolant – see Paragraph [0050], which would allow infiltration of the cooling medium. Were the combination made, 140 would instead be immersed in the coolant 308 of Ramakrishnan, which would similarly allow for infiltration.).
See also KSR, supra.
With regards to claim 17, Ramakrishnan and Yang disclose all as applied to claim 15, but Ramakrishnan does not disclose:
wherein the thermal conductive sheet has at least one structure selected from the group consisting of a sponge, a honeycomb, a fiber, and a stack.
However, the Ramakrishnan-Adebiyi combination of claim 15 discloses:
wherein the thermal conductive sheet (140) (Fig. 1) (Yang) has at least one structure selected from the group consisting of a sponge (Paragraph [0085] of Yang discusses that 140 may be comprised of porous graphite. A porous material would be sponge-like.), a honeycomb, a fiber, and a stack.
See also KSR, supra.
With regards to claim 18, Ramakrishnan and Yang disclose all as applied to claim 15, but do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the thermal conductive sheet is neither reactive to, nor dissolvable in, the cooling medium.
However, the Office notes that when designing cooling systems, it is generally known to avoid use of cooling mediums that would react with or dissolve the cooling components, typically through choice of cooling medium to suit the materials used. As the systems of Ramakrishnan and Yang are intended for cooling of electronics, one of ordinary skill would know to not choose a combination of coolant and metal that would react, corrode, or dissolve, in order to avoid excessive maintenance and damage to the electronics via overheating or coolant leaks, due to corroded components.
"[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
See also KSR, supra.
With regards to claim 20, Ramakrishnan and Yang disclose all as applied to claim 15, and Ramakrishnan additionally discloses:
further comprising a heat exchanger (106) (Fig. 1) configured to cool the cooling medium (See paragraph [0034], condenser 106 condenses vaporized working fluid to remove heat from the immersion bath.).
See also KSR, supra.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramakrishnan and Adebiyi in further view of Yang.
With regards to claims 6 and 13, Ramakrishnan and Adebiyi disclose all as applied to claims 1 and 8, respectively, but do not disclose:
wherein the thermal conductive sheet contains graphite. However, Yang discloses:
wherein the thermal conductive sheet (140) (Fig. 1) contains graphite (Paragraph [0085] discusses that 140 may be comprised of porous graphite.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Ramakrishnan-Adebiyi combination with the use of graphite for the thermal conductive sheet, as suggested by Yang. One of ordinary skill in related art(s) would have been motivated to do so in order to improve thermal conductivity and to create additional nucleation sites for boiling action.
Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramakrishnan and Adebiyi in further view of Kobune et al. (US 20210183733 A1), hereafter referred to as Kobune.
With regards to claims 5 and 12, Ramakrishnan and Adebiyi disclose all as applied to claims 1 and 8, respectively, but do not disclose:
wherein the thermal conductive sheet has a compression rate equal to or higher than 5% and equal to or lower than 95% when compressed in a thickness direction under a pressure of 200 kPa applied.
However, Kobune discloses:
wherein the thermal conductive sheet has a compression rate equal to or higher than 5% and equal to or lower than 95% when compressed in a thickness direction under a pressure of 100 kPa applied (Paragraph [0070] discloses a thermally conductive sheet with a compression ratio of 10% to 60% when under 100kPa of pressure, within the stated range. See also paragraphs [0068] to [0075], it is noted the sheet may be graphite.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Ramakrishnan-Adebiyi combination to include the structure related to the compression rate as taught by Kobune. One of ordinary skill in related art(s) would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for mechanical reliability in the mounting of cooling elements to the electronic components, and to ensure good thermal contact once mounted.
The Office notes that while Kobune’s compression ratio is for 100 kPa, the Office believes that the extension to 200 kPa would merely be routine optimization. To be specific, paragraph [0091] of Kobune explicitly states that the pressure may be as high as 200 kPa when mounting, and in paragraph [0093] that pressures may range from 100 kPa to 1000 kPa. Because Kobune was already testing in a broader range encompassing 200 kPa, one of ordinary skill would understand that pressure would be a result-effective-variable affecting the compression ratio, and the identification of 5% to 95% as an optimal range at 200 kPa would not be novel in view of the disclosure of Kobune, and could have been discovered through routine optimization, i.e., testing particular values within the range of Kobune.
See MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A-B), "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramakrishnan and Yang in further view of Kobune.
With regards to claim 19, Ramakrishnan and Yang disclose all as applied to claim 15, but do not disclose:
wherein the thermal conductive sheet has a compression rate equal to or higher than 5% and equal to or lower than 95% when compressed in a thickness direction under a pressure of 200 kPa applied.
However, Kobune discloses:
wherein the thermal conductive sheet has a compression rate equal to or higher than 5% and equal to or lower than 95% when compressed in a thickness direction under a pressure of 100 kPa applied (Paragraph [0070] discloses a thermally conductive sheet with a compression ratio of 10% to 60% when under 100kPa of pressure, within the stated range. See also paragraphs [0068] to [0075], it is noted the sheet may be graphite.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Ramakrishnan-Yang combination to include the structure related to the compression rate as taught by Kobune. One of ordinary skill in related art(s) would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for mechanical reliability in the mounting of cooling elements to the electronic components, and to ensure good thermal contact once mounted.
The Office notes that while Kobune’s compression ratio is for 100 kPa, the Office believes that the extension to 200 kPa would merely be routine optimization. To be specific, paragraph [0091] of Kobune explicitly states that the pressure may be as high as 200 kPa when mounting, and in paragraph [0093] that pressures may range from 100 kPa to 1000 kPa. Because Kobune was already testing in a broader range encompassing 200 kPa, one of ordinary skill would understand that pressure would be a result-effective-variable affecting the compression ratio, and the identification of 5% to 95% as an optimal range at 200 kPa would not be novel in view of the disclosure of Kobune, and could have been discovered through routine optimization, i.e., testing particular values within the range of Kobune.
See MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A-B), "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tien et al. (US 20160046791 A1), teaching a TIM comprised of graphite.
Saito (US 20180092243 A1), teaching an immersion cooling system, with a pumped heat exchanger attached to the main immersion cooling tank.
Kudoh (TW 202030302 A), teaching a graphite-based TIM that is layered, with a compression ratio in the described range at 276 kPa.
Namiki et al. (US 20230323181 A1), teaching a TIM with a compression ratio of 15% or more at 276 kPa.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE OXENKNECHT whose telephone number is (703)756-1976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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.
/K.O./Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/MANDEEP S BUTTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights