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 .
Response to Amendments
This is a final office action in response to applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 11/14/2025.
Status of Rejections
The objections to the drawings and claims are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
All previous rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Claims 1-20 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 16, line 9, “to second” should read “to the second”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 18 is 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 18 recites the limitation "a second electrical contact" in lines 12-13. The limitation of “a second electrical contact” is previously introduced in line 7 of claim 15, upon which the claim depends. It is therefore unclear whether the recitation of claim 18 is referring to this previous limitation or introducing a new limitation. For examination purposes, it has been interpreted as referring to the previous limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyagawa et al. (JP H08199382 A, citations based on translation) in view of Okano et al. (U.S. 2012/0061057), and further in view of Visentin (EP 2964809 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Miyagawa teaches a method (see e.g. Paragraph 0001) comprising:
determining a reverse bias voltage to prevent corrosion in a system and applying the reverse bias voltage to a first connection with a first component and second connection with a second component in the system (see e.g. Fig. 1, reverse voltage applied from external power source 5 between metal layer 2 and metal substrate 1 via respective connections according to the standard potential difference between their respective metals; Paragraph 0013, lines 1-6).
Miyagawa does not explicitly teach the system being a liquid cooling system, but does teach the method generally being applied for preventing corrosion due to difference in potential in metal members made of two or more metals (see e.g. Paragraph 0001).
Okano teaches a liquid cooling system (see e.g. Abstract) comprising several components with liquid-contacting metal portions that are made of dissimilar metal materials (see e.g. Paragraph 0018 and Paragraph 0071, lines 7-10), which can cause galvanic corrosion due to a difference in standard potential between the dissimilar metals (see e.g. Paragraph 0013 and Paragraph 0071, lines 10-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second components of the method of Miyagawa to be components of a liquid cooling system such as that of Okano as a particular system where components of different metals are at risk for corrosion due to potential differences between the metals for which corrosion can be prevented with the method. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Modified Miyagawa does not explicitly teach galvanic current being measured between the first connection with the first component and the second connection with the second components and the reverse bias voltage being determined based on the galvanic current and a corrosion model for the liquid cooling system. Miyagawa does however teach the reverse bias voltage being applied to cancel the standard potential difference between the different metals such that no corrosion current, i.e. galvanic current, flows (see e.g. Paragraph 0011, lines 1-3, and Paragraph 0013, lines 3-6).
Visentin teaches a method for cathodic protection of metal apparatuses such as tanks containing water against corrosion (see e.g. Abstract), wherein an anode and the tank are connected via an electric energy generator used to establish a protection potential that prevents corrosion (see e.g. Fig. 1, anode 13 and tank 12 connected to electric energy generator 14; Paragraphs 0024-0025 and 0033), the protection potential being determinable by models used to predict corrosion behaviour of metal materials (see e.g. Paragraphs 0007 and 0034) and able to be generated iteratively by measuring current from the connections between the anode and the tank with a controller and regulating the current/voltage supplied to connections to the anode and tank accordingly, guaranteeing that the tank is protected from corrosion over time (see e.g. Paragraphs 0016, 0029 and 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of modified Miyagawa to comprise measuring the galvanic current between the connections to the first and second components and regulating the bias voltage to be applied between the connections based on the measured current and determined models of corrosion behaviour for the system as taught by Visentin to guarantee that the system is protected from corrosion over time.
Regarding claim 2, Miyagawa as modified by Okano teaches the first component comprising a copper heat exchanger (see e.g. Okano Paragraph 0015, lines 3-4, and Paragraph 0070, lines 12-14, copper heat absorbing unit),
the second component comprising an aluminum heat exchanger (see e.g. Okano Paragraph 0015, lines 5-6, and Paragraph 0070, lines 14-17, aluminum radiator),
a negative electrode associated with the reverse bias voltage being connected to the aluminum heat exchanger; and a positive electrode associated with the reverse bias voltage being connected to the copper heat exchanger (see e.g. Miyagawa Fig. 1, negative electrode (shorter line) of power source 5 connected to metal substrate 1 made of Al having a negative standard potential, and positive electrode (longer line) connected to metal layer 2 made of Ag having a positive standard potential; see e.g. Okano Fig. 13, Cu has a positive standard potential close to Ag, and would therefore be similarly connected to the positive electrode in the Al-Cu pair).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyagawa, Okano and Visentin, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Laurila et al. (WO 0070124 A1) and Bonner et al. (“Passivation coatings for micro-channel coolers”, IEEE, 2012).
Regarding claim 3, modified Miyagawa teaches all the elements of the method of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Miyagawa does not explicitly teach the corrosion model comprising a coolant equivalent resistance for a liquid in the liquid cooling system, and historically applied reverse biases in the liquid cooling system. Visentin does however teach the model being representative of conditions of the electrochemical system in aqueous solution (see e.g. Visentin Paragraph 0007), and Miyagawa teaches the coolant being an electrolytic solution forming an ion conducting pathway by which galvanic corrosion occurs (see e.g. Miyagawa Paragraph 0014).
Laurila teaches a method of providing electrochemical corrosion prevention in changing conditions (see e.g. Abstract), comprising measuring process variables and corrosion data such as electrochemical properties or properties affecting corrosion reactions of an electrolyte in the protected device and determining a new optimal potential, and thereby current/voltage to be supplied for corrosion prevention, based on said measurements (see e.g. Page 4, lines 11-15, and Page 4, line 27-Page 5, line 5), wherein, when corrosion conditions repeat, data from previously performed measurements, i.e. historical data, regarding optimal potential values and the corresponding supplied current/voltage may be used in determining the new optimal potential (see e.g. Page 5, lines 4-5 and 14-16, and Page 6, lines 18-20), this method allowing corrosion prevention operation to adapt to changing corrosion conditions automatically without much delay (see e.g. Page 4, lines 9-11).
Bonner relates to a liquid cooling system (see e.g. Abstract) and teaches that coolant electrical resistivity, i.e. equivalent resistance, is a property effecting electrochemical corrosion (see e.g. Page 499, Col. 1, lines 9-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of modified Miyagawa to comprise measuring electrochemical properties of electrolyte effecting corrosion, such as equivalent resistance, and determining an optimal potential and current/voltage to be supplied based on historical data from previous measurements and previously determined optimal potentials and supplied current/voltage as taught by Laurila and Bonner to allow electrochemical corrosion prevention operation to adapt to changing corrosion conditions automatically without much delay.
Regarding claim 4, Miyagawa as modified by Laurila and Bonner teaches determining the reverse bias voltage comprising:
determining the reverse bias voltage based on the coolant equivalent resistance (see e.g. Laurila Page 4, line 27-Page 5, line 5, determining optimum potential and corresponding supplied current/voltage based on electrolyte properties affecting corrosion; see e.g. Bonner Page 499, Col. 1, lines 9-14, coolant resistivity, i.e. equivalent resistance, as property affecting corrosion), wherein the reverse bias voltage comprises a voltage to counteract the galvanic current (see e.g. Miyagawa Paragraph 0013, lines 4-5, reverse voltage preventing corrosion current flow); and
updating the reverse bias voltage based on the historically applied reverse biases (see e.g. Laurila Page 5, lines 4-5 and 14-16, and Page 6, lines 18-20, determining new optimal potential and corresponding current/voltage based on data from previous measurements).
Regarding claim 5, Miyagawa as modified by Okano teaches applying the reverse bias voltage comprising: applying the reverse bias voltage via electrical contacts in the liquid cooling system, wherein the applied bias voltage reduces galvanic current to prevent corrosion in the liquid cooling system (see e.g. Miyagawa Fig. 1, electrical contacts connected to metal substrate 1 and metal layer 2 of different metals to apply reverse voltage to prevent flow of corrosion current; Paragraph 0013, lines 3-6; see e.g. Okano Paragraph 0013 and Paragraph 0071, lines 10-12, components of liquid cooling system with different metals at risk of corrosion from galvanic current).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyagawa, Okano and Visentin, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Taveira et al. (“DETECTION OF CORROSION OF POST-TENSIONED STRANDS IN GROUTED ASSEMBLIES”, NACE International Corrosion Conference Series, 2008).
Regarding claim 6, modified Miyagawa teaches all the elements of the method of claim 1 as stated above. Miyagawa as modified by Visentin further teaches measuring an updated galvanic current under reverse bias conditions in the liquid cooling system (see e.g. Visentin Paragraph 0036, protection potential generated iteratively, i.e. updated, by continual current measurements); comparing the updated galvanic current to a corrosion threshold and, when the galvanic current is above a corrosion threshold, updating the reverse bias voltage applied in the liquid cooling system (see e.g. Visentin Paragraph 0038, when measurer detects considerable deviation from a previous current measurement indicative of potential corrosion, i.e. beyond a corrosion threshold, the controller regulates the current/voltage supplied by the generator to rake it back to a balanced current).
Modified Miyagawa does not explicitly teach the corrosion threshold comprising 1 microampere, but does generally teach the desire to detect currents that can contribute to corrosion (see e.g. Visentin Paragraph 0038, lines 5-11).
Taveira teaches a corrosion detection method (see e.g. Abstract) wherein 1 µA is used as a lower limit representative of negligible corrosion current values (see e.g. Page 10, 1st complete paragraph, lines 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the corrosion threshold of the method of modified Miyagawa to comprise 1 microampere as taught by Taveira as a known corrosion current value suitable for use as a lower limit above which corrosion can be determined to have occurred. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyagawa Okano and Visentin, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Laurila.
Regarding claim 7, modified Miyagawa teaches all the elements of the method of claim 1 as stated above. Miyagawa as modified by Visentin further teaches monitoring the galvanic current in the liquid cooling system (see e.g. Visentin Paragraphs 0029 and 0036, measuring current, i.e. galvanic current, between anode electrode and protected tank). Modified Miyagawa does not explicitly teach updating the corrosion model for the liquid cooling system with an indication of the galvanic current, the reverse bias voltage and a time of reverse bias application. Visentin does however teach the use of comparison to previous current measurements to continually regulate the current/voltage supplied to the system to achieve the protective potential (see e.g. Visentin Paragraph 0036).
Laurila teaches a method of providing electrochemical corrosion prevention in changing conditions (see e.g. Abstract), comprising measuring process variables and corrosion data and determining a new optimal potential, and thereby current/voltage to be supplied for corrosion prevention, based on said measurements (see e.g. Page 4, lines 11-15, and Page 5, lines 1-5), wherein, when corrosion conditions repeat, data stored from previously performed measurements regarding optimal potential values and the corresponding current/voltage supplied at a given time may be used in determining the new optimal potential (see e.g. Page 5, lines 4-5 and 14-16, Page 6, lines 18-20, and Page 7, lines 13-22), this method allowing corrosion prevention operation to adapt to changing corrosion conditions automatically without much delay (see e.g. Page 4, lines 9-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of modified Miyagawa to comprise monitoring corrosion data, i.e. a corrosion level, and updating the corrosion model with data generated by the method itself, such as the monitored galvanic current and applied bias voltage at a given time, as taught by Laurila to assist in automatic adaptation of the operation of the corrosion prevention method in response to changing corrosion conditions without delay.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (U.S. 2017/0089827) in view of Okano, and further in view of Miyagawa and Visentin.
Regarding claim 8, Ding teaches a system (see e.g. Fig. 1, system 100; Paragraph 0014, lines 1-2) comprising:
a processor (see e.g. Paragraph 0033, lines 2-3); and
a memory comprising instructions which, when executed on the processor, performs an operation (see e.g. Paragraph 0033, lines 3-6), the operation comprising:
measuring a galvanic current between a first connection with a first component and a second connection with second component in a system (see e.g. Fig. 1, measurement of galvanic current between tube 110 and tube 112 of different materials/metals via respective connections to computing device 118; Paragraphs 0017-0018 and Paragraph 0027, lines 1-3).
Ding does not explicitly teach the system being a liquid cooling system, but does teach it being a heat exchange system comprising elements of different metals such as copper and aluminum that are susceptible to corrosion due to galvanic potential difference (see e.g. Paragraphs 0002-0003, and Paragraph 0017, lines 1-4).
Okano teaches a liquid cooling system (see e.g. Abstract) comprising several components with liquid-contacting metal portions that are made of dissimilar metal materials (see e.g. Paragraph 0018 and Paragraph 0071, lines 7-10), which can cause galvanic corrosion due to a difference in standard potential between the dissimilar metals (see e.g. Paragraph 0013 and Paragraph 0071, lines 10-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ding to comprise the liquid cooling system of Okano as a particular heat exchange system with components of different metals such as copper and aluminum at risk for galvanic corrosion. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Modified Ding does not teach determining, based on the galvanic current and a corrosion model for the system, a reverse bias voltage to prevent corrosion in the liquid cooling system; and applying the reverse bias voltage to the first and second connections in the liquid cooling system.
Miyagawa teaches a method of preventing corrosion caused by potential differences between different metals in a system (see e.g. Paragraph 0001) comprising determining and applying a reverse bias voltage to prevent corrosion between a first component and a second component of different metals in the system to cancel the standard potential difference between the different metals such that no corrosion current, i.e. galvanic current, flows (see e.g. Fig. 1, reverse voltage applied from external power source 5 between metal layer 2 and metal substrate 1 according to the standard potential difference between their respective metals; Paragraph 0011, lines 1-3, and Paragraph 0013, lines 1-6), thereby fundamentally suppressing the occurrence of corrosion in the system (see e.g. Paragraph 0008).
Visentin similarly teaches a method for cathodic protection of metal apparatuses such as tanks containing water against corrosion (see e.g. Abstract), wherein an anode and the tank are connected via an electric energy generator used to establish a protection potential that prevents corrosion (see e.g. Fig. 1, anode 13 and tank 12 connected to electric energy generator 14; Paragraphs 0024-0025 and 0033), the protection potential being determinable by models used to predict corrosion behaviour of metal materials (see e.g. Paragraphs 0007 and 0034) and able to be generated iteratively by measuring current from the connections between the anode and the tank with a controller and regulating the current/voltage supplied to connections to the anode and tank accordingly, guaranteeing that the tank is protected from corrosion over time (see e.g. Paragraphs 0016, 0029 and 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the executed operation of the system of modified Ding to comprise determining and applying a reverse bias voltage between the connections to the first and second components of the system based on the measured galvanic current and determined models of corrosion behaviour for the system as taught by Miyagawa and Visentin to fundamentally suppress the occurrence of corrosion in the system and guarantee that the system is protected from corrosion over time.
