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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/30/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 6/5/2026, 7/13/2026, 7/30/2026 have been fully considered and are attached hereto.
Double Patenting
Examiner’s Note: A review of the record reveals that the previous double patenting rejections to claims 15-20 in the non-final office action dated 12/3/2025 were never addressed by the Applicant, either by providing an approved terminal disclaimer or by providing persuasive arguments on how the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims. Accordingly, a new double patenting rejection to claims 15-18, 20 are provided below for consideration.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 15, 18, 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of copending Application No. 18/517209 in view of Dogruoz et al. (US 2021/0282301 – hereinafter, “Dogruoz”).
With respect to claim 15, claim 4 of the ‘209 application recites (Recitations of the ‘209 application in parentheses) a method of cooling a computing device having a first temperature section and a second temperature section, comprising: flowing a first coolant to a first cooling structure of a cold plate assembly (Cl. 1, “flowing the cooled first coolant to a first cooling structure of a cold plate assembly”); cooling the first temperature section with the first cooling structure (Cl. 4, “cooling a first temperature section of the computing device with the first cooling structure”); flowing a second coolant to a second cooling structure of the cold plate assembly connected to the first cooling structure (Cl. 1, “flowing the cooled second coolant to a second cooling structure of the cold plate assembly connected to the first cooling structure”).
Claim 4 fails to specifically recite cooling the second temperature section with the second cooling structure and reducing heat transfer between the first cooling structure and the second cooling structure with a thermal barrier positioned between the first cooling structure and the second cooling structure.
Dogruoz, however, teaches (In Fig 5B) cooling a second temperature section with a second cooling structure (565) and reducing heat transfer between a first cooling structure (565’) and the second cooling structure (565) with a thermal barrier (568) positioned between the first cooling structure (565’) and the second cooling structure (565).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dogruoz with that of claim 4 of the ‘209 application, such that claim 4 of the ‘209 application further recites cooling the second temperature section with the second cooling structure and reducing heat transfer between the first cooling structure and the second cooling structure with a thermal barrier positioned between the first cooling structure and the second cooling structure, as taught by Dogruoz, since doing so would allow for the second cooling structure of the cold plate to provide cooling to one or more components of the computing device.
With respect to claim 18, claim 4 of the ‘209 application as modified by Dogruoz recites the limitations of claim 15 as per above but fails to specifically recite flowing the second coolant includes flowing the second coolant at a lower flow rate than the first coolant.
The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of the conventionality of having a first coolant loop that has a higher flowrate than a second coolant loop.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have claim 15 further recite that the second coolant is at a lower flow rate than the first coolant since doing so would allow the fluid path of the first coolant loop to be longer than the fluid path of the second coolant loop while still allowing the coolant in the first coolant loop to remove more heat. Allowing the path of the first coolant loop to be longer allows for respective cooling systems to be placed further away from one another preventing a buildup of heat in an area of the computing center.
With respect to claim 20, claim 4 of the ‘209 application as modified by Dogruoz recites the limitations of claim 15 as per above but fails to specifically recite maintaining a temperature difference between the first cooling structure and the second cooling structure based on reducing heat transfer between the first cooling structure and the second cooling structure with the thermal barrier.
Dogruoz, however, teaches maintaining a temperature difference between the first cooling structure (565’) and the second cooling structure (565) based on reducing heat transfer between the first cooling structure (565’) and the second cooling structure (565) with the thermal barrier (568).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the further teachings of Dogruoz with that of claim 4 of the ‘209 application, such that claim 4 of the ‘209 application further recites maintaining a temperature difference between the first cooling structure and the second cooling structure based on reducing heat transfer between the first cooling structure and the second cooling structure with the thermal barrier, as taught by Dogruoz since doing so would prevent thermal conduction between the first cooling structure and the second cooling structure.
Claim 16 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of copending Application No. 18/517209 in view of Dogruoz and further in view of Li et al. (CN 114501923 – hereinafter, “Li”).
With respect to claim 16, claim 4 of the ‘209 application as modified by Dogruoz recites the limitations of claim 15 as per above but fails to specifically recite wherein cooling the second temperature section includes cooling the second temperature section to a lower temperature than the first temperature section.
Li however, teaches cooling two different cooling devices to different temperatures (“the invention is suitable for different cooled devices to be cooled to different temperature requirements”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Li with that of claim 4 of the ‘209 application and Dogruoz, such that claim 4 of the ‘209 application further recites the second temperature section includes cooling the second temperature section to a lower temperature than the first temperature section, as suggested by Li, since doing so would reduce the amount of heat that can spread between the second temperature section and the first temperature section.
Claim 17 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of copending Application No. 18/517209 in view of Dogruoz and further in view of Eckberg et al. (US 2011/0232889 – hereinafter, “Eckberg”).
With respect to claim 17, claim 4 of the ‘209 application as modified by Dogruoz recites the limitations of claim 15 as per above but fails to specifically recite flowing the second coolant includes flowing the second coolant at a lower temperature than the first coolant.
Eckberg, however, teaches flowing a second coolant includes flowing the second coolant at a lower temperature than a first coolant (¶ 0006, “a first liquid coolant is supplied to a first section of an air-to-liquid heat exchanger, a second liquid coolant is supplied to a second section of the air-to-liquid heat exchanger at a lower temperature than the first liquid coolant”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Eckberg with that of claim 4 of the ‘209 application as modified by Dogruoz, such that, in claim 15 is further modified to recite flowing the second coolant includes flowing the second coolant at a lower temperature than the first coolant, as taught by Eckberg, since doing so would allow for the second coolant to have the ability to absorb more heat as compared to the first coolant.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The new recitation, “the thermal barrier is configured to reduce heat transfer between the first cooling structure and the second cooling structure” does not further limit claim 1 since these limitations are already encompassed by the limitations, “a thermal barrier between the first cooling structure and the second cooling structure that thermally insulates the first cooling structure and the second cooling structure” provided in claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 15, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dogruoz.
With respect to claim 15, Dogruoz teaches (In Figs 2, 5b) a method of cooling a computing device (200) having a first temperature section (Section associated with 210C) and a second temperature section (Section associated with 210B), comprising: flowing a first coolant (584) to a first cooling structure (565’) of a cold plate assembly (540); cooling the first temperature section with the first cooling structure; flowing a second coolant (582) to a second cooling structure (565) of the cold plate assembly connected to the first cooling structure (565 and 565’ are mechanically connected via walls of the cold plate assembly); and cooling the second temperature section with the second cooling structure (565, See ¶ 0056-0058), reducing heat transfer between the first cooling structure (565’) and the second cooling structure (565) with a thermal barrier (568) positioned between the first cooing structure (565’) and the second cooling structure (565, see Fig 5B, where 568 prevents fluid from mixing between the first and second cooling structures and thus acts as a thermal barrier).
With respect to claim 17, Dogruoz further teaches flowing the second coolant (582) includes flowing the second coolant (582) at a lower temperature than the first coolant (584, see Fig 5B where the coolant enters at 542 and flow over 565 at a first temperature, picks up heat from various electronic devices, and then the return flow, which is now the first coolant and which is now warmer than the flow over 565, flows over 565’).
With respect to claim 20, Dogruoz further teaches maintaining a temperature difference between the first cooling structure (565’) and the second cooling structure (565) based at least somewhat on reducing the heat transfer between the first cooling structure (565’) and the second cooling structure (565) with the thermal barrier (568, the presence of 568 helps to maintain a temperature difference between the first and second cooling structures since 568 helps to reduce heat transfer between the two structures).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dogruoz in view of Li.
With respect to claim 16, Dogruoz teaches the limitations of claim 15 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein cooling the second temperature section includes cooling the second temperature section to a lower temperature than the first temperature section.
Li however, teaches cooling two different cooling devices to different temperatures (“the invention is suitable for different cooled devices to be cooled to different temperature requirements”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Li with that of Dogruoz, such that, in Dogruoz, the second temperature section includes cooling the second temperature section to a lower temperature than the first temperature section, as suggested by Li, since doing so would allow for components which need a lower operating temperature to be located relatively close to components which can have a relatively high operating temperature. This can reduce circuit board space needed to accommodate both components.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dogruoz.
With respect to claim 18, Dogruoz teaches (In Figs 2, 4b) a method of cooling a computing device (200) having a first temperature section (Section associated with 210B) and a second temperature section (Section associated with 210C), comprising: flowing a first coolant (482) to a first cooling structure (465) of a cold plate assembly (440); cooling the first temperature section with the first cooling structure (See ¶ 0036-0044); flowing a second coolant (484) to a second cooling structure (465’) of the cold plate assembly connected to the first cooling structure (465 and 465’ are mechanically connected via walls of the cold plate assembly); and cooling the second temperature section with the second cooling structure (See ¶ 0036-0044), reducing heat transfer between the first cooling structure (465) and the second cooling structure (465’) with a thermal barrier (468) positioned between the first cooing structure (465) and the second cooling structure (465’, see Fig 4B, where 468 prevents fluid from mixing between the first and second cooling structures and thus acts as a thermal barrier).
Dogruoz fails to specifically teach or suggest flowing the second coolant (484) includes flowing the second coolant at a lower flow rate than the first coolant (482).
The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of the conventionality of having a first coolant loop that has a higher flowrate than a second coolant loop.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second coolant at a lower flow rate than the first coolant since doing so would allow for devices which are operating at more similar operating temperatures thus reducing the temperature gradients between 210b and 210c (Since 465 is associated with higher heat generating devices, more flow over 465 will increase heat transfer away from the device associated therewith and since 465’ is associated with lower heat generating devices, less flow over 465’ will decrease heat transfer away from the device associated therewith and this can allow for 210b and 210c to be of more similar operating temperatures which will reduce the thermal gradients between the two on the circuit board).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to claims 1, 3-8, the allowability resides in the overall structure of the device as recited in independent claim 1 and at least in part because claim 1 recites, “the second temperature section having a lower temperature threshold than the first temperature section”.
The aforementioned limitations in combination with all remaining limitations of claim 1 are believed to render said claim 1 and claims 3-8 dependent therefrom patentable over the art of record.
The closest art of record is believed to be that of Dogruoz and Malouin et al. (US 2022/0117115 – hereinafter, “Malouin”) where Dogruoz teaches (In Fig 5B) a cold plate assembly (540) for cooling a computing device (200), comprising: a first cooling structure (565) configured to provide cooling from a flow of first coolant (582) to a first temperature section (Section associated with 210b) of the computing device; a second cooling structure (565’) connected to the first cooling structure (Via walls of 540) and configured to provide cooling from a flow of second coolant (584) to a second temperature section (Section associated with 210c) of the computing device.
Dogruoz fails to specifically teach or suggest the second temperature section having a lower temperature threshold than the first temperature section; and a thermal barrier between the first cooling structure and the second cooling structure that thermally insulates the first cooling structure and the second cooling structure.
Malouin teaches a thermal barrier (410, ¶ 0052, “the thermal cross-talk section (410) may be made from thermally-insulating materials”) between a first cooling line and a second cooling line, the thermal barrier insulating the first cooling line from the second cooling line.
However, neither Dogruoz nor Malouin teach or suggest the second temperature section having a lower temperature threshold than the first temperature section, as claimed. Further, the Examiner does not believe it would be obvious to modify Dogruoz with any additional references to meet these limitations.
With respect to claims 9-14, the allowability resides in the overall structure of the device as recited in independent claim 9 and at least in part because claim 9 recites, “the second temperature section having a lower temperature threshold than the first temperature section”.
The aforementioned limitations in combination with all remaining limitations of claim 9 are believed to render said claim 9 and all claims dependent therefrom patentable over the art of record.
Again, the closest art of record is believed to be that of Dogruoz and Malouin for similar reasons as laid out above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 19 is 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.
With respect to claim 19, the allowability resides in the overall structure of the device as recited in dependent claim 19 and at least in part because claim 19 recites, “wherein the first temperature section has a higher temperature threshold than the second temperature section”.
The aforementioned limitations in combination with all remaining limitations of claim 19 are believed to render said claim 19 and all claims dependent therefrom patentable over the art of record.
While Dogruoz teaches many of the limitations of claim 15 as per the rejection above, Dogruoz fails to specifically teach or suggest the above-noted limitations of claim 19. Further, the Examiner does not believe it would be obvious to modify Dogruoz with any additional reference to meet these limitations.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY M PAPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2201. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am - 6pm EST.
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.
/ZACHARY PAPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights