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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/17/2026 (Amended Claims, Arguments/Remarks, Response After Final) and 07/24/2026 (Request for Continued Examination (RCE))has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 06/17/2026, are accepted.
Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 1 and 8 are amended.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/25/2026 have been fully considered. As noted in previous office action (Advisory Action dated 07/07/2026), claims as currently amended (dated 06/17/2026) contain matter which has not been previously considered or evaluated, and require further search and evaluation to ascertain whether or not the claimed invention differentiates over prior art.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1-10 were rejected under 35 USC § 103 over obvious combination of prior art by SAITO (US 20180356866 A1), SMITH (US 20220087049), JANCIC (US 20170292798 A1), MAYER (US 20240019334 A1), DAVIS (US 20230337402 A1), and/or JIN (Jin et al., “Design and geometry optimization of a conductivity probe with a vertical multiple electrode array for measuring volume fraction and axial velocity of two-phase flow” 2008 Meas. Sci. Technol. 19 045403).
Applicant argues (Remarks Pg5) regarding rejection of Claim 1, and similarly Claim 8 with parallel limitations, that prior art cited in Final Rejection (dated 4/29/2026) does not teach limitations as currently amended. As noted in previous office action (Advisory Action dated 07/07/2026) and discussed above, Claims 1 and 8, as currently amended, present matter which has not been previously considered, requiring new search and evaluation.
Applicant points to SAITO as failing to teach several limitations (REMARKS, Pg7/10, ¶3) including “use of liquid cooling blocks…”, “liquid leak detection arrangement coupled to a controller for detecting leaks from the liquid cooling blocks”. Examiner notes these arguments are directed to claim language as currently amended which has not been previously considered or evaluated, rendering arguments moot, and necessitating further search and evaluation. Likewise, Applicant argues (REMARKS, Pg7/10, ¶4) SAITO fails to teach (emphasis added) “liquid cooling blocks directly disposed on the electronic components are configured to internally channel a second heat transfer liquid having a different characteristic property from the first heat-transfer immersion cooling liquid”. Examiner notes at least language emphasized in underline is limitation language that has not been previously considered, necessitating further search and evaluation. Moreover, in Final Rejection, SMITH, rather than SAITO was relied upon to teach the limit of the limit of “second cooling unit heat-transfer liquid having a higher density than a density of the first heat-transfer liquid internally channel a second heat transfer liquid”, as recited by Claim 1 as evaluated previously, with the concept of difference in density interpreted to be analogous to language of Claim 8, reciting “second heat-transfer liquid manifesting a physical or chemical property characteristic having a value that is different from a value of the same property characteristic of the first heat-transfer liquid”. Examiner respectfully disagrees that SMITH did not teach the limitation.
Applicant further argues (REMARKS, Pg8/10, ¶1) that SMITH fails to teach “liquid cooling blocks” and “surface directly disposed on and positioned to be in thermal contact with the electronic components”. Examiner again notes this language is directed claims as currently amended, which as above, has not been previously considered and necessitates additional search and evaluation, with discovery of art, as detailed below, which more explicitly teaches limitations of claims as currently amended.
Applicant further argues (REMARKS, Pg Pg8/10, ¶4), that reference cited in Final Rejection by JANCIC fails to teach (underline emphasis added) “leak detection arrangement that is disposed in a bottom portion of the board and configured to determine a presence of the higher density channelized second heat-transfer liquid leaking from any of the corresponding liquid cooling blocks in a bottom portion of the immersion case”. Examiner notes again that language emphasized in underline above is directed to limitation as currently amended, which has not previously been considered, and as such, necessitates further search and evaluation. Examiner respectfully disagrees that JANCIC, as relied upon and cited in Final Rejection does not teach limitation of “a leak detection arrangement disposed in a bottom portion of the board and configured to determine a presence of the higher density channelized second heat-transfer liquid in a bottom portion of the immersion case”.
Examiner notes evaluation of claim limitations is guided by at least guidance from MPEP 2142 and 707.07(g), for applying reasoning and rationale to establish prima facie case for obviousness-based rejections, as well as MPEP 904.03 for guidance with search, so that rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are conveyed such that the combination of references clearly arrive at Applicant’s claimed features and address each and every element of each claim. Examiner further notes that the specification can be used of guidance in understanding meaning of claim limitations, but limitations may not be imported from the specification. (See MPEP 2111.01, II)
As noted above, amended claims required further search and evaluation, finding that claims as currently amended, do not distinguish the claimed invention over prior art. Detailed response, with further attention to Applicant arguments, is presented below, with new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendments
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description. Specifically,
Figure 4 depicts element 125. This reference number is not found in the specification.
Figures 6 and 7 depicts element 119. This reference number is not found in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 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 1 recites the limitation “the second cooling unit” in line 11. This term is not recited prior to this instance. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For interpretation purposes, applying broadest reasonable interpretation, this term will be interpreted to mean generally an additional cooling component in a cooling system.
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 1, 2, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over GAO (US 20230067118 A1), in view of CHESTER (US 20170150649 A1), and in further in view of JANCIC (US 20170292798 A1).
With respect to Claims 1 and 8, GAO teaches:
(Claim 1) A rack-mounted electronic device receiving electric power from a power supply, the rack-mounted electronic device comprising:
(Claim 8) A cooling monitoring system for a rack-mounted electronic device receiving power from a power supply,
(GAO is in same technical field, Abstract: “source module is to be coupled to the rack fluid distribution unit to distribute cooling fluid received from a cooling fluid source to the one or more server blades of corresponding server chassis and to extract heat from the one or more servers” and [0001]: “relate generally to the electronics packaging, server and rack architecture, hardware design” and [0043]: “leak detection unit can be added to the bottom side of the source module 101 for providing reliability and monitoring enhancement of the fluid system”; FIG1,element 113a “Power clip” *(i.e., “power supply”))
a board at least partially immersed in an immersion case containing a first heat- transfer liquid for cooling of the electronic device; (GAO, [0046]: “server blade includes electronic devices mounted on a motherboard…electronic devices mounted on a motherboard”, and see [0061]: “may include an immersion tank (i.e., “immersion case”) containing immersion cooling liquid (i.e., “heat-transfer liquid”)…electronic devices of the corresponding server(s) are at least partially submerged into the immersion cooling liquid”; )
the at least partially immersed board comprising one or more electronic components mounted onto the board, (GAO, as above, [0046]: “electronic devices mounted on a motherboard”)
each of the electronic components being additionally cooled by one or more corresponding liquid cooling blocks having a surface directly disposed on and positioned to be in thermal contact with the one or more electronic components,
(GAO teaches solid surface heat exchanger, see [0036]: “cooling device can be a cold plate (i.e., “cooling block”) attached to an electronic device (i.e., “surface directly disposed on”)…to extract the heat generated from (i.e., “positioned to be in thermal contact”) the electronic device”; and see [0046]: “heat generating devices (i.e., “electronic components”) may be attached to a cooling device such as a cold plate, which may be coupled to a source module mounted near the rear end of the server blade for liquid cooling as described above”)
the one or more liquid cooling blocks being configured to internally channel a heat-transfer liquid therethrough to absorb the thermal energy generated by the one or more electronic components, (GAO teaches use of “cold plate” as above, and see [0060]: “cold plate includes a liquid distribution channel to receive cooling liquid from the rack liquid supply line…cooling liquid performs heat exchange from the heat generated from the electronic device”)
a leak detection arrangement disposed in a bottom portion of the board (GAO, [0025]: “leak detection unit is positioned at a bottom side of the source module”; and see [0043]: “leak detection unit can be added to the bottom side of the source module 101 for providing reliability and monitoring enhancement of the fluid system; and [0044]: “server fluid distribution unit 121 is positioned underneath the busbar unit”; Examiner interprets “in a bottom portion” as analogous to placement taught by reference in bottom of case/tank, where boards are integrated into source module, as depicted in reference FIG.2.)
a controller communicably connected to the leak detection arrangement, the controller being configured to receive signals from the leak detection arrangement (GAO, see [0065] : “rack management controller (RMC) 1222…may include a monitor to monitor operating status of various components within electronic rack 1200, such as, for example, computing nodes 1203, heat exchanger 1211, and the fan modules…monitor receives operating data (i.e., “receive signals from leak detection arrangement”) from various sensors representing the operating environments of electronic rack…operating data representing temperatures of the processors, cooling liquid, and airflows…fan power and pump power generated by one or more fan modules and liquid pumps”)
GAO does not explicitly teach:
the one or more liquid cooling blocks being configured to internally channel a second heat-transfer liquid
the second cooling unit heat-transfer liquid having a higher density than a density of the first heat-transfer liquid;
a leak detection arrangement configured to determine a presence of the higher density channelized second heat-transfer liquid leaking from any of the corresponding liquid cooling blocks in a bottom portion of the immersion case;
controller, in response to determining that the signals indicate the presence of the higher density channelized second heat-transfer liquid in the bottom portion of the immersion case, the controller causes a disconnection of the electronic device from the power supply.
CHESTER (US 20170150649 A1) teaches:
the one or more liquid cooling blocks being configured to internally channel a second heat-transfer liquid (CHESTER is in same technical field, including rack mounted cooling system, see [0001]: “relates…electronic component that generates heat in operation…method of cooling an electronic device, a cooled electronic system, and a method of filling a container for an electronic device with a cooling liquid”; CHESTER teaches two-liquid system with one of the liquids used for channelized path for conductive cooling, see Abstract: “first cooling liquid and a heat transfer device having a conduction surface defines a channel for receiving a second cooling liquid…conduction surface or housing is shaped in conformity with the shape of the electronic component.”; CHESTER teaches use of conductive surface for cooling electronic component, see [0015]: “heat transfer device having a conduction surface (i.e. “liquid cooling blocks”)… heat transfer device further defining a channel for receiving a second cooling liquid…conduction surface…shaped in conformity with the shape of the electronic component”, and [0170]: “second cooling liquid flowing through the cold plate base”; Examiner applies BRI to interpret “cooling blocks” as analogous to reference teaching implementation of a conductive heat transfer with a surface conforming to electronic component and more explicitly to “cold plate base”, as a structure to facilitate conductive heat transfer. Examiner notes that GAO, as above, discloses the use of heat transfer using cooling blocks with internal channel, but does not explicitly teach using a second fluid or a two-fluid system, as is taught by CHESTER.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify GAO to include liquid cooling blocks that are configured to internally channel a second heat-transfer liquid, as taught by CHESTER, because, as suggested by CHESTER, using a conductive heat transfer structure which is coupled to an electronic component can improve overall heat transfer by improving heat exchange between the two liquids implemented in the system. (see CHESTER [0016]). Additionally, using a two fluid system allows for at least some redundancy in case of a catastrophic failure, where one fluidic containment or management system may fail, since the second fluid may maintain at least temporary thermal management of electronic devices. One of ordinary skill would have reason to consult the disclosure of CHESTER and find an obvious logic in combining this teaching into the method and system of GAO to improve overall cooling for electronic devices so that the integrated leak detection system would be improved.
GAO as modified by CHESTER, and taught above, does not explicitly teach:
the second cooling unit heat-transfer liquid having a higher density than a density of the first heat-transfer liquid;
a leak detection arrangement configured to determine a presence of the higher density channelized second heat-transfer liquid leaking from any of the corresponding liquid cooling blocks in a bottom portion of the immersion case;
controller, in response to determining that the signals indicate the presence of the higher density channelized second heat-transfer liquid in the bottom portion of the immersion case, the controller causes a disconnection of the electronic device from the power supply.
JANCIC teaches:
the second cooling unit heat-transfer liquid having a higher density than a density of the first heat-transfer liquid; (JANCIC is in related technical field and is considered pertinent, analogous prior art, as discussed in previous office actions, disclosing bi-liquid based cooling and heat exchange methods and systems, see, for example, Title “Leak detection in heat exchanger system”, and [0022]: “system and methods for detecting a leak within a heat exchanger that is exchanging heat between two heat exchange fluids that are at least partially immiscible”; JANCIC teaches two fluid system where one fluid is less dense, see [0022]: “two heat exchange fluids may generally have a difference in density such that the fluid leaking into the other heat exchange fluid can separate from the fluid due to the density differences.”; Examiner applies BRI to interpret terms “first” and “second” to mean generally two different fluids, as in reference.)
a leak detection arrangement configured to determine a presence of the higher density channelized second heat-transfer liquid leaking from any of the corresponding liquid cooling blocks in a bottom portion of the immersion case; (JANCIC teaches detection based on density difference, see FIG.2, element 150 “leak detection unit” with [0025]: “heaver fluid (e.g., a dense liquid) is used with a lighter fluid (e.g., a less dense liquid), the collection vessel (i.e., leak detection arrangement”) can be placed on a lower surface (i.e., “bottom portion of immersion case”)… level sensor can then be configured to detect a liquid level of the denser liquid…presence of the denser liquid in the less dense liquid collection vessel may indicate a leak in the heat exchanger”; JANCIC also teaches channelized plates, [0031]: “plate or channel type heat exchangers”)
controller, in response to determining that the signals indicate the presence of the higher density channelized second heat-transfer liquid in the bottom portion of the immersion case, the controller causes a disconnection of the electronic device from the power supply. (JANCIC teaches leak detection controller, see [0032]: “controller 170 can be coupled to the level sensor 154 to process the level signal and generate various actions such as an alarm.”; and [0040]: “controller 170 can be in signal communication with the level sensor 154, the valve 156, and/or the analyzer 158…controller 170 can generally be configured to receive the various signals such as the level sensor signal and provide processing and output of the signal for further use”; and analysis of leaks based on density to trigger disconnection, see [0025] : “level sensor…configured to detect a liquid level of the denser liquid, and the presence of the denser liquid in the less dense liquid collection vessel may indicate a leak in the heat exchanger...relatively fast leak indication to allow the heat exchanger to be shut down” (i.e., “causes a disconnection of the electronic device from power supply”) )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify GAO, as modified by CHESTER and taught above, to use a second cooling unit heat-transfer liquid having a higher density than a density of the first heat-transfer liquid, to incorporate a leak detection arrangement configured to determine a presence of the higher density channelized second heat-transfer liquid leaking from any of the corresponding liquid cooling blocks in a bottom portion of the immersion case, and to modify a controller, such that, in response to determining that the signals indicate the presence of the higher density channelized second heat-transfer liquid in the bottom portion of the immersion case, the controller causes a disconnection of the electronic device from the power supply, as taught by JANCIC, because these additional features would improve the leak detection method and system of GAO, as modified and taught above, in several ways. One of ordinary sill would understand the advantage of implementing a stratified leak detection method that uses density differences to identify leak source based on which of a two-coolant system was circulating in a specific portion of the system and decrease response time (improve efficiency) of leak detection based on immediate identification of a boundary between two stratified liquids. In addition, incorporating the detailed features of JANCIC into the method/system of GAO as modified and taught above would provide the advantage of consistent detection independent of temperature, since the density ration would remain relatively constant, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, implementing the feature of JANCIC to ensure controller triggers disconnection upon the stratified density detection, would provide relatively quick shut down protocols prior to allowing for extensive mixing of the two heat exchange fluids (see JANCIC, [0025]), and potentially avoid costly damage.
With respect to Claim 2 and 9, GAO, as modified by CHESTER and JANCIC as taught above, teaches the limitations of Claims 1 and 8, but does not explicitly teach:
the leak detection arrangement is configured to transmit a fault signal to the controller in response to detecting presence of the second heat-transfer liquid in the bottom portion of the immersion case; and
the controller is configured to cause to disconnect the electronic device from the power supply in response to receiving the fault signal.
JANCIC further teaches:
the leak detection arrangement is configured to transmit a fault signal to the controller in response to detecting presence of the second heat-transfer liquid in the bottom portion of the immersion case; (JANCIC, as above, [0025], and [0032]: “controller 170 can be coupled to the level sensor 154 to process the level signal and generate various actions such as an alarm (i.e., “fault signal”)”; and [0040]: “controller 170 can be in signal communication with the level sensor 154, the valve 156, and/or the analyzer 158…controller 170 can generally be configured to receive the various signals (i.e., “transmit a fault signal”) such as the level sensor signal and provide processing and output of the signal for further use”)
the controller is configured to cause to disconnect the electronic device from the power supply in response to receiving the fault signal. (JANCIC, above, [0025] : “level sensor can then be configured to detect a liquid level of the denser liquid, and the presence of the denser liquid in the less dense liquid collection vessel may indicate a leak in the heat exchanger...relatively fast leak indication to allow the heat exchanger to be shut down (i.e., “cause disconnection of the electronic device from power supply”)”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify GAO, as modified by CHESTER and JANCIC as taught above, to include the leak detection arrangement is configured to transmit a fault signal to the controller in response to detecting presence of the second heat-transfer liquid in the bottom portion of the immersion case and a controller configured to cause to disconnect the electronic device from the power supply in response to receiving the fault signal, such as that further taught by JANCIC because it would be understood as a logical use of a leak detection unit. One of ordinary skill would understand the advantage of ensuring that the lead detection unit was connected in a way that the leak detection could be transmitted or output to be used in a decision making process to control or adjust a cooling system. It would be an obvious improvement to the method and system of GAO as modified by CHESTER and JANCIC, as taught above, to prevent additional damage that may be caused by the presence of a cooling fluid in a location where it could do harm to components or system infrastructure.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over GAO, in view of CHESTER and JANCIC, as applied to Claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of MAYER (US 20240019334 A1).
With respect to Claims 3 and 10, GAO, as modified by CHESTER and JANCIC as taught above, teaches the limitations of Claims 1 and 8, but does not explicitly teach:
the leak detection arrangement is configured to transmit measurement signals for an operating parameter of the first heat-transfer liquid to the controller; and
determining, by the controller, that the signals indicate presence of the second heat- transfer liquid in the bottom portion of the immersion case comprises comparing, by the controller, measurement values carried in the measurement signals with a threshold.
JANCIC further teaches:
the leak detection arrangement is configured to transmit measurement signals of the first heat-transfer liquid to the controller; (JANCIC, as discussed above, see [0022] and [0032])
and determining, by the controller, that the signals indicate presence of the second heat-transfer liquid in the bottom portion of the immersion case comprises comparing, by the controller, measurement values carried in the measurement signals with a threshold. (JANCIC, see [0040]: “controller 170 can be in signal communication with the level sensor…generally be configured to receive the various signals such as the level sensor signal and provide processing and output of the signal for further use…coupled to various output devices such as alarms, control screens, or the like to provide an indication of the potential for the leak…controller 170 can compare the output of the analyzer 158 with an expected composition (i.e., “comparing measurement values… with threshold”) of the leaking fluid to automatically determine if the fluid is leaking within the heat exchanger 100.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify GAO, as modified by CHESTER and JANCIC as taught above, to include the leak detection arrangement is configured to transmit measurement signals of the first heat-transfer liquid to the controller, and determining, by the controller, that the signals indicate presence of the second heat-transfer liquid in the bottom portion of the immersion case comprises comparing, by the controller, measurement values carried in the measurement signals with a threshold, such as that further disclosed by JANCIC because it would be understood as a way to improve the overall understanding and insight regarding function and effectiveness of an immersion cooling system and its integrity with regard to leakage. One of ordinary skill would be motivated by the potential improvement in reliability that could be reasonably expected by incorporating the evaluation techniques of JANCIC with the method and system of GAO as modified above.