Regarding claim 9, Ding as modified by Miyagawa and Okano teaches the first component comprising a copper heat exchanger (see e.g. Ding Paragraph 0016, lines 1-3, copper HX tube; see e.g. Okano Paragraph 0015, lines 3-4, and Paragraph 0070, lines 12-14, copper heat absorbing unit),
the second component comprising an aluminum heat exchanger (see e.g. Ding Paragraph 0014, aluminum HX tube; see e.g. Okano Paragraph 0015, lines 5-6, and Paragraph 0070, lines 14-17, aluminum radiator),
a negative electrode associated with the reverse bias voltage being connected to the aluminum heat exchanger; and a positive electrode associated with the reverse bias voltage being connected to the copper heat exchanger (see e.g. Miyagawa Fig. 1, negative electrode (shorter line) of power source 5 connected to metal substrate 1 made of Al having a negative standard potential, and positive electrode (longer line) connected to metal layer 2 made of Ag having a positive standard potential; see e.g. Okano Fig. 13, Cu has a positive standard potential close to Ag, and would therefore be similarly connected to the positive electrode in the Al-Cu pair).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding, Okano, Miyagawa and Visentin, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Laurila and Bonner.
Regarding claim 10, modified Ding teaches all the elements of the system of claim 8 as stated above. Modified Ding does not explicitly teach the corrosion model comprising a coolant equivalent resistance for a liquid in the liquid cooling system, and historically applied reverse biases in the liquid cooling system. Visentin does however teach the model being representative of conditions of the electrochemical system in aqueous solution (see e.g. Visentin Paragraph 0007), and Miyagawa teaches the coolant being an electrolytic solution forming an ion conducting pathway by which galvanic corrosion occurs (see e.g. Miyagawa Paragraph 0014).
Laurila teaches a method of providing electrochemical corrosion prevention in changing conditions (see e.g. Abstract), comprising measuring process variables and corrosion data such as electrochemical properties or properties affecting corrosion reactions of an electrolyte in the protected device and determining a new optimal potential, and thereby current/voltage to be supplied for corrosion prevention, based on said measurements (see e.g. Page 4, lines 11-15, and Page 4, line 27-Page 5, line 5), wherein, when corrosion conditions repeat, data from previously performed measurements, i.e. historical data, regarding optimal potential values and the corresponding supplied current/voltage may be used in determining the new optimal potential (see e.g. Page 5, lines 4-5 and 14-16, and Page 6, lines 18-20), this method allowing corrosion prevention operation to adapt to changing corrosion conditions automatically without much delay (see e.g. Page 4, lines 9-11).
Bonner relates to a liquid cooling system (see e.g. Abstract) and teaches that coolant electrical resistivity, i.e. equivalent resistance, is a property effecting electrochemical corrosion (see e.g. Page 499, Col. 1, lines 9-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operation of modified Ding to comprise measuring electrochemical properties of electrolyte effecting corrosion, such as equivalent resistance, and determining an optimal potential and current/voltage to be supplied based on historical data from previous measurements and previously determined optimal potentials and supplied current/voltage as taught by Laurila and Bonner to allow electrochemical corrosion prevention operation to adapt to changing corrosion conditions automatically without much delay.
Regarding claim 11, Ding as modified by Miyagawa, Laurila and Bonner teaches determining the reverse bias voltage comprising:
determining the reverse bias voltage based on the coolant equivalent resistance (see e.g. Laurila Page 4, line 27-Page 5, line 5, determining optimum potential and corresponding supplied current/voltage based on electrolyte properties affecting corrosion; see e.g. Bonner Page 499, Col. 1, lines 9-14, coolant resistivity, i.e. equivalent resistance, as property affecting corrosion), wherein the reverse bias voltage comprises a voltage to counteract the galvanic current (see e.g. Miyagawa Paragraph 0013, lines 4-5, reverse voltage preventing corrosion current flow); and
updating the reverse bias voltage based on the historically applied reverse biases (see e.g. Laurila Page 5, lines 4-5 and 14-16, and Page 6, lines 18-20, determining new optimal potential and corresponding current/voltage based on data from previous measurements).
Regarding claim 12, Ding as modified by Miyagawa and Okano teaches applying the reverse bias voltage comprising: applying the reverse bias voltage via electrical contacts in the liquid cooling system, wherein the applied bias voltage reduces galvanic current to prevent corrosion in the liquid cooling system (see e.g. Miyagawa Fig. 1, electrical contacts connected to metal substrate 1 and metal layer 2 of different metals to apply reverse voltage to prevent flow of corrosion current; Paragraph 0013, lines 3-6; see e.g. Okano Paragraph 0013 and Paragraph 0071, lines 10-12, components of liquid cooling system with different metals at risk of corrosion from galvanic current).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding, Okano, Miyagawa and Visentin, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Taveira.
Regarding claim 13, modified Ding teaches all the elements of the system of claim 8 as stated above. Ding as modified by Visentin further teaches measuring an updated galvanic current under reverse bias conditions in the liquid cooling system (see e.g. Visentin Paragraph 0036, protection potential generated iteratively, i.e. updated, by continual current measurements); comparing the updated galvanic current to a corrosion threshold and, when the galvanic current is above a corrosion threshold, updating the reverse bias voltage applied in the liquid cooling system (see e.g. Visentin Paragraph 0038, when measurer detects considerable deviation from a previous current measurement indicative of potential corrosion, i.e. beyond a corrosion threshold, the controller regulates the current/voltage supplied by the generator to rake it back to a balanced current).
Modified Ding does not explicitly teach the corrosion threshold comprising 1 microampere, but does generally teach the desire to detect currents that can contribute to corrosion (see e.g. Visentin Paragraph 0038, lines 5-11).
Taveira teaches a corrosion detection method (see e.g. Abstract) wherein 1 µA is used as a lower limit representative of negligible corrosion current values (see e.g. Page 10, 1st complete paragraph, lines 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the corrosion threshold of the operation of modified Ding to comprise 1 microampere as taught by Taveira as a known corrosion current value suitable for use as a lower limit above which corrosion can be determined to have occurred. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding, Okano, Miyagawa and Visentin, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Laurila.
Regarding claim 14, modified Ding teaches all the elements of the system of claim 8 as stated above. Ding as modified by Visentin further teaches monitoring the galvanic current in the liquid cooling system (see e.g. Visentin Paragraphs 0029 and 0036, measuring current, i.e. galvanic current, between anode electrode and protected tank). Modified Ding does not explicitly teach updating the corrosion model for the liquid cooling system with an indication of the galvanic current, the reverse bias voltage and a time of reverse bias application. Visentin does however teach the use of comparison to previous current measurements to continually regulate the current/voltage supplied to the system to achieve the protective potential (see e.g. Visentin Paragraph 0036).
Laurila teaches a method of providing electrochemical corrosion prevention in changing conditions (see e.g. Abstract), comprising measuring process variables and corrosion data and determining a new optimal potential, and thereby current/voltage to be supplied for corrosion prevention, based on said measurements (see e.g. Page 4, lines 11-15, and Page 5, lines 1-5), wherein, when corrosion conditions repeat, data stored from previously performed measurements regarding optimal potential values and the corresponding current/voltage supplied at a given time may be used in determining the new optimal potential (see e.g. Page 5, lines 4-5 and 14-16, Page 6, lines 18-20, and Page 7, lines 13-22), this method allowing corrosion prevention operation to adapt to changing corrosion conditions automatically without much delay (see e.g. Page 4, lines 9-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the executed operation of modified Ding to comprise monitoring corrosion data, i.e. a corrosion level, and updating the corrosion model with data generated by the method itself, such as the monitored galvanic current and applied bias voltage at a given time, as taught by Laurila to assist in automatic adaptation of the operation of the corrosion prevention method in response to changing corrosion conditions without delay.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okano in view of Ding, and further in view of Miyagawa, Visentin and Joslin (GB 2524862 A).
Regarding claim 15, Okano teaches a liquid cooling system (see e.g. Fig. 12, liquid cooling type cooling device 900; Paragraph 0009, lines 1-2) comprising:
a first heat exchange component of a first material (see e.g. Fig. 12, aluminum radiator 330; Paragraph 0009, line 4, Paragraph 0015, lines 5-6, and Paragraph 0070, lines 14-17);
a second heat exchange component of a second material (see e.g. Fig. 12, copper heat absorbing unit 310; Paragraph 0009, lines 1-2, Paragraph 0015, lines 3-4, and Paragraph 0070, lines 12-14);
a first pipe between the first heat exchange component and the second heat exchange component (see e.g. Fig. 12, piping 360 between heat absorbing unit 310 and radiator 330; Paragraph 0009, lines 4-6).
Okano does not teach the liquid cooling system comprising a first electrical contact, a second electrical contact, and a circuit electrically connected to the first electrical contact and the second electrical contact, a processor and a memory comprising instructions which, when executed on the processor, performs an operation, the operation comprising measuring a galvanic current between a first connection with the first electrical contact and a second connection with the second electrical contact. Okano does however teach the components of made of dissimilar metals being at risk for galvanic corrosion due to a difference in standard potential between the dissimilar metals (see e.g. Paragraph 0013 and Paragraph 0071, lines 10-12).
Ding teaches a heat exchange system comprising components of different materials (see e.g. Abstract), wherein a measurement of a signal such as galvanic current is performed between the two components via electrical contacts connected to each component in a circuit (see e.g. Fig. 1, tube 112 and tube 110 electrically coupled via connections, i.e. contacts, in a circuit with computing device 118 to perform measurements such as of galvanic current; Paragraphs 0017-0018 and Paragraph 0027, lines 1-3) to obtain information of the corrosiveness of an environment of the heat exchanger (see e.g. Paragraph 0003, lines 6-10), allowing efficient, cheap and accurate determination of a threat caused by corrosion in the heat exchanger (see e.g. Paragraph 0030, lines 1-6), this operation being performed by an apparatus including one or more processors and memory storing instructions to be executed by the processors (see e.g. Paragraph 0033, lines 2-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the liquid cooling system of Okano to comprise a processor and memory for performing a galvanic current measurement between the first and second components via electrical contacts connected thereto in a circuit as taught by Ding to allow for efficient, cheap and accurate determination of a threat caused by corrosion in the cooling system.
Modified Okano does not teach the liquid cooling system comprising a reverse bias system, the reverse bias system comprising the circuit as an external bias circuit, and the operation further comprising determining, based on the galvanic current and a corrosion model for the liquid cooling system, a reverse bias voltage to prevent corrosion in the liquid cooling system; and applying the reverse bias voltage to the first and second connections via the external bias circuit.
Miyagawa teaches a method of preventing corrosion caused by potential differences between different metals in a system (see e.g. Paragraph 0001) comprising determining and applying a reverse bias voltage in a circuit to prevent corrosion between a first component and a second component of different metals in the system to cancel the standard potential difference between the different metals such that no corrosion current, i.e. galvanic current, flows (see e.g. Fig. 1, reverse voltage applied from external power source 5 in circuit between metal layer 2 and metal substrate 1 according to the standard potential difference between their respective metals; Paragraph 0011, lines 1-3, and Paragraph 0013, lines 1-6), thereby fundamentally suppressing the occurrence of corrosion in the system (see e.g. Paragraph 0008).
Visentin similarly teaches a method for cathodic protection of metal apparatuses such as tanks containing water against corrosion (see e.g. Abstract), wherein an anode and the tank are connected via an electric energy generator used to establish a protection potential that prevents corrosion (see e.g. Fig. 1, anode 13 and tank 12 connected to electric energy generator 14; Paragraphs 0024-0025 and 0033), the protection potential being determinable by models used to predict corrosion behaviour of metal materials (see e.g. Paragraphs 0007 and 0034) and able to be generated iteratively by measuring current from the connections between the anode and the tank with a controller and regulating the current/voltage supplied to connections to the anode and tank accordingly, guaranteeing that the tank is protected from corrosion over time (see e.g. Paragraphs 0016, 0029 and 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the executed operation of the system of modified Okano to comprise determining and applying a reverse bias voltage in the circuit between the connections to the first and second components of the system based on the measured galvanic current and determined models of corrosion behaviour for the system as taught by Miyagawa and Visentin to fundamentally suppress the occurrence of corrosion in the system and guarantee that the system is protected from corrosion over time.
Modified Okano does not explicitly teach the first electrical contact being on a first end of the first pipe and the second electrical contact being on a second end of the first pipe.
Joslin teaches a method and apparatus for protection of equipment from corrosion (see e.g. Abstract and Page 3, line 11), in which an electrical connection is made to a device via a conductive contact at the end of pipework connected to the device (see e.g. Fig. 2, electrically conductive connection 212 formed at end of device 210 connected to pipework 260; Page 10, lines 4-5 and 22-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the liquid cooling system of modified Okano to comprise the first and second electrical contacts connected to the first and second components at ends of pipework connected to the components such as the first and second ends of the first pipe as taught by Joslin as a suitable means of providing electrical connection to a device connected to pipework in an system, the first and second ends of the first pipe being two of only four possible points at which such a pipework ending contact connection could be made to the components. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results. Further, MPEP § 2143(I)(E) states that it may be obvious to choose “from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”.
