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 .
Reply Under 37 CFR 1.111
The submission of the reply filed on 1/30/2026 to the non-final Office action of 10/30/2025 is acknowledged. The Office action on the elected claims 1, 2, and 4-20 follows.
Drawings
The amended drawings filed on 01/30/2026 have been accepted by the Office.
Specification
The specification is objected. Superfluous repetition of the claims or claim-like clauses appended to the description on pp. 28-30 must be deleted. The term “claim-like clauses” means clauses present in the description which use claim language such as “of clause 1”, “according to the preceding clause”, etc. These “claim-like clauses” also include examples, embodiments or aspects presented as claim-like clauses. The claim-like language in the current specification with nested, back-referenced clauses are hard to track and produce confusion instead of clarity. The specification should provide a clear written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it in full, clear, concise, and exact rems as required by 35 USC 112(a). The claim-like language in the specification is confusing and obscuring rather than clarifying the disclosure.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which the Applicant may become aware in the specification.
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, 5-8, 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 (references in parentheses applying to this document): a thermal management system comprising: an immersion working fluid having a flow direction; (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 in fluid communication with the internal chamber by at least one fluid conduit, wherein the heat sink is downstream from the heat extraction plate in the flow direction (condenser (402) shown in figure 4 is located downstream from the heat plate in the flow direction, since it is located after the “vapor” arrow).
Alternatively, Fig. 6 of Gao shows the cooling loop of the immersion working fluid (605), including the pump which would inherently produce a flow direction of said immersion working fluid, wherein said immersion working fluid would inherently flow in numerous directions within the tank (615) with at least a portion of the flow being as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, Gao discloses that the at least one fluid conduit includes a vapor conduit providing fluid communication of a vapor phase of the internal working fluid toward the heat sink and a condensate conduit providing fluid communication of a liquid phase of the internal working fluid toward the heat extraction plate (see conduits near the vapor and liquid arrows of two-phase fluid (404), figure 4).
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 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 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 (605) fluid having a flow direction, wherein the heat sink (402) is downstream from the heat-extraction plate (406) in the flow direction (figure 4 and single phase fluid (605) on figure 6).
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.
Regarding the objection to specification, the Applicant contends that, allegedly, “[t]he Examiner appears to be making his own rule regarding "claim-like clauses", as there is no case law or MPEP requirement that the description be devoid of "nested, back-referenced clauses". Further, the explicit numbering of the clauses provide clarity and reduce confusion as the allow the reader to have a definite reference point. In contrast, the Application, as filed, includes "The vapor internal working fluid 550 flows through the vapor conduit 534 to the heat sink 528, where the heat sink 528 exhausts heat from the internal working fluid (e.g., to the immersion working fluid such as described in relation to FIG. 1 through FIG. 3) to condense the vapor internal working fluid 550 to the liquid phase." Application, paragraph [0047]. This type of back-referenced combination of description is standard practice, and no objection was made to this example. References to earlier portions of the Description (and particularly with explicit numbering or headings) is not improper and does not render the Specification unclear under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).”
Contrary to the Applicant’s position, the Examiner is not making “his own rule” regarding the “claim-like clauses”, as alleged by the Applicant. There is one main “rule” that the Office is following in this regard which is that the specification should provide a clear written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it in full, clear, concise, and exact terms as required by the 35 USC 112(a). However, the presence of the claim-like language in the instant specification is confusing and obscuring rather than clarifying the disclosure, since said claim-like clauses contain multiple dependencies with nested, back-referenced clauses that are hard to track and produce confusion instead of clarity. The multiple dependencies and alternate passages are obscuring rather than clarifying the disclosure, and therefore, are clearly not in line with the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
Therefore, the objection still stands.
Furthermore, regarding the art rejection the Applicant contends that, allegedly, “Gao is cited to allegedly teach all of the elements of the claims. In particular, the Office Action asserts that Gao teaches "an immersion working fluid having a flow direction; (single-phase fluid (605), figure 6)" and "wherein the heat sink is downstream from the heat extraction plate in the flow direction (condenser (402) shown in figure 4 is located downstream from the heat plate in the flow direction, since it is located after the "vapor" arrow)." Office Action, page 4-5. However, this conflates the flow direction of the immersion working fluid and the flow direction of the internal working fluid.”
