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 .
Reply Under 37 CFR 1.111
The submission of the reply filed on 08/07/2026 to the non-final Office action of 05/07/2026 is acknowledged. The Office action on the currently pending claims 1-10 follows.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-7 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 Lns.1-2: the clause “the predefined number of nozzles” should be amended to recite “the predefined number of spray nozzles” for consistent claim nomenclature.
Claim 7 Ln.1: the clause “for a motor vehicle” should be amended to recite “for the motor vehicle”. As explained in the non-final Office action of 05/07/2026 (see pg.7 of the Office action), claim 7 is a linking claim that links to claim 1, and since independent claim 1 provides the antecedent basis for the motor vehicle in the preamble of the claim, the preamble of claim 7 should also recite “for the motor vehicle” in order to stay consistent with the antecedent basis established in independent claim 1.
Claim 7 Lns.3-4: the clause “at least one thermal control device as claimed in claim 1” should be amended to recite “at least one of the thermal control device as claimed in claim 1” for antecedent purposes (i.e., since claim 7 is a linking claim that links to claim 1, the antecedent basis for “thermal control device” is already established in the preamble of independent claim 1, and since the preamble of independent claim 1 is “A thermal control device”, the claim nomenclature should be consistent as well).
Claim 10 Ln.1: the Office suggests amending the clause “wherein at least some spray nozzles may have” such that it recites “wherein at least some of the predefined number of spray nozzles have” for clarity purposes (i.e., a clear relationship between the “some spray nozzles” and the “predefined number of spray nozzles” is not clear, and thus the proposed amendment creates a clear relationship between the limitations and so that the “at least two projection orifices” are positively claimed- by using the clause “may have”, the “at least two projection orifices” are not positively recited, and thus not a required element in the final product).
The Office notes that the above objections are a non-exhaustive list, and thus requests Applicant’s cooperation with reviewing the 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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen (CN 105658037) (of record, cited in the IDS, including Original Document) in view of Shedd (US 20160033204) and in further view of Bernshtein (WO 9613562).
Regarding claim 1, Shen discloses (Fig.1):
A thermal control device (See Fig.1) for at least one module (2) comprising at least one electrical component (3) the thermal control device (See Fig.1) comprising a dielectric fluid circuit (See Fig.1 and [0037] of Translation) and a predefined number of spray nozzles (5) for spraying dielectric fluid (See [0037] of Translation) and configured to be arranged so as to wet at least one surface (surface of 2 where 3 is located) of the at least one module (2) with the dielectric fluid (See [0037] of Translation), wherein each of the predefined number of spray nozzles (5) are configured to project, via at least one projection orifice (outlet of 5), a fan-shaped jet (See Figure Below: the two main directions produce a fan-shaped jet) of the dielectric fluid delimited by two main directions (See Figure Below).
See next page→
PNG
media_image1.png
584
876
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Shen does not disclose:
At least one electrical component, for a motor vehicle, each of the predefined number of spray nozzles comprising: a projection channel configured to direct the dielectric fluid flowing, and at least one dielectric fluid deflector onto which the projection channel opens, so as to orient the dielectric fluid in order to create the fan-shaped jet.
Shedd however teaches (Fig.2):
At least one electrical component (13), for a motor vehicle ([0005]: the disclosure is open to motor vehicles).
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 Shedd to modify the device of Shen such that the at least one electrical component is an electrical component for a motor vehicle, as claimed, in order to provide electrical components within a motor vehicle with a cooling system that can achieve the improved heat exchange and cooling efficiency as disclosed by Shen (See [0020] of Translation).
Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
However, the above combination still fails to teach:
Each of the predefined number of spray nozzles comprising: a projection channel configured to direct the dielectric fluid flowing, and at least one dielectric fluid deflector onto which the projection channel opens, so as to orient the dielectric fluid in order to create the fan-shaped jet.
Bernshtein, however, teaches (Fig.2):
Each of the predefined number of spray nozzles (See Fig.2) comprising: a projection channel (12) configured to direct the fluid (See Fig.2) flowing, and at least one fluid deflector (See Figure Below) onto which the projection channel (12) opens, so as to orient the fluid (See Fig.2) in order to create the fan-shaped jet (Fig.2: the piece itself is V-shaped and creates a V-shaped stream, and thus making it a "fan-shaped jet").
See next page→
PNG
media_image2.png
665
904
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 Bernshtein to further modify the device of modified Shen such that each of the predefined number of spray nozzles comprises a projection channel configured that directs the dielectric fluid and at least one fluid deflector to define at least one dielectric fluid which is arranged such that the projection channel opens to the at least one dielectric fluid, so as to orient the dielectric fluid to create the fan-shaped jet, as claimed, in order to provide a nozzle structure that can provide a wider spray angle as suggested by Bernshtein (compared to slot nozzle shown in figure 3, the deflector nozzle shown in figure 2 is shown to spread fluid at a greater angle), and thus better ensure that a greater area of the at least one module is wetted with the dielectric fluid.
Regarding claim 2, Bernshtein further teaches:
Wherein the at least one projection orifice (Fig.2: the outlet of the nozzle) is formed by a projection slot (Projection Slot forming the Projection Orifice: See Figure of Claim 1).
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 Bernshtein to further modify the device of modified Shen such that that projection orifice is formed by a projection slot, as claimed, in order to achieve the improved spraying as outlined in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Bernshtein further teaches:
Wherein the projection channel (12) extends mainly along a longitudinal axis (See Figure of Claim 1), and wherein the at least one dielectric fluid deflector (See Figure of Claim 1) comprises an inclined wall (See Figure of Claim 1: labeled as “Wall of Deflector” since it is inclined) which is inclined (See Figure of Claim 1: the wall is inclined relative to the longitudinal axis) relative to the longitudinal axis and extends so as to form an obstacle (See Fig.2 and Figure of Claim 1: the wall forms an obstacle in order to create the deflection) facing an outlet (See Figure of Claim 1) of the projection channel (12).
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 Bernshtein to further modify the device of modified Shen such that the projection channel extends mainly along a longitudinal axis, and to modify the at least one dielectric deflector such that it has an inclined wall that is inclined relative to the longitudinal axis and extends so as to form an obstacle facing an outlet of the projection channel, as claimed, in order to achieve the improved spraying as outlined in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, modified Shen does not explicitly teach:
Wherein the inclined wall of the at least one dielectric fluid deflector forms an angle between 105° and 130° with the longitudinal axis of the projection channel.
However, modifying the shape of the inclined wall such that the inclined wall has a desired angle with respect to the longitudinal axis, including as claimed (i.e., between 105° and 130° with the longitudinal axis of the projection channel), would have been an obvious modification that one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would do in order to optimize the spraying angle of the nozzle, and thus better ensure that the at least one module is wetted with the dielectric fluid and thus also optimize cooling since both a change in shape and size are generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) and In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). The Office also notes that it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 5, Bernshtein further teaches:
Wherein the inclined wall (See Figure of Claim 1) of the at least one dielectric fluid deflector (See Figure of Claim 1) extends over a height (See Figure Below) which increases along an axis (See Figure Below) transverse to the longitudinal axis (See Figure of Claim 1) of the projection channel (12) up to a maximum height (See Figure Below) of at least half a height of the projection channel (12) and at most 150% of the height of the projection channel (12) (Fig.2 and See Figure Below: the maximum height of the inclined wall is shown to be within the range of “half the height of the projection channel and at most 150% of the height of the projection channel”).
PNG
media_image3.png
533
929
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 Bernshtein to further modify the device of modified Shen such that the inclined wall of the at least one dielectric fluid deflector extends over a height which increases along an axis that is transverse to the longitudinal axis of the projection channel up to a maximum height of at least half a height of the projection channel and at most 150% of the height of the projection channel, as claimed, in order to achieve the achieve the improved spraying as outlined in claim 1 above.
Alternatively, changing the size of the inclined wall such that it has a desired maximum height, including as claimed (i.e., of at least half a height of the projection channel and at most 150% of the height of the projection channel), would have been an obvious modification that one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would do in order to achieve the achieve the improved spraying as outlined in claim 1 above, since a change in size is recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 6, Shen further discloses:
Wherein the predefined number of nozzles (5) comprises at least two series of spray nozzles (Fig.1: the two 5’s that spray onto 3 on 2 will define the “at least two series of spray nozzles”), wherein the dielectric fluid circuit (See Fig.1 and [0037] of Translation) comprises at least two parallel pipes (See Figure Below) for supplying the at least two series of spray nozzles (Fig.1: the two 5’s that spray onto 3 on 2 will define the “at least two series of spray nozzles”).
See next page→
PNG
media_image4.png
497
892
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, modified Shen teaches:
A thermal control unit for a motor vehicle (Shedd: [0005]-the disclosure is open to motor vehicles, as modified in claim 1 above), the thermal control unit comprising: at least one thermal control device as claimed in claim 1 (See Rejection of Claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Shen further discloses:
Wherein the at least one module (2) comprises a plurality of modules (See Figure Below), wherein the predefined number of spray nozzles (5) comprises at least one spray nozzle (See Figure Below) arranged facing a space (See Figure Below) between two adjacent modules (See Figure Below).
See next page→
PNG
media_image5.png
601
882
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen (CN 105658037) (of record, cited in the IDS, including Original Document), Shedd (US 20160033204), and Bernshtein (WO 9613562) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Ong Kong Chye (US 20210385974).
Regarding claim 9, modified Shen does not teach:
Wherein the predefined number of spray nozzles comprise at least two groups of spray nozzles arranged such that spray nozzles of a first group are oriented so as to project the fan-shaped jet in a first direction, and spray nozzles of a second group are oriented so as to project the fan-shaped jet in a second direction opposite to the first direction.
Ong Kong Chye however teaches (Fig.2E):
See next page→
Wherein the predefined number of spray nozzles (See Fig.2E) comprise at least two groups of spray nozzles (See Figure Below, [0062], [0066]: each of 210b-d sprays the dielectric coolant using nozzles, and the First Group and Second Group of Spray Nozzles in combination will define the “at least two groups of spray nozzles”) arranged such that spray nozzles of a first group (See Figure Below) are oriented so as to project in a first direction (See Figure Below), and spray nozzles of a second group (See Figure Below) are oriented so as to project in a second direction (See Figure Below) opposite to the first direction.
PNG
media_image6.png
986
892
media_image6.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 Ong Kong Chye to further modify the device of modified Shen such that the predefined number of spray nozzles comprise at least two groups of spray nozzles in such a way that it has a first group of spray nozzles that are oriented so as to project the fan-shaped jet in a first direction, and a second group of spray nozzles that are oriented so as to project the fan-shaped jet in a second direction opposite to the first direction, as claimed, in order to provide a more efficient heat removal system due to the two-directional spraying of the dielectric fluid as taught by Ong Kong Chye ([0066]) (i.e., as opposed to a single direction spray, two-directional spraying will provide a greater spraying area, and thus increase the overall heat dissipation space).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen (CN 105658037) (of record, cited in the IDS, including Original Document), Shedd (US 20160033204), and Bernshtein (WO 9613562) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kuhn (US 10731540).
Regarding claim 10, modified Shen does not teach:
Wherein at least some spray nozzles may have at least two projection orifices so as to project at least two separate jets of dielectric fluid.
Kuhn however teaches (Fig.5B):
Wherein the spray nozzle (314) may have at least two projection orifices (318- three projection orifices are shown) so as to project at least two separate jets (S).
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 Kuhn to further modify the device of modified Shen such that at least some spray nozzles may have at least two projection orifices so as to project at least two separate jets of dielectric fluid, as claimed, in order to further optimize the overall cooling capabilities (i.e., due to a greater number of projection orifices being provided, a greater cooling surface area can be created, and thus further optimizing the overall heat dissipation area).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of 08/07/2026 have been fully considered but have been found unpersuasive. Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant contests that the claim is in condition for allowance because “Shen does not describe a fan-shaped jet, as required”. Applicant contests that because “Shen describes classic spray nozzles with a conical shower/nozzle like spray”, Shen fails to disclose a fan-shaped jet.
The Office has fully considered the above argument but respectfully disagrees. While it is true that paragraph [0046] of Shen describes the spray as being cone/conical shape, the Office notes that paragraphs [0040] and [0046] of Shen also explicitly states that the stream and also be “fan-shaped” ([0040] and [0046]: “The droplets sprayed from the nozzle 5 are typically distributed in a cone or fan shape…” and “The droplets sprayed from the nozzle 5 are typically distributed in a cone or fan shape, but other spray shapes that facilitate droplet spatial dispersion are not excluded”) (emphasis added). Therefore, Shen explicitly discloses nozzles that spray a dielectric fluid with a “fan shape”, and thus explicitly teaching a “fan-shaped jet” as required in independent claim 1. Furthermore, Applicant has provided no explanation as to why a cone/conical shape would not be considered to be fan shaped. The Office contests that a flat layout of a cone is fan-shaped, so even if Shen did not provide an explicit recitation of fan shaped, the Office contests that Shen would still properly disclose a fan-shaped jet due to the cone/conical shape taught by Shen (i.e., a flat-layout of a cone is a fan shape, and thus teaching a fan-shaped jet even though the shape is described as a cone). The Office also notes that the limitation is broad since it only requires a nozzle that produces a fan-like jet stream. As shown in figure 1 and as outlined in the non-final Office action of 05/07/2026, the jet-stream produced by the nozzles of Shen are cone/fan-shaped, and thus satisfying the broadest reasonable interpretation for “fan-shaped jet” as claimed in independent claim 1. For all of the reasons outlined above, Applicant’s argument that Shen fails to disclose a fan-shaped jet is believed to be in error.
Applicant further contests that the combination of Shen, Shedd, and Bernshtein is believed to be improper because Bernshtein cannot be considered as prior art that can be utilized to modify Shen since “Bernshtein is completely silent with respect to cooling, let alone spray cooling of an electronic component by the pending claim”. In other words, Applicant contests that the combination is improper because Bernshtein is non-analogous art.
The Office has fully considered the above argument but respectfully disagrees. The Office reminds Applicant that it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor' s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In the instant case, Bernshtein is directed to a nozzle assembly that has a nozzle that provides a desired deflection in order to provide a desired spraying for a desired effect (i.e., as outlined in the non-final Office action of 05/07/2026, when comparing the two nozzle assemblies shown in figures 2-3 of Bernshtein, the one with the deflector provides a greater spraying width and thus allowing a greater area to be covered by fluid), and thus being reasonably pertinent the problem addressed by the instant application, and thus qualifies as analogous art even though it is not directed to cooling. Furthermore, since Shen is already directed to a nozzle system that is utilized for cooling, utilizing the teaching of Bernshtein to modify the nozzles of Shen such that it has a deflector nozzle assembly as taught by Bernshtein will still lead to a nozzle that is utilized for cooling with the added benefit of providing a wider spray area, as outlined in the non-final Office action. Therefore, the combination of Shen, Shedd, and Bernshtein is still believed to be proper since Bernshtein is directed to a problem and solution that is reasonably pertinent to both of that of the instant application and that of Shen utilizing knowledge that one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been aware of and is thus considered to be analogous art. For all of the reasons outlined above, Applicant’s argument is believed to be in error. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 using Shen, Shedd, and Bernshtein is still maintained and still believed to properly obviate the claimed device of independent claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 6895905: teaches a nozzle that has multiple orifices.
KR 20130077558: teaches a nozzle that sprays liquid in multiple directions and thus suggesting a nozzle that has a plurality of projection orifices.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STEPHEN S SUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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.
/STEPHEN S SUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights