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 .
Election/Restrictions
Examiner acknowledges the withdrawal of claim 6, with traverse, in the election filed 7/24/2026. Further, claims 4-8, 11, and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The withdrawn claims are to nonelected species group 2, consisting of Figs. 6a, 6b, and 6c, generally being drawn to a bubble generating device. Claim 20, specifically, is withdrawn as being dependent on withdrawn claims. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/24/2026. In response to Applicant’s arguments, the office does not consider the number of disclosed species when taking into consideration the merits of a restriction, as even just two distinct species can present two completely different inventive concepts. A phone call was made on 7/24/2026 to inform Applicant of the additional withdrawn claims.
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.
Claims 15, 18 and 20 are 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 15, line 8, it is unclear whether the electronic unit is a component of one of “each” of the CPU pools, the memory pools, and the storage pools, or if the electronic unit is a component of at least one of such pools. For the purposes of examination the latter will be assumed.
Claims 18 and 20 recite the limitation "The data center" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 also appears to be exactly the same as claim 14 in scope, thus failing to further limit the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2020/0214169 to Tsunoda.
Tsunoda discloses;
As to claim 1, an apparatus (FIG. 1, 10), comprising: a flow enhancement structure (12) to enhance a flow of immersion bath liquid (30) specifically through space between fins of a heat sink (28).
As to claim 3, the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the flow enhancement structure is to receive cooled fluid (see coolant flow “A”, cooled coolant enters the flow enhancement structure in the Z direction towards the bottom) to be emitted into the immersion bath liquid after flowing through the flow enhancement structure (after the flow is heated it exits the flow enhancement structure at the top of the device).
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0217625 to Gao.
Gao discloses;
As to claim 1, an apparatus (FIG. 4, 400), comprising: a flow enhancement structure (422) to enhance a flow of immersion bath liquid specifically across a base of heat sink (the side of cold plate 422 in contact with heat producing component 414 can be considered the base of a heat sink).
As to claim 2, the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the flow enhancement structure comprises an intake duct (420) for a return flow of the immersion bath liquid to a cooling distribution unit (e.g. FIG. 3B, 150).
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.
Claim(s) 9-10, 12-14, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0217625 to Gao in view of US 2017/0231115 to Kobayashi et al.
As to claim 9, Gao discloses an apparatus (FIG. 6, 600), comprising: an electronic assembly comprising: i) a frame (405); ii) an electronic circuit board (412) mounted to the frame; iii) a semiconductor chip package (414) coupled to the printed circuit board; iv) a heat sink (the side of cold plate 422 in contact with heat producing component 414 can be considered the base of a heat sink), the heat sink coupled to the semiconductor chip package; v) a cover (See dashed lines in FIG. 4, the cover being the server housing) mounted to the frame; and vi) a flow enhancement structure (430, 420, 422) to enhance a flow of immersion bath liquid (104) specifically across a base of the heat sink when the electronic assembly is immersed in the immersion bath liquid. Gao fails to disclose a heat sink comprising fins. Kobayashi teaches in a similar application (see e.g. FIG. 1A and 1B) a heat sink (11) comprising fins (4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the heat sink of Gao to comprise fins as taught by Kobayashi in order to increase the heat transfer surface area across the heat sink, a technique which is well known in the art as demonstrated by Kobayashi.
As to claim 10, Gao further discloses the apparatus of claim 9 wherein the flow enhancement structure comprises an intake duct (see e.g. FIG. 5A, 115) for a return flow of the immersion bath liquid to a cooling distribution unit (FIG. 1, 150).
As to claim 12, Gao further discloses the apparatus of claim 9 wherein the flow enhancement structure is integrated with the cover (see e.g. FIG. 6, 422 being integrated with the housing of the server represented by dashed lines, i.e. the two surfaces overlap).
As to claim 13, Gao further discloses the apparatus of claim 9 wherein the flow enhancement structure is mounted to the electronic circuit board and/or the frame (see FIG. 6, 422 is mounted to frame 405 by way of 414 and 412).
As to claim 14, Gao further discloses the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the flow enhancement structure comprises an active device (pump 125 is an active device which enhances flow of fluid through the flow enhancement structure).
As to claim 18, Gao further discloses the data center of claim 14, wherein the flow enhancement structure comprises an active device (pump 125 is an active device which enhances flow of fluid through the flow enhancement structure).
As to claim 20, Gao further discloses the data center of claim 14 wherein the flow enhancement structure (422) is at least partially mounted to an electronic unit’s electronic circuit board (412, via 414).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0217625 to Gao in view of US 2022/0100241 to Alissa et al.
As to claim 15, Gao discloses a data center ([0001]), comprising: a chamber (102) comprising immersion bath liquid (104); and an electronic unit (600) within the immersion bath liquid, the electronic unit comprising a flow enhancement structure (430, 420, 422) to enhance a flow of the immersion bath liquid specifically across a base of heat sink (the side of cold plate 422 in contact with heat producing component 414 can be considered the base of a heat sink) that is coupled to a semiconductor chip package (414) of the electronic unit. Gao fails to disclose a network; CPU pools coupled to the network; memory pools coupled to the network; storage pools coupled to the network; and the electronic unit being a component of one of the CPU pools, the memory pools and the storage pools. Alissa teaches a network ([0007] “The components can be interconnected by a high-speed network”); CPU pools (622, FIG. 6) coupled to the network; memory pools (624) coupled to the network; (624) storage pools coupled to the network; and an electronic unit (102, FIG. 1, also [0007]) being a component of one of the CPU pools, the memory pools and the storage pools. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the data center of Gao to disaggregate the computer components of the system as taught by Alissa in order to provide specific cooling to a group of like components as taught by Alissa (see e.g. [0007] “In such a case, multiple like components can be positioned in close physical proximity to one another and managed together based upon their properties”).
As to claim 16, Gao further discloses the apparatus of claim 15 wherein the flow enhancement structure comprises an intake duct (see e.g. FIG. 5B, 115) for a return flow of the immersion bath liquid to a cooling distribution unit (FIG. 1, 150).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0217625 to Gao in view of US 2022/0100241 to Alissa et al. in view of US 6,146,530 to Vollmer.
As to claim 17, the “space between fins” of claim 15 are not positively recited, but optionally recited in that the flow of immersion bath liquid can pass through “space between fins of a heat sink” and/or “across a base of a heat sink.” The prior art teaching a flow passing across a base of a heat sink, the functional language of claim 17, “to increase the flow['s] rate through the space between the fins” is without antecedence, and is not considered with patentable weight. Notwithstanding, Gao in view of Alissa teach the data center of claim 16. Gao fails to disclose wherein the return flow flows through a lower liquid free surface to increase the flow['s] rate. Vollmer teaches (e.g. FIG. 1) a tank (4) with a return conduit (11) in which a return flow flows through a lower liquid free surface (8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the return path of Gao to flow through a lower liquid free surface as taught by Vollmer in order to allow hydrostatic pressure to increase the flow rate of the fluid, thus disposing the need for a pump, as taught by Vollmer (col. 2, ll. 25-28 “It is possible to dispense with a drain pump for the sediment that has to be moved if this sediment can be moved into the second tank by a drop in hydrostatic pressure, so that the assistance of a pump is not necessary.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2025/0220849 to Bosch Coch et al. disclosing a flow enhancement structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIL ALEXANDER DECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6578. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm Mon-Fri.
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.
/JAMIL ALEXANDER DECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/Jayprakash N Gandhi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights