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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse in the reply filed on 3/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species A1-A3 do not place a burden on the examiner. This is found persuasive and the restriction is withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the concave region of the microfluidic channels claim 11 must be shown or the features canceled from the claim(s). See 112b below. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first volume, and second volume claim 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Regarding claim 10, the recitation of “a bottom surface facing the heat dissipating surface” is unclear since the bottom surface (i.e.1331) appears to be facing away from the heat dissipating surface (i.e.112), as shown in Figure 5. Therefore, it’s unclear how would the bottom surface (i.e.1331) be facing the heat dissipating surface (i.e.112) while simultaneously is facing away. For examination purposes, the limitation “a bottom surface facing the heat dissipating surface” is interpreted to mean that the bottom surface is facing the same direction as the heat dissipating surface.
Regarding claim 11, the recitation of “the at least one microfluidic channel is concave inward from the inner surface” is unclear since the microfluidic channel (i.e. 135) appears to be between piercing structures (i.e. 20) as shown in Figure 3. Therefore, it is unclear how the microfluidic channel (i.e. 135) would be concave inward in between the piercing structures (i.e. 20) shown in Figure 8. For examination purposes, the limitation “the at least one microfluidic channel is concave inward from the inner surface” is interpreted to mean that the microfluidic channel is between piercing structures.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by CHEN (US20120097368A1).
Regarding claim 1, CHEN teaches an immersion cooling device (see CHEN fig. 3, liquid cooling fluid heat exchange chamber) for dissipating heat, comprising:
a base portion (see CHEN fig. 3, bottom member 13) having a heat absorbing surface (see CHEN fig. 3 annotated by Examiner, heat absorbing surface AS) and a heat dissipating surface (see CHEN fig. 3 annotated by Examiner, heat dissipating surface DS);
a fin portion (see CHEN fig. 3, heat dissipating fins 20) that is arranged on the heat dissipating surface of the base portion; and
a covering portion (see CHEN fig. 3 annotated by Examiner, covering portion CP) having a vapor chamber (see CHEN fig. 3 annotated by Examiner, vapor chamber VC) that is positioned around the fin portion on the base, the covering portion including a liquid inlet channel (see CHEN fig. 3, inlet line 11) and a liquid outlet channel (see CHEN fig. 3, outlet line 12),
wherein, the fin portion includes an inlet section (see CHEN fig. 3 annotated by Examiner, inlet section IS) that is located adjacent to the liquid inlet channel and an outlet section (see CHEN fig. 3 annotated by Examiner, outlet section OS) that is located adjacent to the liquid outlet channel, and the outlet section is arranged so that a cavity (see CHEN fig. 3 annotated by Examiner, cavity C) is formed within the vapor chamber over the outlet section of the fin portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
946
863
media_image1.png
Greyscale
CHEN’s fig. 3 annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 2, CHEN teaches the limitations of claim 1, Lin further teaches wherein the outlet section (see CHEN fig. 3 annotated by Examiner, outlet section OS) includes a
first height (see CHEN fig. 3 annotated by Examiner, first height H1) at a first location towards the inlet section (see CHEN fig. 3 annotated by Examiner, inlet section IS) and a second height (see CHEN fig. 3 annotated by Examiner, second height H2) at a second location
adjacent to the inlet section, and the first height is smaller than the second height (see CHEN fig. 3 annotated by Examiner).
Regarding claim 3, CHEN teaches the limitations of claim 2, CHEN further teaches wherein the outlet section (see CHEN fig. 3 annotated by Examiner, outlet section OS) has a planar
Surface (see CHEN fig. 3 annotated by Examiner, planar surface PS) that declines towards the heat dissipating surface (see CHEN fig. 3 annotated by Examiner, heat dissipating surface DS) from the first height to the second height.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN (US20120097368A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Shedd et al. (US9854714B2).
Regarding claim 4, CHEN does not explicitly teach wherein the wherein the planar surface of the outlet section has an incline angle of greater than 0.5 degree and smaller than 5 degrees.
Shedd teaches an immersion cooling device (see Shedd fig. 30, heat sink module 100) for dissipating heat, comprising: a base portion (see Shedd fig. 30, thermally conductive base member 430) having a heat absorbing surface (see Shedd fig. 30 annotated by Examiner, heat absorbing surface AS) and a heat dissipating surface (see Shedd fig. 30 annotated by Examiner, heat dissipating surface DS);
wherein the planar surface (see Shedd fig. 30, flow-guiding lip 162) of the outlet section has an incline angle of greater than 0.5 degree and smaller than 5 degrees (see Shedd, column 61 line 18-20 states “Preferably, the flow-guiding lip 162 can have an angle of less than about 45 or less than about 30 degrees with respect to the surface to be cooled 12” the incline of the planar surface is 0.5 to 5 degrees within the range of the angle of the flow guiding lip 162).
It would, therefore be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the immersion cooling device of CHEN to have the planar surface of the outlet section has an incline angle of greater than 0.5 degree and smaller than 5 degrees, as taught by Shedd, such modification would prevent formation of a stagnation region, and onset of critical heat flux as a result improve heat dissipation efficiency (see Shedd column 61 line 66 & 21-24).
PNG
media_image2.png
291
535
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Shedd’s fig. 30 annotated by Examiner
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN (US20120097368A1) in view of Azar (US5957194A).
Regarding claim 5, CHEN teaches the limitations of claim 2.
CHEN does not teach, wherein the outlet section has a ladder structure.
Azar teaches an immersion cooling device (see Azar Abstract, heat exchanger) for dissipating heat, comprising a base portion (see Azar’s fig. 8A, base 84) having a heat absorbing surface (see Azar fig. 8A annotated by Examiner, heat absorbing surface AS) and a heat dissipating surface (see Azar fig. 8A annotated by Examiner, heat dissipating surface DS); wherein the outlet section has a ladder structure (see Azar fig. 8A annotated by Examiner, ladder structure LS).
It would, therefore be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the immersion cooling device of CHEN to have the outlet section has a ladder structure, as taught by Azar, such modification would provide improved fluid communication across the fins for turbulent flow to enhance heat transfer (see Azar column 7 line 36-37).
PNG
media_image3.png
301
481
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Azar’s fig. 8A annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 6, CHEN teaches the limitations of claim 1.
CHEN does not teach, wherein the outlet section has a multi-groove structure or an inclined multi-groove structure.
Azar teaches wherein the outlet section has a multi-groove structure (see Azar fig. 21A annotated by Examiner, multi groove structure MGS) or an inclined multi-groove structure.
It would, therefore be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the immersion cooling device of CHEN to have the outlet section has a multi-groove structure or an inclined multi-groove structure, as taught by Azar, such modification would provide less drag on fluid flowing through the outlet section (see Azar column 9 line 55-57).
PNG
media_image4.png
337
504
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Azar’s fig. 21A annotated by Examiner
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN (US20120097368A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US6873527B2).
Regarding claim 7, CHEN does not teach wherein the outlet section has a horizontal length of 17.5 mm, and the fin portion has a horizontal length of 35 mm.
Zhang teaches an immersion cooling device (see Zhang fig. 1, cooler 26) for dissipating heat, comprising a base portion (see Zhang fig. 1, radiator 24) having a heat absorbing surface (see Zhang fig. 1 annotated by Examiner, heat absorbing surface AS) and a heat dissipating surface (see Zhang fig. 1 annotated by Examiner, heat dissipating surface DS); wherein the outlet section (see Zhang fig. 3 annotated by Examiner, Outlet Section OS) has a horizontal length of 17.5 mm, and the fin portion (see Zhang fig. 3, fin 38) has a horizontal length of 35 mm (see Zhang column 3 line 23 to 25 states “a length 39b of preferably 30 mm to 60 mm.” the fin portion of 35 mm is within the range of length 39b, and the length of the outlet section is half the length of 39b, which ranges from 15 mm to 30 mm).
It would, therefore be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the immersion cooling device of CHEN to have the outlet section has a horizontal length of 17.5 mm, and the fin portion has a horizontal length of 35 mm, as taught by Zhang, such modification would provide a fin that can meet the space limitation of a compact electronic system (see Zhang column 9 line 38-39).
PNG
media_image5.png
602
708
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Zhang’s fig. 1 annotated by Examiner
PNG
media_image6.png
217
408
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Zhang's fig. 3 annotated by Examiner
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN (US20120097368A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US12396131B2).
Regarding claim 8, CHEN does not teach wherein the fin portion includes multiple fins having a thickness of 0.11 mm and a spacing of 0.11 mm between each other.
Yang teaches an immersion cooling device (see Yang fig. 1, Abstract, two-phase immersion cooling heat dissipation structure) for dissipating heat, comprising a base portion (see Yang fig. 1, immersion-cooling substrate 10) having a heat absorbing surface (see Yang fig. 1, second surface 102) and a heat dissipating surface (see Yang fig. 1, first surface 101); wherein the fin portion (see Yang fig. 2, plurality of immersion-cooling fins 20) includes multiple fins having a thickness of 0.11 mm and a spacing of 0.11 mm between each other (see Yang, column 4 line 42-43 states “A thickness T of the plurality of immersion-cooling fins 20 ranges from 0.1 mm to 0.35 mm” the fins thickness is 0.11 mm, column 4 line 44-46 states “A gap G between any two adjacent ones of the plurality of immersion-cooling fins 20 ranges from 0.1 mm to 0.35 mm” the spacing between the fins is 0.11 mm is within the range of gap G).
It would, therefore be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the immersion cooling device of CHEN to have multiple fins having a thickness of 0.11 mm and a spacing of 0.11 mm between each other, as taught by Yang, such modification would provide a fin arrangement that improves the overall immersion cooling effect (see Yang column 6 line 65-67).
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN (US20120097368A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shedd et al. (US9854714B2).
Regarding claim 9, CHEN does not teach wherein the covering portion includes an internal circulation channel that extends from a first end to a second end that are connected to the vapor chamber at a location adjacent to the inlet section and a location adjacent to the outlet section, respectively.
Shedd teaches an immersion cooling device (see Shedd fig. 28, the heat sink module 100) for dissipating heat comprising a base portion (see Shedd fig. 28, conductive base member 430) having a heat absorbing surface (see Shedd fig. 28 annotated by Examiner, heat absorbing surface AS) and a heat dissipating surface (see Shedd fig. 28 annotated by Examiner, heat dissipating surface DS);
the covering portion (see shed fig. 28, top surface 160) includes an internal circulation channel (see Shedd fig. 28 annotated by Examiner, internal circulation channel IC) that extends from a first end (see Shedd fig. 30 annotated by Examiner, first end FE) to a second end (see Shedd fig. 28 annotated by Examiner, second end SE) that are connected to the vapor chamber (see Shedd fig. 28 annotated by Examiner, vapor chamber VC) at a location adjacent to the inlet section and a location adjacent to the outlet section, respectively.
It would, therefore be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the immersion cooling device of CHEN to have an internal circulation channel that extends from a first end to a second end that are connected to the vapor chamber, as taught by Shedd, at a location adjacent to the inlet section and a location adjacent to the outlet section of CHEN such modification would provide bubble formation to be cooled off the heat dissipating surface where the liquid coolant changes to vapor (see Shedd column 13 & 14 line 66 & 1-3).
PNG
media_image7.png
375
796
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Shedd’s fig. 28 annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 10, CHEN in view of Shedd teaches the limitations of claim 9.
CHEN does not teach wherein the internal circulation channel includes a bottom surface facing the heat dissipating surface, and a distance between the bottom surface at the first end and the heat dissipating surface is greater than a distance between the bottom at the second end and the heat dissipating surface.
Shedd further teaches wherein the internal circulation channel (see Shedd fig. 28 annotated by Examiner, internal circulation channel IC) includes a bottom surface (see Shedd fig. 28 & 30 annotated by Examiner, bottom S1 and S2 face the same direction as DS, the distance between S1 and DS is greater than the distance between S2 and DS) facing the heat dissipating surface (see Shedd fig. 28 & 30 annotated by Examiner, heat dissipating surface DS), and a distance between the bottom surface at the first end (see Shedd fig. 30 annotated by Examiner, first end FE) and the heat dissipating surface is greater than a distance between the bottom at the second end (see Shedd fig. 28 annotated by Examiner, second end SE) and the heat dissipating surface.
It would, therefore be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the immersion cooling device of CHEN to have an internal circulation channel include a bottom surface facing the heat dissipating surface, and a distance between the bottom surface at the first end and the heat dissipating surface greater than a distance between the bottom at the second end and the heat dissipating surface, as taught by Shedd, such modification would help to maintain the pressure in the system with more efficiency, and reduce the pump speed required for a lower operating cost (see Shedd column 84 line 55-60).
Regarding claim 11, Shedd further teaches wherein the covering portion (see Shedd fig. 28, heat sink module 100) further includes an inner surface (see Shedd fig. 28 annotated by Examiner, inner surface IS) and at least one microfluidic channel (see Shedd fig. 28, plurality of orifices 155), the inner surface faces the heat dissipating surface (see Shedd fig. 28 annotated by Examiner, heat dissipating surface DS), the at least one microfluidic channel is concave inward from the inner surface (see Shedd fig. 47 annotated by Examiner, the micro fluidic channel 155 is between the piercing structures 196), the first end (see Shedd fig. 30 annotated by Examiner, first end FE) of the internal circulation channel (see Shedd fig. 28 annotated by Examiner, internal circulation channel IC) connects to the vapor chamber (see Shedd fig. 28 annotated by Examiner, vapor chamber VC) at the location adjacent to the inlet section via the liquid inlet channel (see Shedd fig. 30, outlet port 110), and the second end (see Shedd fig. 28 annotated by Examiner, second end SE) of the internal circulation channel connects to the vapor chamber at the location adjacent to the outlet section via the at least one microfluidic channel.
It would, therefore be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the immersion cooling device of CHEN to have the covering portion further include an inner surface and at least one microfluidic channel, the at least one microfluidic channel concave inward from the inner surface, and the first end of the internal circulation channel connects to the vapor chamber, as taught by Shedd, at a location adjacent to the inlet section and a location adjacent to the outlet section of CHEN such modification would create jet streams where the coolant undergoes pressure drop upon equilibrating to improve the heat dissipation efficiency (see Shedd column 86 line 32-36).
PNG
media_image8.png
391
708
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Shedd’s fig. 47 annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 12, Shedd further teaches wherein the covering portion (see Shedd fig. 47, heat sink module 100) further includes a plurality of piercing structures (see Shedd fig. 47, boiling-inducing members 196) adjacent to the at least one microfluidic channel (see Shedd fig. 47, plurality of orifices 155), the plurality of piercing structures protrudes from the inner surface (see Shedd fig. 47 annotated by Examiner, inner surface IS) of the covering portion.
It would, therefore be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the immersion cooling device of CHEN to have a covering portion further including a plurality of piercing structures adjacent to the at least one microfluidic channel, and protruding from the inner surface as taught by Shedd, such modification would ensure no hot spots or stagnation regions are created on the heat dissipating surface, increase the temperature of the coolant flow, and lower the pressure of the coolant flow (see Shedd column 44 line 10-16).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN (US20120097368A1) in view of Shedd et al. (US9854714B2) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Uetake et al. (US9350228B2).
Regarding claim 13, Chen in view of Shedd does not teach further comprises a side cover, the covering portion includes a at least one processing channel connected to the internal circulation channel, and the at least one side cover is configured to cover the at least one processing channel at a side that is away from the internal circulation channel.
Uetake teaches an immersion cooling device (see Uetake fig. 29, coolant channel body 12A) further comprises a side cover (see Uetake fig. 7 annotated by Examiner, side cover SC), the covering portion (see Uetake fig. 7 annotated by Examiner, covering portion CP) includes a at least one processing channel (see Uetake fig. 7, openings 102U-W) connected to the internal circulation channel, and the at least one side cover is configured to cover the at least one processing channel at a side that is away from the internal circulation channel.
It would, therefore be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the covering portion of Shedd to have the processing channels connected to the internal circulation channel, as taught by Uetake, such modification would ensure access for fabrication of the internal circulation channel (see Uetake column 8 line 1-7).
PNG
media_image9.png
571
443
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Uetake’s fig. 7 annotated by Examiner
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN (US20120097368A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further as a design choice.
Regarding claim 14, CHEN discloses wherein the cavity has a first volume (see CHEN fig. 3 annotated by Examiner, cavity C), the outlet section has a second volume (see CHEN fig. 3 annotated by Examiner, outlet section OS).
CHEN does not teach a ratio between the first volume and the second volume is 1.213.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the ratio of the first and second volume would result in a difference in function of the immersion cooling device of CHEN. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the outlet portion of CHEN would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed ratio. Lastly, the applicant has not disclosed that the claimed ratio solves any stated problem, offering the ratio can be 1.213 and therefore, there appears to be no criticality placed on the ratio of the first and second volumes such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the immersion cooling device of CHEN to have the ratio of the volume of the outlet section to the volume of the cavity to be 1.213 as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY FRANCIS CANOVA whose telephone number is (571)272-5795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5 PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/HENRY FRANCIS CANOVA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights