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 after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/08/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yatskov US 11,160,192 Bl.
Re claim 1, Yatskov teach a cold plate assembly for use in a liquid cooling system for cooling of a computing device having a plurality of active regions (noting many regions of space of fluid after entering cold plate before exiting and areas near thermal wall in channels in between fin groupings, fig 4, col 7) from which heat is dispersed with varying intensity,
the cold plate assembly comprising: a cold plate (fig 4) for exchanging heat between the computing device and cooling liquid of the liquid cooling system, the cold plate comprising an exterior surface (102 exterior surface) for facing the computing device and an opposite inner surface (102 inner surface) adapted to be in contact with the cooling liquid, the inner surface further comprising guiding means, being microchannels (channels in between/formed by 106), for guiding the cooling liquid along the inner surface in a predefined pattern focusing the liquid flow across one or more zones;
a distribution layer (104) configured to be mounted onto the inner surface of the cold plate, the distribution layer comprises:
a liquid inlet (402) through which the inner surface of the cold plate receives cooling liquid from the liquid cooling system,
and a liquid outlet (110) through which cooling liquid is discharged away from the inner surface into the liquid cooling system,
wherein the liquid inlet is in liquid communication with one of a plurality of inlet channels (annotated fig, 114), the inlet channel and the liquid outlet are in liquid communication with one of a plurality of outlet channels, such that each of at least a first zone and a second zone of the cold plate assembly is configured for focused heat exchange between the cooling liquid and a specific area of the computing device and is adapted for a liquid flow with one of the flow types of a split flow, a uniting flow, or a straight flow (fig 4),
wherein the first zone and the second zone are distinct regions of the cold plate that together are configured to cool different active regions of the computer device (noting two different zones are naturally distinct regions, and any distinct region is configured to cool any “active regions of the computer device” via conduction, and fluid carrying heat to the different “distinct region” which acts as a heat sink by having mass and then secondary cooling by convection or conduction away from the region),
wherein the flow types of the first zone and the second zone are different (noting broadly many different zones which would naturally haver different flow profiles since the voles are governed by several different structural shapes, figs 1, 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
565
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “wherein the flow types of the first zone and the second zone are different” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 2, Yatskov teach wherein the flow type of the first zone (zone governed by flow into 120 and then splitting into 106(1), and 106(2)) is a split flow and the flow type of the second zone (and then the flow reunites after travelling past 114 near 110) is a uniting flow (figs).
Re claim 3, Yatskov teach wherein the first zone overlaps with a first active area of the computing device and the second zone overlaps with a second active area of the computing device (202, 204, noting separate parts horizontally are naturally disposed over different portions/zones/regions of the computing device).
Re claim 4, Yatskov teach wherein the first and second active area are separated from each other ( noting separate areas disposed over different portions/zones/regions are naturally separated from each other).
Re claim 5, Yatskov teach wherein the first zone and the second zone do not overlap in such a way that the outlet channel of a uniting flow is receiving liquid from a split flow (noting the zones do not overlap horizontally , figs).
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “is receiving liquid from a split flow” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 6, Yatskov teach further comprising: the plurality of inlet channels connected in an inlet network; and the plurality of outlet channels connected in an outlet network (figs).
Re claim 7, Yatskov teach wherein the inlet network and the outlet network are connected via the microchannels (noting the microchannels “guiding means“ of claims 1 allow the fluid to flow through the cited structure and thus allow for “are connected via microchannels”).
Re claim 8, Yatskov teach wherein at least one of the plurality of inlet channels and at least one of the plurality of outlet channels are arranged on opposite sides of a local temperature maxima of at least one of the plurality of active regions (figs; it is noted that the italicized limitation is a functional limitation which the reference is capable of performing).
For clarity, the recitation “…a local temperature maxima of at least one of the plurality of active regions …” has been considered a functional limitation. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g). In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above.
Re claim 9, Yatskov teach wherein at least one of the plurality of inlet channels comprises a constriction such that the cross-sectional area of the at least one of the plurality of inlet channels is larger at a first position than at a second position by tapering and/or stepwise decrease of the cross-sectional area (noting since the inlet channels are bounded on one side by a circular wall and on another side by a flat set of fins the inlet channel merges into the outlet via the constriction, annotated fig, ).
PNG
media_image2.png
426
832
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 16, Yatskov teach wherein the microchannels have protrusions (106) extending into the microchannels.
Re claim 17, Yatskov teach wherein the protrusions are shaped as fins (col 7, figs).
Re claim 18, Yatskov teach wherein each of the first zone and the second zone is at least partially coinciding with a high-intensity zone of the computing device (col 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that examiner has stated that “configurations” have been treated as intended use in the last filed office action. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In the intended use explanations, examiner has only identified resultant fluid flow as intended use, in addition to an article being worked upon (which applicant has not responded to from the last mailed office action). The prior art meets the structural configuration as required by the claim (and applicant has failed to point out otherwise). The resultant fluid flow is considered intended use and an article being worked upon being worked upon.
The applicant argues that cooling only happens “at the heat sink fin structures” in Yatskov. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The complex/multifaceted system has various channels for fluid which allow for flow through different parts, and multiple solid parts which would conduct away heat from a heated fluid albeit at different rates. Therefore, there are many heat convection/conduction paths for heat to dissipate throughout the structure in addition to heat leaving the structure with heat carried away in a working fluid via the inlet/outlet. Therefore, applicant is alleging that Yatskov has only one zone, and/or that only a single may be interpreted from the entire structure. The examiner respectfully disagrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would interpret many different zones from the prior art, for example in figure four, an inlet zone, a zone prior to branching of the fluid, a zone where fluid may enter the fluid channels, a zone where potentially mostly laminar flow occurs within the fluid channels, a zone where fluid exits the fins, a zone where fluid exits the channels, a zone where fluid turns towards the exit, etc. ; and this list of zones is mostly shown as an example of how many potentially cooling zones in the prior exist but is not an exhaustive list of different zones which one or ordinary skill in the art would interpret to meet the very broad limitations of “one or more zones “ and “at least a first zone and a second zone of the cold plate assembly” , which are broad limitations in claim 1.
Due to the very broad scope of claim 1, and many ways heat may travel via conduction/convection, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret Yatskov to teach the newly amended limitation “wherein the first zone and the second zone are distinct regions of the cold plate that together are configured to cool different active regions of the computer device” (see detailed rejection above).
The applicant argues that Yatskov explicitly teach where cooling occurs in the fins (and possibly suggesting that cooling cannot occur in other zones). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Merely because an explicit teaching outlined where a majority of heat transfer occur does not negative physical laws of heat transfer and suggest that other parts of a heat exchanger are entirely adiabatic.
Applicant argues the claims dependent on the independent claim(s) are allowable based upon their dependence from an independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been addressed above. Thus, the rejections are proper and remain.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/GORDON A JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights