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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/3/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, “wherein the ejection provides a self-regulating cooling such that an amount or a frequency of the ejection is based in part on the heat absorbed to the liquid” which is new matter not supported by the originally filed specification. A careful review of ¶ 0012-0014, 0016 and 0059 (Cited by the Applicant in the present remarks as supporting the above noted limitations) of the written description does not appear to support these limitations. Further, the drawings fail to support these limitations.
Independent claims 8, 5, and 20 recite similar limitations and are similarly rejected.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-19, and 21-24 depend from claims 1, 8, 15 and 20, respectively, and inherit the deficiency therein.
See the below 112(b) rejection for additional context.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “wherein the ejection provides a self-regulating cooling such that an amount or a frequency of the ejection is based in part on the heat absorbed to the liquid” which is unclear. In particular, it is unclear how the ejection itself provides self-regulating cooling when it appears that a combination of elements are required for self-regulating cooling. For example, in Fig 2B of the drawings, the self-regulating cooling is provided by a combination of a coolant, an enclosure, a channel, a semiconductor product, and a nozzle, not an ejection.
For the purposes of examination claim 1 will be considered to read, “wherein a combination of the at least one channel, the at least one nozzle, the enclosure, and the liquid provides a self-regulating cooling such that an amount or a frequency of an ejection is based in part on the heat absorbed to the liquid”.
Claims 8, 15, and 20 recite similar limitations and are similarly rejected and interpreted.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-19, and 21-24 depend from claims 1, 8, 15 and 20, respectively, and inherit the deficiency therein.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 13-16, 19-21, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Son et al. (US 2025/0105093 – hereinafter, “Son”).
With respect to claim 1, Son teaches (In Fig 6) a semiconductor product (1) comprising at least one channel (Portion between 30b and 2) and at least one nozzle (51) formed on or within a surface (Top surface of 30b) thereof (Of the semiconductor product) and associated with an enclosure (9) over the surface (See Fig 6), the at least one channel to allow flow of a liquid therethrough (See Fig 6, the arrow shows how the liquid moves through the channel), the at least one nozzle (51) to allow ejection of the liquid to the surface or to an area above the surface to provide at least part of a cooling for the semiconductor product, based in part on heat absorbed to the liquid which creates a vacuum to enable the flow (See pp. 9-11 of the final office action dated 6/5/2026), wherein a combination of the at least one channel, the at least one nozzle, the enclosure, and the liquid provides a self-regulating cooling such that an amount or a frequency of an ejection is based in part on the heat absorbed to the liquid (When the heat radiation part (20) is off and at room temperature, there is no amount or frequency of an ejection through the nozzle (51) and when the heat radiation part (20) is generating heat there is an amount or frequency of an ejection through the nozzle (51) ¶0060, “The coolant ejection part 50 according to one or more embodiments may eject the coolant in a direction spaced apart from the heat radiation part 20. As the internal pressure increases, the pressure chamber 40 may eject the coolant in a direction spaced apart from the heat radiation part 20.” and so the combination of the at least one channel, the at least one nozzle, the enclosure, and the liquid provides a self-regulating cooling such that an amount or a frequency of an ejection is based in part on the heat absorbed to the liquid, as claimed), and the enclosure to at least retain partly the liquid in support of the cooling of the semiconductor product (See Fig 6, see also ¶ 0073-0074, the liquid picks up heat from an active chip (2) and then is ejected via the nozzle 51, the fluid then gives up its heat to the enclosure and is recycled back to the channel.).
With respect to claim 2, Son further teaches that the ejection maintains the liquid in liquid form or supports vaporization of the liquid to the surface or to the area above the surface to provide the cooling (¶ 0056, “When liquid coolant receives heat from the heat radiation part 20, the phase may change into gaseous coolant”, ¶ 0051, “The coolant may provide cooling to the heat radiation part 20 through phase change. However, the cooling provided by the coolant to the semiconductor chip 2 or the semiconductor device 1 is not limited to the above description.”, where here Son teaches that the liquid coolant can remain a liquid or change phase into a gas which means that the ejection maintains the liquid in liquid form or supports vaporization, as claimed).