GAO, as modified by CHESTER and JANCIC as taught above, does not teach:
the leak detection arrangement is configured to transmit measurement signals for an operating parameter of the first heat-transfer liquid to the controller;
MAYER teaches:
the leak detection arrangement is configured to transmit measurement signals for an operating parameter of the first heat-transfer liquid to the controller; (Examiner notes that JANCIC does teach sending signal regarding presence of first or second heat-exchange fluid but does not explicitly teach transmission of “operating parameter” information, as interpreted above. MAYER teaches [0024]: “leak detection system can communicate with the row manager 106 to provide information regarding the presence, size, severity, movement, or type of fluid leak (i.e., “operating parameter”)”; Examiner relies on guidance from specification in at least [0024] for interpretation of “operating parameter”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify GAO, as modified by CHESTER and JANCIC as taught above, to the leak detection arrangement is configured to transmit measurement signals for an operating parameter of the first heat-transfer liquid to the controller, such as that of MAYER because allows broadened use of the sensor-based system of GAO, as modified by CHESTER and JANCIC, to use data for a more accurate and reliable understanding of the status of a coolant. Combining the reliable techniques of MAYER to improve and make the method and system of GAO, as modified by CHESTER and JANCIC, would allow for more efficient and accurate monitoring and control of an immersion cooling system.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over GAO, in view of CHESTER and JANCIC, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of DAVIS (US 20230337402 A1).
With respect to Claim 4, GAO, as modified by CHESTER and JANCIC as taught above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
the second heat-transfer liquid comprises water;
the leak detection arrangement comprises a conductivity sensor; and
the leak detection arrangement is configured to indicate presence of the second heat- transfer liquid in the bottom portion of the immersion case in response to detecting the conductivity being above a pre-determined conductivity threshold.
JANCIC further teaches:
the second heat-transfer liquid comprises water; (JANCIC, see [0042]: “first heat exchange fluid can comprise a fluid (e.g., a gas such as air, etc.) having a lower density than the second heat exchange fluid (e.g., a liquid such as water, etc.)”.)
the leak detection arrangement is configured to indicate presence of the second heat transfer liquid in the bottom portion of the immersion case (JANCIC, as above, [0025]: “heaver fluid (e.g., a dense liquid) is used with a lighter fluid (e.g., a less dense liquid), the collection vessel (i.e., leak detection arrangement”) can be placed on a lower surface… level sensor can then be configured to detect a liquid level of the denser liquid, and the presence of the denser liquid in the less dense liquid collection vessel may indicate a leak in the heat exchanger”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify , GAO, as modified by CHESTER and JANCIC as taught above, to include the second heat-transfer liquid comprises water; and the leak detection arrangement is configured to indicate presence of the second heat transfer liquid in the bottom portion of the immersion case, such as that further disclosed by JANCIC because it would be understood as an important addition for understanding the behavior of heat exchange fluids in a hybrid immersion cooling system. One of ordinary skill would understand the advantage of incorporating the reliable fluid measurement techniques taught by JANCIC with the immersion cooling method and system of GAO, as modified above, would result in a reasonable expectation of improving the immersion cooling system with a second heat-exchange fluid.
GAO, as modified by CHESTER and further modified by JANCIC as taught above, does not teach:
the leak detection arrangement comprises a conductivity sensor
the leak detection arrangement is configured to indicate presence of the second heat transfer liquid in response to detecting the conductivity being above a pre-determined conductivity threshold.
DAVIS teaches:
the leak detection arrangement comprises a conductivity sensor (DAVIS is in same technical field, [0001]: “cooling system can be utilized in a datacenter containing one or more racks or computing servers”); [0052]: “real time reading for characteristics like pH, conductivity, turbidity, infra-red (IR) absorption spectrum, and a general health of a coolant using appropriate state sensors” and [0057]: “at least one embodiment… second coolant”)
the leak detection arrangement is configured to indicate presence of the second heat transfer liquid in the bottom portion of the immersion case in response to detecting the conductivity being above a pre-determined conductivity threshold. (DAVIS teaches thresholding method, see [0110]: “verification may be confirmed by an act of comparing a received input with a threshold”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify GAO, as modified by CHESTER and JANCIC as taught above, to include the leak detection arrangement comprises a conductivity sensor; and the leak detection arrangement is configured to indicate in response to detecting the conductivity being above a pre-determined conductivity threshold, such as DAVIS because it would be a reliable and accurate way to determine the presence of a specific coolant fluid in an immersion system. One of ordinary skill would appreciate the reliability of conductivity sensor technology based on well-developed and tested devices and would see this as a feature that would improve the system of GAO, as modified above, to provide consistent measurements that could be well calibrated and reliable. One of ordinary skill would have sound rationale to implement the thresholding method of DAVIS to improve the method of GAO, as modified and taught above, because it would allow for some pre-determined value based on system parameters to be used for decision-making comparisons, and improved response time when a leak is detected.
With respect to Claim 7, GAO, as modified by CHESTER and JANCIC as taught above, teaches the limitation of Claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
the second heat-transfer liquid has a pH that is different from a pH of the first heat-transfer liquid; and the leak detection arrangement comprises a pH sensor.
DAVIS teaches:
the second heat-transfer liquid has a pH that is different from a pH of the first heat-transfer liquid; and the leak detection arrangement comprises a pH sensor. (DAVIS, see [0052]: “real time reading for characteristics like pH…using appropriate state sensors”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify SAITO, as modified by SMITH, JANCIC as taught above, to include the feature of a second heat-transfer liquid has a pH that is different from a pH of the first heat-transfer liquid; and the leak detection arrangement comprises a pH sensor, such as that of DAVIS because this would add an additional, reliable, and accurate way to differentiate a specific coolant fluid type for leak detection and allow for determination of a specific location of leak source within an immersion system. One of ordinary skill would know that pH sensor technology is well-developed and low cost and provide a straightforward way to incorporate a consistent measurement that could be well calibrated and reliable for fluid characterization into the leak detection method/system as taught by GAO and modified as above.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over GAO, in view of CHESTER, JANCIC, and DAVIS as applied to Claim 4 above, and further in view of JIN (Jin et al., “Design and geometry optimization of a conductivity probe with a vertical multiple electrode array for measuring volume fraction and axial velocity of two-phase flow” 2008 Meas. Sci. Technol. 19 045403).
With respect to Claim 5, GAO, in view of CHESTER, JANCIC, and DAVIS as taught above, teaches the limitation of Claim 4.
As discussed above, JANCIC teaches:
a second heat-transfer liquid (JANCIC, as above, [0022])
GAO, as modified by CHESTER, JANCIC, and DAVIS and taught above, does not explicitly teach:
the conductivity sensor comprises a plurality of conductivity sensors disposed one above another along a gravity axis; and
the controller is configured to determine a fill rate of the heat-transfer liquid within the immersion case based on fault signals transmitted by two or more of the conductivity sensors
DAVIS further teaches:
heat-transfer liquid within the immersion case and fault signals transmitted by conductivity sensor (DAVIS, see [0051]: “manifold with a state sensor (i.e., “controller”)…with such a state sensor being incorporated for testing of coolants in real time”, and [0052]: “real time reading for characteristics like pH, conductivity, turbidity, infra-red (IR) absorption spectrum, and a general health of a coolant using appropriate state sensors”)
GAO, as modified by CHESTER, JANCIC, and further modified by DAVIS and taught above, does not explicitly teach:
conductivity sensor comprises a plurality of conductivity sensors disposed one above another along a gravity axis;
controller is configured to determine a fill rate based on fault signals transmitted by two or more of the conductivity sensors.
JIN teaches:
conductivity sensor comprises a plurality of conductivity sensors disposed one above another along a gravity axis; (JIN is in related technical field and considered pertinent to instant application, as in previous office actions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reason to consult and apply the teachings of JIN involving known techniques for using conductivity sensors to measure volume and fill-rate properties of a conductive fluid.; see Abstract: “paper presents the design and geometry optimization of a conductivity probe with a vertical multiple electrode array (VMEA), which can be used to measure the volume fraction and axial velocity of two-phase flow”; and Pg. 2, “Figure 1. The geometry and parameter definition of the VMEA conductivity probe.(i.e. “one above another along a gravity axis”)”; Examiner interprets “gravity axis” as vertical axis as taught in reference Figure 1.)
the controller is configured to determine a fill rate based on signals transmitted by two or more of the conductivity sensors. (JIN, see Pg.3, Col1(top): “Based on the cross-correlation technique, we can extract the axial velocity of two-phase flow from fluctuating signals of sensors A and B”; and Pg. 11, section 5: “VMEA system has been designed to measure both the volume fraction and axial velocity”; Examiner interprets “fill rate” as analogous to reference of “axial velocity” to mean the rate at which a fluid is changing in a vertical direction.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify GAO, as modified by CHESTER, JANCIC, and DAVIS and taught above, to include the feature of a plurality of conductivity sensors disposed one above another along a gravity axis, and a controller configured to determine a fill rate based on fault signals transmitted by two or more of the conductivity sensors, as taught by JIN, because it would be understood as a reliable and well-proven technique for accurately and reliably determining presence of a conductive fluid in a contained volume. One of ordinary skill would see the detailed, gravity based sensor arrangement taught by JIN as an obvious way to further leverage the stratification technique based on variations in coolant fluid density, as taught by JANCIC and incorporated to modify the method and system of GAO as modified by CHESTER, because this would be a reliable way to ascertain liquid level and identify the density boundary. One of ordinary skill would understand the value of using a relatively simple conductivity measurement to ascertain a precise fill level and fill rate within an immersion cooling case to avoid costly incidents of overheating and ultimately provide an improved way to avoid costly damage to system components.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art suggesting or teaching “controller is further configured to, in response to determining the fill rate: trigger a counter indicative of an amount of time that has passed since the fill rate has been determined; and in response to the counter reaching a first pre-determined count value, cause to disconnect the electronic device from the power supply, the first pre-determined count value being based on the determined fill rate.” was not discovered.
Examiner notes that JIN et al., does teach timed measurements and evaluation of sampling rate to determine a fluidic flow, but does not teach or suggest using a counter to monitor time passage between determinations of fill-rate. Examiner asserts, as in previous office action, interpretation of “fill-rate” as analogous to JIN teaching “axial velocity”. Further search and evaluation of other pertinent prior art did not reveal references, which individually or in obvious combination, would teach or suggest this limitation.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is included in previous office action, with additional art, as discovered in further search included below:
THIBAUT (US 20200278227 A1) – teaches a flow detection method for monitoring fluidic cooling devices for large data centers and rack mounted electronic devices.
OKAYAMA, et al., “IMPROVEMENT OF COOLING PERFORMANCE FOR ELECTRONIC DEVICES BY NUCLEATE BOILING OF IMMISIBLE MIXTURES”, 7th European Thermal-Sciences Conference (Eurotherm2016) IOP Publishing Journal of Physics: Conference Series 745, 2016) – teaches two-fluid coolant system based on detection of differences based on immiscibility.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONI D SAUNCY whose telephone number is (703)756-4589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. ET.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/TONI D SAUNCY/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
