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 were received on 10 December 2025. These drawings are accepted.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (US 2023/0084765 A1) in view of Curtis et al. (US 2023/0025254 A1)
Re. claim 1: Gao discloses:
a single phase liquid immersion cooling system with a forced cooling circuit for cooling at least one heat-generating electronic device, comprising:
an immersion cooling unit (200) including a tank (205) defining a fluid-tight space within which a dielectric fluid (215) is maintained, (see fig. 2; para. 0019-0020)
wherein the at least one heat-generating electronic device (210, 310, 402, 410) is disposed within the fluid-tight space and at least partially submerged within the dielectric fluid, and the at least one heat-generating electronic device is provided with at least one radiator (353, 354, 453), and the radiator is provided with an inlet connector (360, 460) on a side thereof; (see fig. 2, 3, 4; para. 0024-0028)
a heat exchanger (230, 430); and (see fig. 2, 4; para. 0019, 0028)
a dielectric fluid-circulating unit including:
a fluid outlet pipe (pipe connecting 224, 225) interconnecting the heat exchanger with the tank for guiding the dielectric fluid flowing through the at least one heat-generating electronic device into the heat exchanger so as to cool the dielectric fluid, wherein the fluid outlet pipe is provided with a motor pump (225); (see fig. 2; para. 0019-0020)
a manifold (240, 440); (see fig. 2, 4; para. 0019-0022, 0028-0030)
a first fluid inlet pipe (242, 442) interconnecting the manifold with the heat exchanger for guiding the dielectric fluid cooled by the heat exchanger into the manifold; and (see fig. 2, 4; para. 0019-0022)
at least one second fluid inlet pipe (265, 365, 465) having one end connected to the manifold, and the other end connected to the inlet connector of the at least one radiator, the second fluid inlet pipe being configured to guide the dielectric fluid from the manifold into the at least one radiator. (see fig. 2-4; para. 0020, 0024, 0028-0030)
Gao fails to disclose:
The inlet connector facing an inner bottom side of the tank;
However, Curtis discloses:
at least one heat-generating electronic device (106) is disposed within the fluid-tight space (108) and at least partially submerged within the dielectric fluid (202), and (see fig. 1; para. 0021-0025)
the at least one heat-generating electronic device is provided with at least one radiator (302) and the radiator is provided with an inlet (308) on a side thereof, the inlet facing an inner bottom side of the tank. (see fig. 3-6; para. 0028-0032)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rotate the radiator of Gao so that the inlet connector faces the inner bottom side of the tank as taught by Curtis. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to draw in colder fluid from lower and use natural convection in combination with the pump to remove heated liquid vertically.
Re. claim 2: Gao discloses wherein the at least one radiator is a finned cooler or a cold plate (353, 354, 453). (see fig. 3, 4; para. 0024-0028).
Re. claim 4: Gao discloses wherein the manifold (240, 440) is disposed on an inner upper-lateral wall of the tank and above the at least one heat-generating electronic device (210, 310, 402, 410), and the manifold is provided with at least one opening (244, 444) that is positioned in correspondence with the at least one heat-generating electronic device. (see fig. 2, 4; para. 0019-0022, 0028-0030)
Re. claim 5: Gao discloses wherein the immersion cooling unit further includes a guide board (220, 420) provided with a plurality of through holes (221), and the guide board is disposed between an inner-bottom surface of the tank and the at least one heat-generating electronic device (210, 402, 410). (see fig. 2, 4; para. 0019-0022, 0028-0030)
Re. claim 6: Gao discloses wherein the fluid outlet pipe (pipe connecting 224, 225) has an end (224) connected to an upper-lateral wall of the tank (205) and positioned beneath a liquid level of the dielectric fluid. (see fig. 2)
Re. claim 7: Gao discloses wherein the dielectric fluid-circulating unit further includes a third fluid inlet pipe (pipe attached to 222, 422); (see fig. 2, 4; para. 0019-0022, 0028-0030)
the third fluid inlet pipe has one end (222, 422) connected to a lower-lateral wall of the tank and positioned between the inner-bottom surface of the tank and the guide board (220, 420), and the third fluid inlet pipe has the other end which communicates with the first fluid inlet pipe (at 242, 442)). (see fig. 2, 4; para. 0019-0022, 0028-0030)
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of Curtis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ozyalcin et al. (US 2017/0311484 A1).
Re. claim 3: Gao and Curtis fail to specifically disclose:
wherein the heat exchanger is a plate heat exchanger.
However, Ozyalcin discloses:
wherein the heat exchanger (108) is a plate heat exchanger. (see fig. 1, 2; para. 0036, 0045)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the heat exchanger of Gao and Curtis a plate heat exchanger as taught by Ozyalcin. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to provide a working heat exchanger by choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of Curtis as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Sasaki et al. (US 2017/0265328 A1).
Re. claim 8: Gao and Curtis fails to disclose:
wherein the third fluid inlet pipe is provided with a control valve.
However, Sasaki discloses:
wherein the third fluid inlet pipe (48c) is provided with a control valve (45a). (see fig. 9; para. 0045-0054)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the third fluid inlet pipe of Gao and Curtis with a control valve as taught by Sasaki. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to independently control the fluid flow rate for each inlet into the system to control heat removal. (Sasaki para. 0047-0049)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-11, filed 10 December 20258, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gao have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gao modified by Curtis as seen above. Applicant argues that Gao fails to disclose an inlet at the bottom of the radiator and an outlet at the top of the radiator. The Examiner agrees, however, Curtis teaches this Bottom-In, Top-Out style radiator. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that this configuration would work in conjunction with natural convection of cooling fluid as heated fluid expands and naturally moves upward within the system. The combination of Gao and Curtis renders the claims unpatentable.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ADAM B DRAVININKAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9a-6p MT.
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 (JP) 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.
January 28, 2026
/ADAM B DRAVININKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835
Prosecution Insights