With respect to claim 6, Son further teaches that the enclosure allows condensation of a vapor form of the liquid (When the vapor flows along the bottom of 9, it can condense along this bottom) or allows redirection of a liquid form of the liquid, the enclosure further to enable the liquid to be reused (As shown in Fig 6, the liquid is shown in a closed loop system and is thus reused) or to exchange heat with a heat exchanger that is external relative to the semiconductor product.
With respect to claim 7, Son further teaches that the heat absorbed to the liquid is based in part on a byproduct of device activity within the semiconductor product (¶ 0050. “The semiconductor chip 2 may generate heat when receiving power or while operating.”).
With respect to claim 8, Son teaches (In Fig 6) a liquid cooling loop to circulate liquid through a semiconductor product (1) comprising at least one channel (Portion between 30b and 2) and at least one nozzle (51) formed on or within a surface thereof and associated with an enclosure (9) over the surface (See Fig 6), the at least one channel to allow flow of the liquid therethrough, the at least one nozzle to allow ejection of the liquid to the surface or to an area above the surface to provide at least part of a cooling for the semiconductor product, based in part on heat absorbed to the liquid which creates a vacuum to enable the flow (See pp. 9-11 of the final office action dated 6/5/2026), wherein a combination of the at least one channel, the at least one nozzle, the enclosure, and the liquid provides a self-regulating cooling such that an amount or a frequency of an ejection is based in part on the heat absorbed to the liquid (When the heat radiation part (20) is off and at room temperature, there is no amount or frequency of an ejection through the nozzle (51) and when the heat radiation part (20) is generating heat there is an amount or frequency of an ejection through the nozzle (51) ¶0060, “The coolant ejection part 50 according to one or more embodiments may eject the coolant in a direction spaced apart from the heat radiation part 20. As the internal pressure increases, the pressure chamber 40 may eject the coolant in a direction spaced apart from the heat radiation part 20.” and so the combination of the at least one channel, the at least one nozzle, the enclosure, and the liquid provides a self-regulating cooling such that an amount or a frequency of an ejection is based in part on the heat absorbed to the liquid, as claimed), and the enclosure to at least partly retain the liquid in support of the cooling of the semiconductor product, wherein the liquid cooling loop is a closed loop (See Fig 6, the liquid cooling loop is shown as a closed loop) or is an open loop with a heat exchanger.
With respect to claim 9, Son further teaches that the ejection maintains the liquid in liquid form or supports vaporization of the liquid to the surface or to the area above the surface to provide the cooling (¶ 0056, “When liquid coolant receives heat from the heat radiation part 20, the phase may change into gaseous coolant”, ¶ 0051, “The coolant may provide cooling to the heat radiation part 20 through phase change. However, the cooling provided by the coolant to the semiconductor chip 2 or the semiconductor device 1 is not limited to the above description.”, where here Son teaches that the liquid coolant can remain a liquid or change phase into a gas which means that the ejection maintains the liquid in liquid form or supports vaporization, as claimed).
With respect to claim 13, Son further teaches that the enclosure allows condensation of a vapor form of the liquid (When the vapor flows along the bottom of 9, it can condense along this bottom) or allows redirection of a liquid form of the liquid, the enclosure further to enable the liquid to be reused (As shown in Fig 6, the liquid is shown in a closed loop system and is thus reused) or to exchange heat with a heat exchanger that is external relative to the semiconductor product.
With respect to claim 14, Son further teaches that the heat absorbed to the liquid is based in part on a byproduct of device activity within the semiconductor product (¶ 0050. “The semiconductor chip 2 may generate heat when receiving power or while operating.”).
With respect to method claims 15-16, 19-21, 24 the method steps recited in the claims are inherently necessitated by the device structure as taught by the Son reference.
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.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Campbell et al. (US 2010/0328890 – hereinafter, “Campbell”).
With respect to claims 5 and 12, Son teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest the enclosure is associated with a heat exchanger to exchange the heat absorbed by the liquid with the heat exchanger.
Campbell, however, teaches (In Fig 5) an enclosure (530) is associated with a heat exchanger (520) to exchange the heat absorbed by a fluid with the heat exchanger (¶ 0045, “Upon reaching the upper portion of the sealed compartment, the dielectric fluid vapor contacts the cool surfaces of the condenser fins, which are cooled, for example, by means of a thermal conduction coupling to liquid-cooled cold plate 520, and more particularly, to system coolant passing via inlet 521 and outlet 522 through the liquid-cooled cold plate.”).
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 Campbell with that of Son, such that the enclosure of Son is associated with a heat exchanger to exchange the heat absorbed by the liquid with the heat exchanger, as taught by Campbell, since doing so would allow for greater quantities of heat to be moved from the semiconductor product.
Claims 4, 11, 18, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Peterson et al. (US 2022/0248559 – hereinafter, “Peterson”).
With respect to claims 4 and 11, Son teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein the flow is enabled, in part, by a pump, and wherein the flow is supported by an inlet and an outlet to allow exchange of the heat absorbed to the liquid with a heat exchanger that is external to the semiconductor product.
Peterson, however, teaches (In Fig 4) wherein a flow of a fluid is enabled, in part, by a pump (432), and wherein the flow is supported by an inlet (Structure where fluid enters the conduit 426) and an outlet (Structure where the fluid exits the conduit 428) to allow exchange of the heat absorbed to the liquid with a heat exchanger (442) that is external to a semiconductor product (402).
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 Peterson with that of Son, such that, in Son the flow is enabled, in part, by a pump, and wherein the flow is supported by an inlet and an outlet to allow exchange of the heat absorbed to the liquid with a heat exchanger that is external to the semiconductor product, as taught by Peterson, since doing so would allow for additional external cooling of the fluid of the semiconductor product.
With respect to method claims 18 and 23 the method steps recited in the claims are inherently necessitated by the device structure as taught by the Son and Peterson references.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 10, 17 and 22 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to claim 3, the allowability resides in the overall structure of the device as recited in dependent claim 3 and at least in part because claim 3 recites, “wherein the flow is enabled, in part, by a further cooling of the semiconductor product that causes a temperature differential in the at least one channel”.
The aforementioned limitations in combination with all remaining limitations of claim 3 are believed to render said claim 3 patentable over the art of record.
While Son teaches many of the limitations of claim 3 as per the above rejection to claim 1, neither Son nor any other art of record – either alone or in combination – teach or suggest the above-mentioned limitations of claim 3.
With respect to claims 10, 17, and 22, the Examiner notes that these claims recite limitations similar to those noted above with respect to claim 3 and are allowable for at least the same reasons.
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.”
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s remarks to claim 1 that, “Therefore, Son only arguably discloses passive atmospheric cooling which includes ejection, however, and is silent toward self-regulating cooling provided by ejection such that an amount or a frequency of the ejection is based in part on heat absorbed to the liquid, as recited by currently amended claim 1. Accordingly, this self-regulating mechanism based on ejection of the fluid as claimed supports a direct relationship between the heat and the ejection amount or rate. Applicant respectfully submits that the remaining cited references fail to cure this deficiency.
For at least reasons discussed above, Applicant respectfully submits that Son does not teach such subject matter as recited in claim 1. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is allowable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Son. Withdrawal of the pending rejection under.” (Present remarks page 9) the Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the present configuration of the amendment to claim 1 is both not supported and unclear as per the above 112(a) and 112(b) rejections. Indeed, it is believed that multiple elements of the system provide the claimed self-regulating cooling, not the ejection. Given the interpretation provided above by the Examiner which takes into account this belief, Son is believed to anticipate claim 1. Indeed, the system of Son works similar to that of the presently claimed system where heat from a heat source is used, essentially, as a pump to move the fluid through the system and provide cooling to the heat source. As such, when the heat source is off and the system is at, say, room temperature, there will be no pressure increase in the system and no resulting ejection from the nozzle. And when the heat source is on and providing heat to the system, there will be an increased pressure in the system resulting in an ejection from the nozzle.
Accordingly, claim 1 is believed to be anticipated by Son.
With respect to the Applicant’s additional remarks to independent claims 8, 15, and 20 (Present remarks page 10) the Examiner notes that claims 8, 15, and 20 recite limitations similar to those noted above with respect to claim 1 and have been likewise interpreted and are believed to be anticipated by Son.
With respect to the Applicant’s remaining remarks with respect to any remaining dependent claims, the Examiner notes, since the remarks regarding independent claims 1, 8, 15 and 20 are not found to be persuasive, and since there are no additional persuasive remarks provided with respect to these dependent claims, these dependent claims are believed to be properly rejected.
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