On the contrary, the Office does not “conflate” the flow directions as erroneously alleged by the Applicant. There are two distinct flow directions recited in claim 1, i.e., one of the “immersion working fluid” (see line 3, “an immersion working fluid having a flow direction”) and another one of the “internal working fluid” (see the last line of the claim). The last three (3) lines of claim 1 recite: “an internal working fluid positioned in the heat extraction plate; and a heat sink in fluid communication with the internal chamber by at least one fluid conduit, wherein the heat sink is downstream from the heat extraction plate in the flow direction.” (emphasis added). The claim does not specify that “the flow direction” recited in the last line of the claim pertains to the “immersion working fluid”. On the contrary, said “flow direction” is following the introduction of the “internal working fluid” and of the flow path thereof (i.e., “a heat sink in fluid communication with the internal chamber by at least one fluid conduit”, etc.), and therefore, pertains to the “internal working fluid”. The claim is broader that argued.
Furthermore, regarding the alternative interpretation of Gao, the gist of the Applicant’s arguments is that, allegedly, “the cited portions of Gao teach an immersion working fluid (single-phase fluid 605) that does not appear to have a defined flow direction in the enclosure 608.” (emphasis added).
In response, the Office would like to direct the Applicant’s attention to the fact that no such language is present in the claim. There are neither the “defined”, nor “in the enclosure” limitations recited in claim 1. The claim just broadly states that “an immersion working fluid having a flow direction” and nothing else. Again, the claim is broader than argued. Gao clearly teaches the flow direction of the fluid (605) since there us a pump present as can be clearly seen on Fig. 6. Furter, the Applicant states that during the interview of 01/06/2026, allegedly, “the Examiner noted that the single-phase fluid 605 of tank 615 would demonstrate turbulent flow based on the inlet and outlet of the tank 615 in order to circulate the single-phase fluid in the tank 615. During the telephonic interview, the Examiner interpreted this turbulent flow as “an immersion working fluid having a flow direction” as the turbulent flow results in the single-phase fluid 605 flowing in all directions simultaneously and, therefore, anticipating the claim language of claim 1.” (emphasis added).
The aforementioned Applicant’s characterization of the Examiner’s statements during the aforementioned interview is incorrect. The Examiner has never characterized the flow of the fluid (605) as “turbulent”. The definition of the “turbulent flow” is pretty specific, i.e., “Turbulent flow is defined as a type of fluid flow that occurs when the flow rate through a tube exceeds a critical velocity, resulting in the fluid molecules swirling in eddies and vortices, characterized by both rotational and linear velocity. The onset of turbulent flow can be predicted using Reynolds’s number, with values greater than 2000 indicating its likelihood.” (https://www. sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/turbulent-flow). On the contrary, during the interview the Examiner stated that in Fig. 6 of Gao the cooling loop of the immersion working fluid (605) has a pump which would inherently produce a flow direction of said immersion working fluid, wherein said immersion working fluid would inherently flow/circulate in numerous directions within the tank (615) with at least a portion of the fluid (605) would inherently circulate within said tank (615) in a direction as recited in the claim. Again, the Examiner has never defined said flow as “turbulent” as erroneously alleged by the Applicant.
Again, the claim does not recite that the “flow direction” is “uniform”, “defined”, “unidirectional”, “laminar”, etc., but just broadly recites the “flow direction”. The claim is broader than argued.
Furthermore, the main thrust of the Applicant’s arguments is that, allegedly, the Office has interpreted the limitation “flow direction” too broadly without consulting the specification, i.e., the Applicant states: “[t]he correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is not whether the specification proscribes or precludes some broad reading of the claim term adopted by the examiner. And it is not simply an interpretation that is not inconsistent with the specification. It is an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification…”. Furter, the Applicant has cited number of legal precedents in support of the aforementioned conclusion.
In response, the Office would like to direct the Applicant’s attention to the fact that “the words of a claim must be given their “plain meaning” unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification”. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). In other words, the specification should be consulted when the meaning of the limitation is unclear. However, in the instant case the meaning of the limitation “flow direction” is self-explanatory and clear, i.e., it’s a direction in which liquid flows. The Office has interpreted the meaning of said limitation accordingly, i.e., without contradiction to the specification. Had the Office interpreted said “flow direction” as something completely different then the Applicant would have a point. However, this is not the case in the instant situation.
In the instant case, it appears that the Applicant is attempting to import the limitation(s) from the specification. However, it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (II).
During the interview conducted on 01/06/2026 the Examiner has advised the Applicant’s representative to clarify the claims by introducing additional clarifying limitations (including structural ones) and not to rely solely on the broad non-structural limitations such as the “flow direction”. However, the Applicant has failed to do so, and instead is attempting to import limitation(s) from the specification.
In view of the above the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 2835