Regarding claim 16, Okano as modified by Miyagawa teaches the first heat exchange component comprising an air cooled aluminum radiator (see e.g. Fig. 12, aluminum radiator 330 cooled by air via fan 340; Paragraph 0009, lines 9-11, Paragraph 0015, lines 5-6, and Paragraph 0070, lines 14-17),
the second heat exchange component comprising a copper cold plate positioned on an electronic device (see e.g. Fig. 12, copper heat absorbing unit 310 as a block, i.e. cold plate, on heat generating portion 300 such as an electronic device to be cooled; Paragraph 0009, lines 1-3, Paragraph 0010, Paragraph 0015, lines 3-4, and Paragraph 0083, lines 6-11),
a negative electrode of the external bias circuit being connected to the first electrical contact, wherein the first electrical contact is connected to the air cooled aluminum radiator, and a positive electrode of the external bias circuit being connected to the second electrical contact, wherein the second electrical contact is connected to the copper cold plate (see e.g. Miyagawa Fig. 1, negative electrode (shorter line) of power source 5 connected via contacts to metal substrate 1 made of Al having a negative standard potential, and positive electrode (longer line) connected to metal layer 2 made of Ag having a positive standard potential; see e.g. Okano Fig. 13, Cu has a positive standard potential close to Ag, and would therefore be similarly connected to the positive electrode in the Al-Cu pair)
Regarding claim 17, modified Okano teaches the liquid cooling system further comprising: a coolant pump system (see e.g. Okano Fig. 12, pump 320 for circulating coolant; Paragraph 0009, lines 6-7); and
a second pipe between the coolant pump system and the copper cold plate (see e.g. Okano Fig. 12, piping 360 between pump 320 and heat absorbing unit 310; Paragraph 0009, lines 2-6), wherein the coolant pump system pumps cooled coolant from the coolant pump system to the copper cold plate via the second pipe, and wherein heated coolant flows from the copper cold plate to the air cooled aluminum radiator (see e.g. Okano Fig. 12, pump 320 circulates coolant between heat absorbing unit 310 at which the coolant absorbs heat, i.e. is heated, and radiator 330 at which the coolant radiates heat, i.e. is cooled; Paragraph 0009, lines 6-9).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okano, Ding, Miyagawa, Visentin and Joslin, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Beriger et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,051,509).
Regarding claim 18, modified Okano teaches all the elements of the liquid cooling system of claim 15 as stated above. Okano as modified by Miyagawa further teaches the first heat exchange component comprising an air cooled aluminum radiator (see e.g. Okano Fig. 12, aluminum radiator 330 cooled by air via fan 340; Paragraph 0009, lines 9-11, Paragraph 0015, lines 5-6, and Paragraph 0070, lines 14-17), and the second heat exchange component comprising a cooling system comprising a plurality of copper cold plates (see e.g. Okano Fig. 11, copper heat absorbing, i.e. cooling, units 31 as blocks, i.e. cold plates; Paragraph 0010, Paragraph 0015, lines 3-4, and Paragraph 0081, lines 8-11), wherein a negative electrode of the external bias circuit is connected to the first electrical contact, and a positive electrode of the external bias circuit is connected to the second electrical contact (see e.g. Miyagawa Fig. 1, negative electrode (shorter line) of power source 5 connected via contacts to metal substrate 1 made of Al having a negative standard potential, and positive electrode (longer line) connected to metal layer 2 made of Ag having a positive standard potential; see e.g. Okano Fig. 13, Cu has a positive standard potential close to Ag, and would therefore be similarly connected to the positive electrode in the Al-Cu pair).
Modified Okano does not explicitly teach the cooling system comprising a supply manifold, a return manifolds, and the plurality of copper cold plates positioned between the supply manifold and the return manifold, wherein the second electrical contact is connected to the supply manifold, but does teach that the plurality of copper cold plates may be connected to piping in a parallel configuration (see e.g. Okano Paragraph 0081, lines 11-13). Additionally, Okano as modified by Joslin, as stated in regards to claim 15 above, teaches the second electrical contact being connected to the second end of the first pipe, which would be the point at which the cooling system comprising the copper cold plates is supplied (see e.g. Okano Fig. 12, piping 360 between radiator 330 and heat absorbing unit 310, the end of the piping 360 connected to heat absorbing unit 310 being the suppl point as indicated by the arrows; Paragraph 0009, lines 1-5).
Beriger teaches an apparatus for cooling electrical devices arranged in parallel (see e.g. Abstract) comprising an infeed flow tube, i.e. supply manifold, and outfeed flow tube, i.e. return manifold, with a plurality of cooling bodies such as cooling plates arranged therebetween (see e.g. Figs. 1-2, infeed and outfeed pressure or flow tubes 2 and 3 on either side of cooling bodies/plates K0…KN; Col. 1, line 65-Col. 2, line 2, and Col. 2, lines 31-34 and 38-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooling system of modified Okano to comprise an infeed supply manifold and outfeed return manifold on either side of the plurality of copper cold plates, with the second electrical contact connected to the second end of the first pipe at which it connects to the supply manifold, as taught by Beriger as a suitable particular arrangement for connecting the plurality of copper cold plates to piping in a parallel configuration. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okano, Ding, Miyagawa, Visentin and Joslin, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Laurila and Bonner.
Regarding claim 19, modified Okano teaches all the elements of the liquid cooling system of claim 15 as stated above. Okano as modified by Miyagawa further teaches the reverse bias voltage comprising a voltage to counteract the galvanic current (see e.g. Miyagawa Paragraph 0013, lines 4-5, reverse voltage preventing corrosion current flow) and applying the reverse bias voltage via the first electrical contact and the second electrical contact, wherein the applied bias voltage reduces galvanic current to prevent corrosion in the liquid cooling system (see e.g. Miyagawa Fig. 1, electrical contacts connected to metal substrate 1 and metal layer 2 of different metals to apply reverse voltage to prevent flow of corrosion current; Paragraph 0013, lines 3-6; see e.g. Okano Paragraph 0013 and Paragraph 0071, lines 10-12, components of liquid cooling system with different metals at risk of corrosion from galvanic current).
Modified Okano does not explicitly teach the corrosion model comprising a coolant equivalent resistance for a liquid in the liquid cooling system, and historically applied reverse biases in the liquid cooling system, wherein determining the reverse bias voltage comprises determining the reverse bias voltage based on the coolant equivalent resistance and updating the reverse bias voltage based on the historically applied reverse biases. Visentin does however teach the model being representative of conditions of the electrochemical system in aqueous solution (see e.g. Visentin Paragraph 0007), and Miyagawa teaches the coolant being an electrolytic solution forming an ion conducting pathway by which galvanic corrosion occurs (see e.g. Miyagawa Paragraph 0014).
Laurila teaches a method of providing electrochemical corrosion prevention in changing conditions (see e.g. Abstract), comprising measuring process variables and corrosion data such as electrochemical properties or properties affecting corrosion reactions of an electrolyte in the protected device and determining a new optimal potential, and thereby current/voltage to be supplied for corrosion prevention, based on said measurements (see e.g. Page 4, lines 11-15, and Page 4, line 27-Page 5, line 5), wherein, when corrosion conditions repeat, data from previously performed measurements, i.e. historical data, regarding optimal potential values and the corresponding supplied current/voltage may be used in determining the new optimal potential (see e.g. Page 5, lines 4-5 and 14-16, and Page 6, lines 18-20), this method allowing corrosion prevention operation to adapt to changing corrosion conditions automatically without much delay (see e.g. Page 4, lines 9-11).
Bonner relates to a liquid cooling system (see e.g. Abstract) and teaches that coolant electrical resistivity, i.e. equivalent resistance, is a property effecting electrochemical corrosion (see e.g. Page 499, Col. 1, lines 9-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operation of modified Okano to comprise measuring electrochemical properties of electrolyte effecting corrosion, such as equivalent resistance, and determining an optimal potential and current/voltage to be supplied based on historical data from previous measurements and previously determined optimal potentials and supplied current/voltage as taught by Laurila and Bonner to allow electrochemical corrosion prevention operation to adapt to changing corrosion conditions automatically without much delay.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okano, Ding, Miyagawa, Visentin and Joslin, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Taveira.
Regarding claim 20, modified Okano teaches all the elements of the liquid cooling system of claim 15 as stated above. Okano as modified by Visentin further teaches measuring an updated galvanic current under reverse bias conditions in the liquid cooling system (see e.g. Visentin Paragraph 0036, protection potential generated iteratively, i.e. updated, by continual current measurements); comparing the updated galvanic current to a corrosion threshold and, when the galvanic current is above a corrosion threshold, updating the reverse bias voltage applied in the liquid cooling system (see e.g. Visentin Paragraph 0038, when measurer detects considerable deviation from a previous current measurement indicative of potential corrosion, i.e. beyond a corrosion threshold, the controller regulates the current/voltage supplied by the generator to rake it back to a balanced current).
Modified Okano does not explicitly teach the corrosion threshold comprising 1 microampere, but does generally teach the desire to detect currents that can contribute to corrosion (see e.g. Visentin Paragraph 0038, lines 5-11).
Taveira teaches a corrosion detection method (see e.g. Abstract) wherein 1 µA is used as a lower limit representative of negligible corrosion current values (see e.g. Page 10, 1st complete paragraph, lines 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the corrosion threshold of the operation of modified Okano to comprise 1 microampere as taught by Taveira as a known corrosion current value suitable for use as a lower limit above which corrosion can be determined to have occurred. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12, filed 11/14/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 over Miyagawa in view of Okano and Kwon, particularly regarding the measurement of galvanic current and application of reverse bias voltage at the same pair of connections, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Miyagawa, Okano and Visentin.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 13, filed 11/14/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 8 under 35 USC 103 over Ding in view of Okano, Miyagawa and Kwon, particularly regarding the measurement of galvanic current and application of reverse bias voltage at the same pair of connections, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ding, Okano, Miyagawa and Visentin.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 14-15, filed 11/14/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 15 under 35 USC 103 over Okano in view of Ding, Miyagawa, Kwon and Joslin, particularly regarding the measurement of galvanic current and application of reverse bias voltage at the same pair of connections, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Okano, Ding, Miyagawa, Visentin and Joslin.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/M.S.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795