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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application on 05/19/2026 after final rejection of 02/19/2026. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/19/2026 has been entered. The Office action on the currently pending elected claims 1, 2, 5, and 7-20 follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 18-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2023/0180428 to Gao (cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5, and 18, Gao (figures 3 and 4, references in parentheses applying to this document): a thermal management system comprising: an immersion working fluid; (single-phase fluid (605), figure 6, see the pump producing the flow) a heat extraction plate with an internal chamber therein (cold plate (406), figure 4); an internal working fluid positioned in the heat extraction plate (two-phase fluid 404 figure 4); and a heat sink ((314), (316), (402), figures 3 and 4) in fluid communication with the internal chamber by a vapor conduit (see annotation “vapor” on figure 4) providing fluid communication of a vapor phase of the internal working fluid toward the heat sink and a condensate conduit (see annotation “liquid” on figure 4) providing fluid communication of a liquid phase of the internal working fluid toward the heat extraction plate,
wherein the heat sink and the heat extraction plate are immersed in the immersion working fluid (par. [0045], see: “components 412, 408, 406, and/or 402 may also be immersed and in physical contact with the immersion fluid”; also see figure 3) and the heat sink is located in a downstream direction from the heat extraction plate in a flow direction of a portion of the immersion working fluid that is surrounding and contacting the heat sink and heat extraction plate (see annotated figure 3 and par. [0039], see: “divider 304 may have one or more openings that fluidly connect the acceleration channel to the remaining portion of the tank. For example, one or more walls that form the divider may have a grid pattern or have a network of openings. As such, although fluid may travel between the acceleration channel and the rest of the tank”).
PNG
media_image1.png
613
755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Gao discloses that the flow direction of the immersion working fluid is opposite a gravitational direction (see the “gravity” arrow at the bottom of figure 4).
Regarding claim 8, Gao discloses at least one fluid pump in fluid communication with the internal working fluid to move the internal working fluid through the at least one fluid conduit (the pump shown in figure 6 in the liquid cooling loop 601).
Regarding claim 19, Gao discloses that heating the internal working fluid of the thermal management device includes vaporizing the internal working fluid (see “vapor” arrow on figure. 4).
Regarding claim 20, Gao discloses that flowing internal working fluid from the heat sink to the heat-extraction plate includes allowing the internal working fluid to flow downward under a force of gravity (see the “gravity” arrow at the bottom of figure 4).
Examiner’s Note: regarding method of using claims 18-20, since general process of using of the device recited in the claims generally repeats the structure of the device recited in the rejected apparatus claims, the fact that the structure of the device of the present invention recited in the rejected apparatus claims is anticipated by Gao, means that the general method for using such a structure is also anticipated by the same reference. The method steps recited in the claims are inherently/obviously necessitated by the structure of the device of Gao.
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 13-16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao taken alone.
Regarding claim 13, Gao discloses: a thermal management system comprising:
a thermal management device including: a heat-extraction plate with an internal chamber therein (cold plate (406), figure 4); an internal working fluid positioned in the heat-extraction plate (two-phase fluid (404), figure 4); a heat sink in fluid communication with the internal chamber (condenser (402), figure 4); a vapor conduit providing fluid communication of a vapor phase of the internal working fluid from a vapor port of the internal chamber to the heat sink; (“vapor” conduit shown in figure 4 communicating cold plate (406) with condenser (402)); a condensate conduit providing fluid communication of a liquid phase of the internal working fluid from the heat sink to a condensate port of the internal chamber (“liquid” conduit shown in figure 4 communicating cold plate (406) with condenser (402)), but does not disclose that the vapor port is closer to the heat sink than the condensate port.
However, the precise length of the vapor conduit and the fluid conduit is considered to be a design implementation that would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the cooling art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in order to achieve the most efficient cooling, while not exceeding targeted production costs of the thermal management system, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 9, Gao does not disclose that the pump is located in the heat sink.
However, the precise location of the pump in the heat sink is considered to be one of several straightforward possibilities to locate the pump within the liquid cooling loop. This precise location would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the cooling art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in order to achieve the most efficient cooling, while not exceeding targeted production costs of the thermal management system, since such a modification would have involved a mere rearranging parts of an invention which involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 14, Gao discloses that the thermal management device is coupled to a heat-generating component of an electronic device with the heat sink (402) oriented above the heat-extraction plate (406) relative to a gravitational direction (see the “gravity” arrow at the bottom of figure 4).
Regarding claim 15, Gao discloses an immersion working fluid, wherein the heat sink (314, 316, 402) is downstream from the heat-extraction plate in a flow direction of a portion of the immersion working fluid that is surrounding and contacting the heat sink and the heat extraction plate (see annotated figure 3 above and figure 4 and pars. [0039], [0045]).
Regarding claim 16, Gao discloses that the heat sink (402) includes a condensation chamber, and the condensation chamber (see “condenser 402” on figure 4) includes one or more condensation surface features (see “liquid loop” (414) on figure 4) configured to facilitate condensation of the internal working fluid.
Claims 10, 11, and 17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of US 2023/0164953 to Gregory (cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 10, 11 and 17, Gao does not disclose that one or more thermal surface features such as wicking structures are used on the internal surfaces of the heat extraction plate chamber to facilitate heat exchange.
However, Gregory discloses These features are however known from teachings of Gregory (figures 3-1, 4 and 5; par. [0045]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the cooling art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to Gao according to the teachings of Gregory by providing one or more thermal surface features such as wicking structures on the internal surfaces of the heat extraction plate chamber in order to facilitate heat exchange (Gregory, par. [0045]). 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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of US 2005/0082158 to Wenger (cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 12, Gao does not disclose that the heat sink includes a plurality of fins oriented in the flow direction.
Wenger discloses this feature (figure 1) for augmenting heat exchange (see fins (36), par. [0037]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the cooling art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to Gao according to the teachings of Wenger by providing the heat sink that includes a plurality of fins oriented in the flow direction, in order to predictably augment heat exchange (Wegner, par. [0037]). 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amended claims still read on references of record as explained in the rejection above.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 18, the claims are still anticipated by Gao (US 2023/0180428) as explained in the body of the rejection above.
Furthermore, regarding obviousness rejection of the independent claim 13, Applicant contends that the modification of Gao is allegedly improper, and attacks one of three (3) legal precedents used in the rejection, i.e., Gardnerv. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
However, it appears that the Applicant is picking and choosing the legal precedents used in the rejection, since the rejection relies not only on the aforementioned one (1) legal precedent, but also on the other two (2) alternative legal precedents, i.e., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976). It’s not clear why Applicant addressed only one (1) of three (3) legal precedents used in the rejection of claim 13.
In view of the above the rejection still stands.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is (571)272-2047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jayprakash N. 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.
/Anatoly Vortman/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights