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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1-5 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lau (US 10,966,349 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Lau discloses (Figure 5-10,12-14 and 17-23) an immersion cooling system, comprising: a box body (tank 201) having a first accommodating space ( below the liquid line 605) and a second accommodating space ( in the head space 206 above the liquid line 605 where vapor 615 and saturated vapor 625 are present) arranged along a first direction (the up/ down direction in the figures), wherein the first accommodating space accommodates a heat dissipation medium (at dielectric fluid 620) and at least one heating chip immersed in the heat dissipation medium (electronic device 800 with microprocessors 801), wherein the heat dissipation medium is gasified after absorbing a heat energy of the heating chip (per. Col. 9, line 4-14), and the gasified heat dissipation medium moves from the first accommodating space to the second accommodating space (where vapor enters the headspace 206 per. Col. 9, line 4-14);
a condenser (condenser 235) arranged in the second accommodating space along the first direction and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (as seen in at least figure 5, where the second direction is the direction into and out of the cross section perpendicular to the cross section plane of figure 5), wherein the condenser is used to enable the gasified heat dissipation medium to undergo heat exchange, condensation and liquefaction (per at least Col. 9, line 15-27); and
at least one valve (at valves 410) disposed on the box body along the second direction and corresponding to the second accommodating space, and corresponding to the condenser along a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction (where valves 410 are connected to the headspace in which the condenser 235 is disposed, where the valve corresponds to the headspace and the condenser in the left/right direction of figure 5 which is perpendicular to the up/down direction and the direction into and out of the page at the plane of figure 5), wherein the gasified heat dissipation medium flows and impacts the condenser to blow off the liquefied heat dissipation medium attached onto the condenser when the valve is opened (where when the valve is opened vapor is purged from the headspace 206 per Col. 12, line 47-57).
Additionally claims 1 fail to provide additional structural limitations beyond those listed above. Apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art based on the parts/structure of the apparatus not based on functional language citing intended use. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claim as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114 (II). In this case stating “wherein the gasified heat dissipation medium flows and impacts the condenser to blow off the liquefied heat dissipation medium attached onto the condenser when the valve is opened” merely implies functional limitations and does not explicitly provide any structure configured to accomplish this function other than the general opening of the valve.
Regarding claim 2, Lau discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 above and Lau further discloses the valve (410) is opened when an internal pressure of the box body rises above 1 atmosphere (per Col. 13, line 15-39).
Regarding claim 3, Lau discloses the claim limitations of claim 2 above and Lau further discloses the condenser (235) is defined with an upper half portion and a lower half portion in the first direction (a upper and lower portion of the condenser in the up/down direction of figure 5), and the valve corresponds to the upper half portion (the valve 410 is closest to the upper portion of condenser 235 as seen in figure 5).
Regarding claim 4, Lau discloses the claim limitations of claim 3 above and Lau further discloses a quantity of the valves is plural (valves 410 as seen in figure 17 and 18), the condenser is defined with a plurality of intervals in the second direction, and a quantity of the plurality of intervals corresponds to the quantity of the plurality of valves (one valve 410 for each condenser 235 in each section 201 and 201’ of tank).
Regarding claim 5, Lau discloses the claim limitations of claim 4 above and Lau further discloses the plurality of valves (410) are respectively located at midpoints of the plurality of intervals in the second direction (as what are midpoints of the plurality of intervals is not clearly claimed, since the intervals and midpoints are vaguely defined ).
Regarding claim 8, Lau discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 above and Lau further discloses the first direction is a direction of gravity (the up/ down direction is the gravity direction as the liquid in fluid 620 settles below the vapor phase at 615 and 625 with the dividing line at the liquid line 605).
Regarding claim 9, Lau discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 above and Lau further discloses condenser (235) is a U-shaped condenser, a straight condenser, or a serpentine condenser (the condenser has some straight components as seen in the figures).
Regarding claim 10, Lau discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 above and Lau further discloses a recovery unit, wherein the recovery unit has a water outlet pipeline (at passage 405), a tank body (at chamber 430), a pump (pump 585 in filtration system 575 as seen in figure 10) and a water inlet pipeline (at liquid return passage 470), wherein the water outlet pipeline (405) is in communication with the tank body (430) and the valve (410), the water inlet pipeline ( from outlet 574 in figure 10 and 19 to passage 470) is in communication with the tank body (430) and the first accommodating space ( below the liquid line 605, in tank 201), and the pump (585) is arranged in the water inlet pipeline ( from outlet 574 om figure 10 to passage 470), wherein when the valve (410) is opened, the gasified heat dissipation medium enters the water outlet pipeline via the valve (at 405 downstream of the valve 410) , and then enters the tank body (430) to be condensed, wherein the condensed heat dissipation medium is driven by the pump (585) and enters the first accommodating space via the water inlet pipeline (per Col. 16 line 46 through Col. 17, line 9).
Regarding claim 11, Lau discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 above and Lau further discloses a monitoring host (electronic control unit 480) for controlling the valve to open or close according to one or more of a plurality of sensing parameters obtained by the monitoring unit (the electronic control units 480 controls the valve 410 to open basted on signals received form a sensor 412 per Col. 12, line 58-67).
Regarding claim 12, Lau discloses the claim limitations of claim 11 above and Lau further discloses the plurality of sensing parameters include an inlet water temperature of the condenser, an outlet water temperature of the condenser, an inlet water flow rate of the condenser, an outlet water flow rate of the condenser, a fan speed of the condenser, a temperature of the heat dissipation medium in the box body, a temperature of the gasified heat dissipation medium in the box body, a pressure of the gasified heat dissipation medium in the box body and a temperature of the heating chip ( as only one parameter of the plurality of parameters is required according to claim 11 the sensed parameter may be a pressure of the gasified medium from sensor 412 per Col. 12, line 58 through Col. 13, line 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau (US 10,966,349 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Lau discloses the claim limitations of claim 3 above , however Lau does not explicitly disclose a distance between the valve and a bottom side of the condenser is 2/3 of a total length of the condenser in the first direction as Lau is silent as to any specific distance between the condenser and the valve or the length of the valve .
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Lau to have a distance between the valve and a bottom side of the condenser is 2/3 of a total length of the condenser in the first direction since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. In the instant case, the device of Lau. would not operate differently with the claimed dimensions and since the valve 410 is located above a bottom of the condenser 235 the device would function appropriately having the claimed relative spacing. Further, applicant places no criticality on the relative dimension claimed, indicating simply that the distance “may” be within the claimed value (per paragraph 0029 of the originally filed specification).
Regarding claim 7, Lau discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 above, however Lau does not explicitly disclose a total opening area of the valve is 1/6 of a total cross-sectional area formed by the condenser in the first direction and the second direction. As Lau is silent as to the dimensions of the condenser 235 and the valve 410.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Lau to have a total opening area of the valve is 1/6 of a total cross-sectional area formed by the condenser in the first direction and the second direction since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. In the instant case, the device of Lau. would not operate differently with the claimed dimensions and since the valve 410 has an opening area and the cross section of the condenser is only generally claimed and can be broadly interpreted the device would function appropriately having the claimed relative dimensions. Further, applicant places no criticality on the relative dimension claimed, indicating simply that the area “may” be the claimed relative value (per paragraph 0029 of the originally filed specification).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the at least one valve is not disposed directly attached to the box body and in line with, or behind the condenser in a third direction perpendicular to the first and second directions) are not explicitly recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case the claims use border language than directly attached or in line with, or behind the condenser in a third direction perpendicular to the first and second directions. In this case the claims simply recite “at least one valve disposed on the box body along the second direction and corresponding to the second accommodating space, and corresponding to the condenser along a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction”. In this case the valves 410 are indirectly attached and in fluid contact with the box body 210 through the piping connecting the two structures. Where valves 410 are connected to the headspace in which the condenser 235 is disposed, where the valve corresponds to the headspace and the condenser in the left/right direction of figure 5, which has been interpreted as the third direction in light of the amendments to the claims and which is perpendicular to the up/down direction and the direction into and out of the page at the plane of figure 5, which correspond to the first and second directions respectively. The current wording of the claims is still broad enough that the broader interpretation made by the examiner in the rejection above is still applicable and therefore the claims still remain rejected as noted above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HANS R. WEILAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-3 EST and alternating Fridays.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/HANS R WEILAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763