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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/06/2026 and 04/01/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 05/28/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent #12,557,239 has been reviewed and is accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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 2 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Xiang et al. (WO 2022042102 A1) (of record, cited in IDS and parent case), hereafter referred to as Xiang.
With regards to claim 2, Xiang discloses:
An electronic control unit (ECU) (Page 7, lines 15-16 state that the “computing device is used to control … [the] car.”) comprising: a cooling module (201, 203) (Fig. 2) including: a first electrical connection (Page 8, lines 40-41 state that, “devices on the target PCB board 202 can be electrically connected to the devices on the main board 203.” Consider the locations on board 203 where such connections would be made.) configured to communicatively couple (Given that 203 is a main board and 202 a daughter board, the connection between them would carry data or commands, i.e., for communication. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).) the cooling module and a memory module (Present on the target board 202, 205, 206, 208) (Fig. 2); a first housing (213) (Fig. 2) that is independent (See Fig. 2) of a second housing (212) (Fig. 2) of the memory module (Memory module 202; which 212 is adjacent to) (See Fig. 2); a liquid-cooling circuit (Page 4, line 43 states that “in a possible implementation, the heat dissipation component [201] is a liquid cooling plate) configured to thermally connect to the memory module (See Fig. 2, 201 thermally contacts 202); and a first thermal-contact surface (i.e., the lower surface of 202 [located below 207] in Fig. 2) in thermal connection with the liquid-cooling circuit (Via physical contact, as seen in Fig. 2), wherein: the cooling module (201, 203) (Fig. 2) is configured to be separable from the memory module (202, 205, 206, 208) (Fig. 2) without emptying liquid from the liquid-cooling circuit (i.e., through unplugging of connectors 206 and removing board 202) (Fig. 2), and the cooling module is separable from the memory module through one or more physical-connection elements (Separable through connectors 206) (Fig. 2).
Examiner’s note: Regarding claim 2, although the target board 202 does not explicitly disclose memory, it contains an SOC module 205, which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in related art(s) to inherently comprise a processor and memory – especially in the case of ‘computing’, as described and as pictured. Processors typically include a cache/register to hold program instructions to operate, which would constitute memory. Also, consider the unlabeled chips surrounding SOC 205, which one of ordinary skill in related art(s) would understand to be memory modules – such as VRAM for a GPU (Page 7, lines 19-27) – see the annotated figure below.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ECU of Xiang to include memory on the target PCB 202. One of ordinary skill in related arts would have been motivated to do so because the closer memory is to a processor (e.g., the SOC 205), the faster the processor can access said memory, providing a performance advantage over other configurations. (It is notable that lines 7-22 of page 7 discuss memory being present on the device of Xiang, but not the specific location of said memory.)
Also, since memory is stated to be present on the boards of Xiang (Page 7, lines 7-22), it would be no more than simple rearrangement of parts to require the memory to be on the board of the memory module, and as such would be a matter of design choice that one of ordinary skill in related art(s) would be capable of making. The particular placement of the memory would not hold patentable weight absent other relevant limitations. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
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).
See next page --->
PNG
media_image1.png
654
775
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pictured above: An annotated figure, showing the unlabeled memory chips of Xiang surrounding an SOC, as shown in figure 2.
With regards to claim 7, Xiang discloses all as applied to claim 2, and additionally discloses:
wherein the cooling module includes one or more vehicle electrical connections (Page 7 lines 28-40 discuss that the vehicle computing device 1201 may be connected via ethernet to lidar 105.) configured to couple the cooling module to a vehicle (1201 is equivalent to the contents of Fig. 2, as the cooling module contains the mainboard 203, and daughter board 202 is shown with no means of external connection, one would expect the cooling module to be connected to the vehicle, i.e., lidar 105 in the vehicle pictured in Fig. 1).
See also KSR, supra.
With regards to claim 8, Xiang discloses all as applied to claim 7, and additionally discloses:
wherein the one or more vehicle electrical connections are further configured to enable at least one of receipt of power from the vehicle, receipt of sensor data from the vehicle (Page 7 lines 28-40 discuss that the vehicle computing device 1201 may be connected via ethernet to lidar 105, lidar is a sensor type.), or provision of control functions to the vehicle.
See also KSR, supra.
With regards to claim 9, Xiang discloses all as applied to claim 2, and additionally discloses:
wherein the cooling module includes a coolant-circulation connector configured to receive and expel a coolant to and from the liquid-cooling circuit (Page 10 lines 7-12 discuss that heat dissipation component 201 may be a liquid cooling plate, with a water inlet and water outlet.).
See also KSR, supra.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-21 are allowed.
Claims 3-6 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter: the allowability resides in the overall structure and functionality of the device as recited in the subject matter of dependent claim 3 and independent claim 10, and at least in part, because claims 3 and 10 recite the limitations:
(Claim 3): “…the memory module includes memory, a second electrical connection, and a second thermal-contact surface, the second electrical connection is configured to communicatively couple the memory module and the cooling module to provide electrical connection between the memory module and the cooling module, and the second thermal-contact surface is in thermal contact with the first thermal-contact surface.”
(Claim 10): “…a first electrical connection configured to communicatively couple the memory module to a cooling module; a first housing that is independent of a second housing of the cooling module; a memory; one or more computer processors … the memory module is configured to be separable from the cooling module without emptying liquid from the liquid-cooling circuit, and the memory module is separable from the cooling module through one or more physical-connection elements.”
The aforementioned limitations, in combination with all remaining limitations of dependent claim 3 and independent claim 10, are believed to render the subject matter as allowable over the prior art references of record, taken either alone or in combination.
Xiang et al. (WO 2022042102 A1) is believed to be the closest prior art reference, and is discussed above.
However, Xiang fails to disclose, at least, the aforementioned allowable limitations of dependent claim 3 and independent claim 10.
The remaining prior art references teach various systems for liquid cooling of computing modules that are similar in form to the instant Application. However, none of the prior art references, taken alone or in combination, are believed to teach and/or suggest the aforementioned allowable limitations of dependent claim 3 and independent claim 10.
Finally, the Office has not identified any double patenting issues, in view of the Terminal Disclaimer filed on 05/28/2026. For all of the reasons outlined above, it is believed that the instant Application contains allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Peterson et al. (US 20210212231 A1) (of record, cited in IDS and parent case), teaching a two-part system with an interlocking cooling and memory module.
Lavy (US 20200287745 A1) (of record, cited in IDS and parent case), teaching a system with a cooling and memory module that are adjacent and connected.
Connell et al. (US 20180093550 A1) (of record, cited in IDS and parent case), teaching a two-part system, with a liquid cooling loop mounted below an electronics PCB for use in a vehicle.
Harshbarger et al. (US 20170354048 A1) (of record, cited in IDS and parent case), teaching an ECU with a similar electronics connector to the style pictured in the figures of the instant application.
Farshi et al. (US 6396692 B1) (of record, cited in IDS and parent case), teaching an ECU design with a central liquid cooling circuit.
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 on 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 2835
/Jayprakash N Gandhi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights