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 .
Email Communication
Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502, 502.05.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 7/3/2025 has been fully considered and is attached hereto.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 14, 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites, “the heat exchanger” which lacks antecedent basis. It appears it should be changed to read, “a heat exchanger”.
Claim 14 recites, “the heat generating components” which lacks antecedent basis. It appears it should be changed to read, “the heat generating component”.
Claim 16 and 17 depend from claim 1 which appears to be incorrect. It appears they should be changed to depend from claim 13.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 7-8, 13, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sengupta (US 5,007,478).
With respect to claim 1, Sengupta teaches (In Fig 4) a thermal management system comprising: a housing (38) having an interior space (Space filled by 36); at least one heat-generating component (34) disposed within the interior space (See Fig 4); and a working fluid (36) disposed within the interior space such that at least part of the heat-generating component (34) is in direct contact with the working fluid (Col. 3, ll. 19-20, “On the other hand, devices 34 could be completely immersed in a slurry 36”); wherein the working fluid comprises base fluid and at least one phase change material selected from micro-encapsulated phase change materials, nano-encapsulated phase change materials, and mixtures thereof (Col. 3, l. 65 – Col. 4, l. 2, “The fluid in which the microencapsulated phase change material is suspended can be any suitable non-reactive cooling fluid such as water, cooling oil or fluorocarbons that is compatible with the material used to encapsulate the phase change material and the phase change material itself.”).
With respect to claims 2-4, Sengupta further teaches wherein the micro- and/or nano-encapsulated phase change material comprises an outer shell and an inner core of high latent heat material encased within said outer shell (Cl. 2), wherein the inner core comprises one or more materials selected from paraffinic waxes, n-alkanes, fatty acids, fatty alcohols, C4-C14 alkyl alcohols, fatty acid esters, polyglycols, chlorinated paraffin, inorganic salts, salt hydrates, sugar alcohols, carbohydrates and polyols, and mixtures thereof (Cl. 3), wherein the outer shell comprises one or more materials selected from polymers, resins, inorganic oxides, multi-walled carbon nanotubes, nanocelluloses and mixtures thereof (Cl. 4, see Col. 3, ll. 40-47; Col. 3, l. 55 – Col. 4, l. 2).
With respect to claim 7, Sengupta further teaches that the base fluid is a hydrocarbon-based base fluid (Col. 3, ll. 65-67, “The fluid in which the microencapsulated phase change material is suspended can be any suitable non-reactive cooling fluid”, where a hydrocarbon-based base fluid would be included as “any suitable non-reactive cooling fluid”).
With respect to claim 8, Sengupta further teaches that the base fluid is a Fischer-Tropsch derived base fluid (Col. 3, ll. 65-67, “The fluid in which the microencapsulated phase change material is suspended can be any suitable non-reactive cooling fluid”, where a Fischer-Tropsch base fluid would be included as “any suitable non-reactive cooling fluid”).
With respect to method claims 13, 16-17, the method steps recited in the claims are inherently necessitated by the device structure as taught by the Sengupta 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.
Claims 5-6, 9, 11-12, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sengupta in view of Yamamoto et al. (JP 2021172149 – hereinafter, “Yamamoto” – cited on the IDS filed 7/3/2025).
With respect to claims 5-6, Sengupta teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein the thermal management system comprises a heat exchanger (Cl. 5), which is constructed such that a cyclical flow of working fluid can be generated across the one or more heat-generating components, on to the heat exchanger and then back to the one or more heat-generating components (Cl. 6).
Yamamoto, however, teaches (In Fig 1) a thermal management system comprises a heat exchanger (12), the thermal management system is constructed such that a cyclical flow of working fluid can be generated across one or more heat-generating components (2), on to the heat exchanger (12) and then back to the one or more heat-generating components (2, see Fig 1).
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 Yamamoto with that of Sengupta such that Sengupta includes a heat exchanger (Cl. 5), wherein the thermal management system is constructed such that a cyclical flow of working fluid can be generated across the one or more heat-generating components, on to the heat exchanger and then back to the one or more heat-generating components (Cl. 6), as taught by Yamamoto, since doing so would allow for better heat removal from the heat-generating components of Sengupta.
With respect to claim 9, Sengupta teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein the thermal management system further comprises a pump, wherein the pump is configured to move the working fluid to and from the heat exchanger.
Yamamoto, however, teaches (In Fig 1) wherein a thermal management system further comprises a pump (14), wherein the pump is configured to move a working fluid to and from a heat exchanger (12, see Fig 1).
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 Yamamoto with that of Sengupta such that, in Sengupta the thermal management system further comprises a pump, wherein the pump is configured to move the working fluid to and from a heat exchanger, as taught by Yamamoto, since doing so would allow for better heat removal from the heat-generating components of Sengupta.
With respect to claims 11-12, Sengupta teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest that the heat-generating component is a battery.
Yamamoto, however, teaches a thermal management system where the heat-generating component (2) is a battery.
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 Yamamoto with that of Sengupta such that the heat-generating component in Sengupta is a battery, as taught by Yamamoto, since doing so would allow the device of Sengupta to provide power to a nearby device.
With respect to method claims 14-15, the method steps recited in the claims are inherently necessitated by the device structure as taught by the Sengupta and Yamamoto references.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sengupta in view of Kodama et al. (US 2017/0354066 – hereinafter, “Kodama”).
With respect to claim 10, Sengupta teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein the heat-generating component comprises a server.
Kodama, however, teaches a thermal management system wherein a heat-generating component comprises a server (12) which is in direct contact with a working fluid (13, ¶ 0036, “a plurality of servers 12 is immersed in the cooling liquid 13”).
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 Kodama with that of Sengupta such that, in Sengupta the heat-generating component comprises a server, as taught by Kodama, since doing so would allow for the heat-generating component of Sengupta to be capable of providing data communications with other computing devices.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 113097598 to Ju et al. which discloses an immersed passive heat switch based on phase change material;
DE 102017212309 to Gerbig which teaches a coolant circuit with at least two cooling circuits and a latent heat storage;
US 8,109,324 to Farid et al. which teaches a microchannel heat exchanger with micro-encapsulated phase change material for high flux cooling; and
US 4,911,232 to Colvin et al. which teaches a method of using a PCM slurry to enhance heat transfer in liquids.
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