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 first and second ports being in a vertical position with respect to the optical module must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). As of now, the ports appear to be at an angle and not in a vertical position. 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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim requires the first and second ports to be vertical with respect to the optical module, however from the drawings it appears they are simply inclined at an angle. As a result the phrase “vertical” will be treated synonymously with inclined. Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9-13, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2024/0049434 to Mohajer et al. (hereafter Mo) (First Embodiment)
Mo discloses;
As to Claim 1, a system ([0007]), wherein the system comprises: an optical module (320, FIG. 17, see also [0071] “The plug 320 in FIGS. 19 and 20 is an OSFP-like module with integrated liquid cooling.”) comprising two ports (335, 336) and a channel (332), wherein the optical module is configured to allow a liquid to be input to the first port (335), flow through the channel and be output from the second port (336).
As to Claim 2, the system of claim 1, wherein the optical module is an Octal Small Form Factor Pluggable (OSFP) module ([0071])
As to Claim 3, the system of claim 1, wherein the first port and the second port are configured horizontally with respect to the optical module (FIG. 19).
As to Claim 5, the system of claim 1, wherein the system comprises a data center ([0003] “Networks, data centers, cloud computing, and the like continue to grow.”)
As to Claim 6, the system of claim 1, wherein the system comprises a networking system ([0003] “Networks, data centers, cloud computing, and the like continue to grow.”)
As to Claim 9, the system of claim 1, wherein the channel is manufactured by 3D printing ([0096] “The liquid-cooled top case can be made using metal 3D printing as a one-piece part.”) Furthermore, this claim appears to be a product by process claim. However, it has been held that the patentability of a product 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 process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, the channel of the prior art is materially the same as the claimed invention.
As to Claim 10, the system of claim 1, wherein the channel is configured as a pathway through a material (FIG. 21).
As to Claim 11, the system of claim 1, wherein the channel is configured as a pipeline of material ([0096] “It can also be made by attaching a liquid flow tube 232 into a grooved base as shown in FIG. 10.”)
As to Claim 12, the system of claim 1, wherein the channel is embedded in a shell of the optical module (330 being a shell for the module, covering its components; [0071] “In the embodiment illustrated, the integrated coldplate 330 acts as a cover for the plug 320 covering at least a portion of the circuitry 322 held within the main body 321.”)
As to Claim 13, the system of claim 1, wherein the liquid is a coolant ([0087] “such as closing valves to prevent the flow of the coolant…”)
As to Claim 15, the system of claim 1, wherein the system comprises a pump ([0096] “Liquid lines 507 could be part of a closed-loop cooling system (i.e., pump-reservoir-heat exchanger)”) coupled to the optical module via a plurality of tubes (507, “liquid lines”).
As to Claim 18, the system of claim 1, wherein the system comprises a radiator ([0096] “heat exchanger”) operable to reduce a temperature of the liquid before it is input to the optical module.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2024/0049434 to Mohajer et al. (hereafter Mo) (Second Embodiment)
Mo discloses;
As to Claim 1, a system, wherein the system comprises: an optical module (200) comprising two ports (235, 236) and a channel (232), wherein the optical module is configured to allow a liquid to be input to the first port, flow through the channel and be output from the second port.
As to Claim 4, the system of claim 1, wherein the first port (235) and the second port (236) are configured vertically with respect to the optical module (FIG. 14).
As to Claim 7, the system of claim 1 wherein the channel comprises metal ([0096] “It can also be made as a two-piece part, body and lid that utilize cast, forged, metal 3D printed, or machined parts, and the same with the coldplate 230.”)
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0049434 to Mohajer et al. (hereafter Mo) (Second Embodiment) in view of US 2019/0246523 to Boyden et al.
As to Claims 8, Mo discloses the system of Claim 1.
Mo fails to disclose wherein the channel comprises one or more of stainless steel, aluminum alloy, and copper.
Boyden teaches the use of metals such as stainless steel ([0060]) in the use of fluid manifolds for cooling electrical modules.
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 Mo to be constructed of stainless steel as it is well known in the art as a thermally conductive material as taught by Boyden ([0060] “the housing of manifold 11 may comprise a thermally conductive material, such as aluminum, stainless steel…”)
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0049434 to Mohajer et al. (hereafter Mo) (First Embodiment) in view of US 2003/0043865 to Nasu et al. (hereafter Nasu)
As to Claim 14, Mo discloses the system of claim 1.
Mo fails to disclose wherein a temperature of the optical module is determined according to a change in wavelength of an optical signals communicated via the optical module.
Nasu teaches that it is known to use the changes in wavelength of an optical signal in determining and affecting the temperature of the module (Claim 20).
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 use the changes in wavelength of the optical signal of Mo to determine the temperature of the optical module as the relationship between the two is well known in the art, and as a precise means of determining and controlling the operating temperature of the module as taught by Nasu.
Claim(s) 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0049434 to Mohajer et al. (hereafter Mo) (First Embodiment) in view of US 2021/0298202 to Shao et al. (hereafter Shao)
As to Claim 16, Mo discloses the system of claim 15.
Mo fails to disclose wherein a flow rate of the pump is dynamically adjustable according to a temperature of the optical module.
Shao teaches dynamically adjusting the flow rate of a pump according to the temperature of a cold plate to correlate with changes in power consumption ([0033-0034]).
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 pump of Mo to be dynamically adjustable in order to account for the changes in temperature brought on by changes in power consumption as taught by Shao.
As to Claim 20, Mo discloses the system of claim 18
Mo fails to disclose wherein the temperature of the liquid is dynamically adjustable according to a temperature of the optical module.
Shao teaches dynamically adjusting the temperature of a liquid (by adjusting the flow rate, the temperature of the liquid is likewise adjusted, with a lower flow rate, the liquid exiting the cold plate will be warmer than with a higher flow rate) according to a temperature of a cold plate to correlate with changes in power consumption ([0033-0034).
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 liquid temperature of Mo to be dynamically adjustable in order to account for the changes in temperature brought on by changes in power consumption as taught by Shao.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0049434 to Mohajer et al. (hereafter Mo) (First Embodiment) in view of US 2024/0008220 to Kadhim et al.
As to Claim 17, Mo discloses the system of claim 15.
Mo fails to disclose wherein the diameter of each tube is greater than one half of a thickness of a shell of the optical module.
Kadhim teaches that the flow rate of the coolant is a result based variable of the diameter of the tube provided for the fluid ([0071] “The flow rate can be controlled by various methods, which might include increased/decreased pump speed, different internal diameter tubes…”).
Applicant gives no criticality to the claimed dimensions. As a result, 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 tubes of Mo to be any dimension, depending on the fluid flow rate required by the cooling requirements of the system.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0049434 to Mohajer et al. (hereafter Mo) (First Embodiment) in view of US 2007/0064397 to Chiba et al. (hereafter Chiba)
As to Claim 19, Mo discloses the system of claim 18.
Mo fails to disclose wherein the radiator comprises a fan.
Chiba teaches a radiator (12) comprising a fan (Fig. 1).
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 radiator of Mo to include a fan as a supplemental means of cooling the heated liquid.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2020/0077541 to Sharf disclosing a similar invention.
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
/MANDEEP S BUTTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
