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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enright et al. (WO2020/061305) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2017/0280587).
Per claims 1-3 and 6, Enright teaches an immersion cooling device comprising: a housing (110) defining a receiving chamber (space housing 170); a working liquid (140) received in the receiving chamber; a condenser (130) received in the receiving chamber and located outside the working liquid (the upper region of 130 is located outside the working fluid); a support portion (112) received in the receiving chamber and in contact with the working liquid (see figure 1), wherein the condenser (130) is located on the support portion (112) (see figure 1), a top surface of the support portion (upper surface of 112 as shown in figure 1), and a top surface of the working fluid (upper surface of the working fluid) but fails to explicitly teach a blocking member received in the receiving chamber, the blocking member comprising a plurality of blocking bodies located on or above the top surface of the working liquid, a density of the plurality of blocking bodies being less than a density of the working liquid; and the top surface of the support portion being flush with the top surface of the working liquid (claim 1), wherein the plurality of blocking bodies is made of foam (claim 2), wherein each of the plurality of blocking bodies is spherical or polyhedral (claim 3), wherein when viewing from a depth direction of the working liquid, a surface area of the plurality of blocking bodies accounts for more than 90 % of the top surface of the working liquid (claim 6).
Regarding the blocking member, Watanabe teaches an immersion cooling system including a blocking member (120) received in a receiving chamber (20,50), the blocking member comprising a plurality of blocking bodies (plurality of 120) located on a top surface of a working fluid (top surface of 58), a density of the plurality of blocking bodies being less than a density of the working liquid (“floating on the liquid surface 58F of the sealing liquid 58”, para. 0215) (claim 1), wherein the plurality of blocking bodies (120) is made of foam (“foamed material”, para. 0125) (claim 2), wherein each of the plurality of blocking bodies (120) is spherical (see figure 10A) (claim 3), and wherein when viewing from a depth direction of the working fluid, a surface area of the plurality of blocking bodies accounts for an area of the top surface of the working liquid (see figure 10A showing the blocking bodies covering an area of the top surface of the working liquid) (claim 6) for suppressing leakage of vaporized working liquid (para. 0009). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a blocking member received in a receiving chamber, the blocking member comprising a plurality of blocking bodies located on a top surface of a working liquid, a density of the plurality of blocking bodies being less than a density of the working liquid (claim 1), wherein the plurality of blocking bodies is made of foam (claim 2), wherein each of the plurality of blocking bodies is spherical (see figure 10A), and wherein when viewing from a depth direction of the working fluid, a surface area of the plurality of blocking bodies accounts for an area of the top surface of the working liquid (claim 6), as taught by Watanabe in the invention of Enright, in order to advantageously suppress leakage of vaporized working liquid (para. 0009).
Regarding the area of one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that as the coverage area of the surface with the blocking bodies is adjusted the amount of evaporation of the working fluid will be adjusted. Therefore the coverage area is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that as the coverage area is increased the . Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. the plurality of blocking bodies accounting for an area of the top surface of the working liquid were disclosed in the prior art by Miyoshi, as modified, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable value of area by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the area of the plurality of blocking bodes on the top surface of the working fluid disclosed by Miyoshi, as modified, being more than 90%.
Regarding the support portion and top surface of the working fluid being flush, it has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the support portion and the top surface of the working fluid be flush in order to advantageously maximize the height of the working fluid while inhibiting material and thermal contamination of the working fluid by the condenser. Further, there is no change in the respective functions of the claimed condenser and working fluid. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the support portion be flush with the top surface of the working fluid, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predicable result of maximizing the height of the working fluid while inhibiting contamination of the working fluid by the condenser.
Per claim 9, Enright, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Enright, as modified, teaches wherein the housing comprises a body (110) and a cover (120) detachably connected to the body, and the cover is configured to seal the receiving chamber (the lid necessarily seals the working liquid inside the container).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enright et al. (WO2020/061305) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2017/0280587) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Shin (KR20220053373).
Per claim 4, Enright, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 3. Further, Miyoshi, as modified, teaches the plurality of blocking bodies but fails to explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of blocking bodies is hollow.
However, Shin teaches a blocking body being hollow for reducing evaporation of liquid (pg. 2, second paragraph of English translation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a blocking body as hollow, as taught by Shin in the invention of Enright, as modified, in order to advantageously reduce evaporation of working liquid (pg. 2, second paragraph of English translation).
Per claim 5, Enright, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Miyoshi, as modified, teaches the plurality of blocking bodies but fails to explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of blocking bodies is a sunshade ball.
However, Shin teaches wherein a blocking body is a sunshade ball (“a plurality of shade balls”, pg. 2, second paragraph of English translation) for reducing evaporation of liquid (pg. 2, second paragraph of English translation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a blocking body as a sunshade ball (claim 16), as taught by Shin in the invention of Enright, as modified, in order to advantageously reduce evaporation of working liquid (pg. 2, second paragraph of English translation).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enright et al. (WO2020/061305) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2017/0280587) as applied to the claims above and further in view of So et al. (US 2019/0014685).
Per claims 7-8, Enright, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Enright, as modified, fails to explicitly teach further comprising a protective liquid disposed on the top surface of the working liquid, wherein a density of the protective liquid is less than the density of the working liquid, and the plurality of blocking bodies is dispersed on a top surface of the protective liquid (claim 7), and wherein the working liquid is an insulating oil or insulating fluoride, and the protective liquid is silicone oil (claim 8).
However, So teaches an immersion cooling system including a protective liquid (90) disposed on a top surface of a working fluid (30), wherein a density of the protective liquid is less than the density of the working fluid, and a plurality of blocking bodies (40) is dispersed on a top surface of a protective liquid (90) (see figure 3) (claim 7), wherein a working liquid is an insulating oil (“fluorine-based inert fluid or oil used as a liquid having insulating properties”, para. 0025), and the protective liquid is silicone oil (“liquid 90 is silicone oil”, para. 0056) (claim 8) for suppressing evaporation of the working liquid (para. 0056). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a protective liquid disposed on a top surface of a working fluid, wherein a density of the protective liquid is less than a density of the working liquid, and a plurality of blocking bodies disposed on a top surface of a protective liquid (claim 7), wherein a working liquid is an insulating oil and the protective liquid is silicone oil (claim 8), as taught by So in the invention of Enright, as modified, in order to advantageously suppress evaporation of the working liquid (para. 0056).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references being used in the current rejection.
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 DAVID J TEITELBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5142. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571) 272-66816681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID J TEITELBAUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights