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 under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application on 02/04/2026 after final rejection of 12/04/2025 and advisory action of 01/13/2026. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/04/2026 has been entered. The Office action on currently pending elected claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16, and 18-19 follows.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 Ln.5: the clause “along an arrangement direction” should be amended to recite “along the arrangement direction” since claim 1 now provides the antecedent basis for the limitation.
The Office requests Applicant’s cooperation with reviewing and claims and correcting ALL remaining informalities present in the claims, but not made of record above. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodla (US 20240153846) in view of Olesen (US 20130032230) as evidenced by Joshi (US 20110272120).
Regarding claim 1, Bodla discloses (Fig.2):
An electronic device, comprising: a cold plate (See Fig.2) comprising: a liquid cooling main body (See Fig.2) having an inlet (250), an outlet (255) and a chamber (See Figure Below) in communication with the inlet (250) and the outlet (255); and a partition structure (280), located in the chamber, defining a plurality of first channels (Fig.2: the space between two adjacent 280 in which 262 and 266 extends will define “a plurality of first channels”) and two second channels (See Figure Below) in the chamber, wherein the plurality of first channels are located between (See Figure Below) and in communication (See Figure Below) with the two second channels; wherein an extension direction (Fig.2: the directions shown by 262 and 266 will define “an extension direction of each of the plurality of first channels”) of each of the plurality of first channels is different from an extension direction (See Figure Below) of each of the two second channels, and one of the two second channels is directly in communication with one of the inlet (250) and the outlet (255) (See Figure of Claim12: there is direct communication between 250 and the first one of the Two Second Channels and/or there is direct communication between the first one of the Two Second Channels and 255); wherein the partition structure (280) comprises a main portion (Fig.2: the main body of 280 will define the “main portion”), the plurality of first channels (Fig.2: the space between two adjacent 280 in which 262 and 266 extends will define “a plurality of first channels”) are arranged along an arrangement direction (Fig.2: the horizontal direction in which each of the 280’s are placed will define the “arrangement direction”), the main portion (Fig.2: the main body of 280 will define the “main portion”) extends along a direction different from the arrangement direction (Fig.2: the horizontal direction in which each of the 280’s are placed will define the “arrangement direction”) (Fig.2: the main body of 280, which defines the “main portion”, extends along a vertical direction which is different from the horizontal direction in which 280 is arranged).
See next page→
PNG
media_image1.png
705
910
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the above embodiment of Bodla does not explicitly disclose:
A casing; an electronic module, accommodated in the casing; and a cold plate, located in the casing, comprising: a liquid cooling main body, in thermal contact with the electronic module.
Bodla however presents another embodiment that teaches (Fig.1):
A casing ([0127]: the invention is directed to a computer, so the casing of the computer will define the “casing”); an electronic module (110, 115, 120, and 130 in combination), accommodated in the casing (Fig.1 and [0127]: the assembly shown in figure 1 will be inside the casing of the computer); and a cold plate (100), located in the casing (Fig.1 and [0127]: 100 will be inside the casing of the computer in the completed assembly), comprising: a liquid cooling main body (Fig.1: the body of 100), in thermal contact (See Fig.1) with the electronic module (110, 115, 120, and 130 in combination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the additional embodiment taught by Bodla to modify the primary embodiment of Bodla such that it has a casing and electronic module and arranged such that both the electronic module and cold plate are located in the casing, and such that the liquid cooling main body of the cold plate is in thermal contact with the electronic module, as claimed, in order to achieve the more efficient thermal management as disclosed by Bodla ([0002]-[0003]).
However, the above combination would still fail to teach:
Wherein the partition structure comprises a main portion and two branch portions, and the two branch portions are respectively connected to two opposite ends of the main portion and extend along the arrangement direction.
Olesen however teaches (Fig.7 and [0043]: the assembly shown in figure 7 will have the plate 6, inlet 7, and outlet 8 shown in figure 2, and thus the relevant components of figure 2 will also be utilized):
Wherein the partition structure (See Figure Below) comprises a main portion (See Figure Below) and two branch portions (See Figure Below), the plurality of first channels (See Figure Below) are arranged along an arrangement direction (See Figure Below), the main portion extends along a direction different (See Figure Below) from the arrangement direction, and the two branch portions are respectively connected to two opposite ends of the main portion and extend along (See Figure Below) the arrangement direction.
See next page→
PNG
media_image2.png
833
906
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Olesen to further modify the device of Bodla such that the partition structure also includes two branch portions so that the partition structure comprises a main portion and two branch portions, and arrange the two branch portions such that they are respectively connected to two opposite ends of the main portion and extend along the arrangement direction, as claimed, in order to further improve the heat dissipation capabilities due to the increased surface area of the fins/partition structure since it is known in the art to modify the shape of fins to have any desired shape, as evidenced by Joshi ([0042]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodla (US 20240153846) and Olesen (US 20130032230) (as evidenced by Joshi (US 20110272120)) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lozach (FR 3121059).
Regarding claim 2, Bodla further discloses:
The partition structure (280) is arranged along an arrangement direction (Fig.2: the horizontal direction in which each of the 280’s are placed will define the “arrangement direction”).
However, the primary embodiment of Bodla does not explicitly disclose:
Wherein the partition structure comprises a first partition structure and a second partition structure, the first partition structure and the second partition structure are in a staggered arrangement, the electronic module comprises a plurality of electronic components, the partition structure and the plurality of electronic components both are arranged along an arrangement direction, and the plurality of first channels respectively correspond to the plurality of electronic components.
However, the additional embodiment of Bodla further teaches:
The electronic module (110, 115, 120, and 130 in combination) comprises a plurality of electronic components (Fig.1: 115- there is a plurality of 115 that will define the “plurality of electronic components”), the plurality of electronic components are arranged along an arrangement direction (Fig.1: the horizontal direction in which each 115 is displaced will define the “arrangement direction”), and the cold plate (100) respectively correspond to the plurality of electronic components (Fig.1 and [0324]: in the coupled state, 100 covers 115, and thus corresponds to 115).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the additional embodiment of Bodla to further modify the device of modified Bodla such that the electronic module comprises a plurality of electronic components so that both the partition structure and the plurality of electronic components are both arranged along the arrangement direction, and such that the plurality of first channels respectively correspond to the plurality of electronic components, as claimed, in order to achieve the more efficient thermal management as outlined in claim 1 above.
However, the combination still fails to teach:
Wherein the partition structure comprises a first partition structure and a second partition structure, the first partition structure and the second partition structure are in a staggered arrangement.
Lozach however teaches (Figs.1-2):
Wherein the partition structure (See Fig.2) comprises a first partition structure (See Figure Below) and a second partition structure (See Figure Below), the first partition structure and the second partition structure are in a staggered arrangement (See Fig.2).
See next page→
PNG
media_image3.png
518
890
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Lozach to further modify the device of modified Bodla such that the partition structure comprises a first partition structure and a second partition structure, and to then arrange them in a staggered arrangement, as claimed, in order to further improve the holding means between the partition structure and the liquid cooling main body (i.e., due to the attachment points 101 provided on the second partition structure and liquid cooling main body of the cold plate taught by Lozach, there will be an additional holding means to hold the partition structure to the liquid cooling main body in order to provide improved mechanical holding between the partition structure and the liquid cooling main body).
See next page→
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, and 10 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, subject to the obviation of the objections outlined above.
Claims 4, 7, and 9 are objected to for being dependent upon a respective allowable dependent claim that is dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claims 12-13, 15-16, and 18-19 are believed to be in condition for allowance. The Office notes that once independent claim 1 is in condition for allowance, rejoinder of all of the withdrawn claims can then be considered. As it currently stands, since independent claim 12 is in condition for allowance, withdrawn claims 17 and 20 can be rejoined at allowance.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the allowability resides in the overall structure and functionality of the device as recited in the combined subject matter of claims 1-3, and at least in part, for the reasons outlined in the non-final Office action of 03/26/2025.
Regarding claim 6, the allowability resides in the overall structure and functionality of the device as recited in the combined subject matter of claims 1 and 6, and at least in part, because claim 6 recites the limitations: “wherein the liquid cooling main body has an inner surface defining the chamber, the plurality of first channels in the chamber are defined by the main portion of the partition structure, the two second channels in the chamber are defined by the two branch portions of the partition structure and the inner surface, a plurality of communication channels in the chamber are defined by the two branch portions of the partition structure, and opposite ends of the plurality of first channels are located between and in communication with the two second channels through the plurality of communication channels”.
The aforementioned limitations, in combination with all remaining limitations of respective claim 6, are believed to render the combined subject matter of claims 1 and 6, and all claims depending therefrom allowable over the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination.
Regarding claim 10, the allowability resides in the overall structure and functionality of the device as recited in the combined subject matter of claims 1 and 10, and at least in part, for the same reasons as those outlined for claim 19 (refer to the previous Office actions regarding the reasons for allowance for claim 19), since claim 10 recites similar subject matter as that of claim 19 and will thus have the same reasons for allowance.
Regarding claim 12, the allowability resides in the overall structure and functionality of the device as respectively recited in independent claim 12, and at least in part, because claim 12 recites the limitations: “wherein the plurality of first channels are arranged along an arrangement direction, each of the plurality of partition structures comprises a main portion and two branch portions, the main portion extends along a direction different from the arrangement direction, and the two branch portions are respectively connected to two opposite ends of the main portion and extend along the arrangement direction; wherein each of the plurality of communication channels is formed between adjacent two of the branch portions of the plurality of partition structures”.
The aforementioned limitations, in combination with all remaining limitations of respective independent claim 12, are believed to render said claim 12, and all claims depending therefrom (claims 13, 15-16, and 18-19) allowable over the prior art references of record, taken either alone or in combination.
Bodla (US 20240153846) is still believed to be the closest prior art reference. As outlined above, Bodla discloses a cold plate that is similar to that of the claimed invention. However, Bodla fails to disclose, at least, the cold plate having a plurality of partition structures, and each of the plurality of partition structures having a main portion and two branch portions that are arranged to define a plurality of first channels, two second channels, and a plurality of communication channels. Even though there are prior art references that teach partition structures that have a main portion and two branch portions that are respectively connected to two opposite ends of the main portion, the Office contests that absent impermissible hindsight, there would be no reason for one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bodla to arrive at the claimed invention. In other words, even though each of the claimed elements are known in isolation, there would be no clear reason for one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bodla with any of the references that teach the claimed partition structure since such a combination would rely on impermissible hindsight.
Furthermore, as described in paragraph [0050] of Applicant’s specification (see US PG-Pub version of Applicant’s specification), the shape, spacing, and width of the partition structures and its relationship to the plurality of first channels, two second channels, and plurality of communication channels is what permits uniform distribution of the liquid coolant in the cold plate. Therefore, the structure (i.e., shape) of the partition structure has criticality, and thus giving the shape of each of the partition structures and its relationship to the plurality of first channels, two second channels, and the plurality of communication channels significant patentable weight. The Office asserts that none of the prior art references, taken alone or in combination, provide a sufficient reason for combination to arrive at the claimed device as claimed in independent claim 12 (i.e., the shape of the partition structure and its relationship to the plurality of first channels, two second channels, and the plurality of communication channels is not a simple design choice and has criticality, as outlined above, and none of the prior art references, taken alone or in combination, are believed to teach and/or suggest a reasonable reason as to why one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts would modify Bodla to arrive at the claimed device). For all of the reasons outlined above, none of the prior art references, taken alone or in combination, are believed to render the claimed invention unpatentable as claimed.
Finally, the Office has not identified any double patenting issues.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of 02/04/2026 have been fully considered. Regarding Applicant’s argument made for independent claim 1, Applicant contests independent claim 1 is now in condition for allowance since “Aspects of allowable claims 5 are incorporated into claim 1” and that the “combination of original claims 1 and 5 (amended claim 1) and its dependent claims are patentable over Bodla, Lozach and Olsen”.
The Office has fully considered Applicant’s argument, but respectfully disagrees. As outlined in the advisory action of 01/13/2026, the Office action stated that “it is believed that the broadened claim scope can now be rejected while using Bodla as the closest prior art reference”. Unlike independent claim 12, independent claim 1 does not require the plurality of communication structure and also does not require the relationship between the channels (i.e., the plurality of first channels, two second channels, and communication channels) and the structure (i.e., the main portion and two branch portions) of the partition structure. In other words, unlike independent claim 12, the subject matter of claim 1 is solely related to a shape of the partition, and thus believed to properly obviated by the combination of Bodla and Olesen (i.e., unlike independent claim 12, independent claim 1 does not recite enough of the structure in order to give the shape of the partition members the criticality discussed above, since the criticality of the shape has to be in relation to the plurality of first channels, two second channels, and plurality of communication channel). For the reasons provided above, Applicant’s argument is believed to be improper.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 10999955: teaches a partition structure that has a main portion and at least two branch portions.
US 20160109190: teaches a cold plate structure that has a partition structure that has a main portion and at least two branch portions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN S SUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
See next page→
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.
/STEPHEN S SUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835