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 .
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokuda et al. (US 12171082 B2) in view of Chu et al. (US 20220361377 A1), hereafter referred to as Tokuda and Chu, respectively.
With regards to claim 1, Tokuda discloses the claimed two-phase immersion cooling system (10) (Fig. 1) comprising: a pressure vessel (100) (Fig. 1) comprising a chamber (Interior of 100) (Fig. 1) having a flange (106) (Fig. 1) and a plate (120) (Fig. 1) bolted to the flange (Bolts 102) (Fig. 1); one or more processors (Processor of board 141) (Figs. 1, 7) mounted to the plate (Mounted through 140, 103, 110, 101, and cables 122) (Fig. 1) within the pressure vessel (See Fig. 7); a two-phase refrigerant within the pressure vessel (130) (Fig. 1), the two-phase refrigerant being configured to extract heat from the one or more processors (See boiling action BB from board 141 in Fig. 1), wherein a liquid phase of the two-phase refrigerant at least partially covers the one or more processors (See Fig. 1);
Tokuda does not explicitly disclose:
one or more condenser tubes within the vessel, wherein the one or more condenser tubes are configured to receive cooling fluid into and transmit cooling fluid out of the vessel, thereby removing heat from the vessel.
However, Chu discloses:
one or more condenser tubes within the vessel (1242) (Fig. 4c), wherein the one or more condenser tubes are configured to receive cooling fluid into and transmit cooling fluid out of the vessel, thereby removing heat from the vessel (Paragraph [0035] discusses condensate [cooling fluid] in 1242, which absorbs heat from the two-phase medium M before flowing out of the cooling module to be cooled, then returning to maintain continuous flow.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooling system of Tokuda with the condenser tubes of Chu. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to increase the rate of heat dissipation of the cooling system by recondensing the two-phase refrigerant more rapidly (Paragraph [0035]).
Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With regards to claim 2, Tokuda and Chu disclose all as applied to claim 1, and Tokuda additionally discloses:
wherein the one or more processors (Processor of board 141) (Figs. 1, 7) receive power and communications through the plate (Col. 5 lines 40-42 state that, “the cable 122 allow[s] signal transmission and power supply between the circuit board 141 and the outside.” See also Fig. 1.).
See also KSR, supra.
With regards to claim 4, Tokuda and Chu disclose all as applied to claim 1, and Tokuda additionally discloses:
wherein the liquid phase of the two-phase refrigerant completely covers the one or more processors (See Fig. 1).
Tokuda does not disclose:
wherein the one or more condenser tubes are positioned above the liquid phase of the refrigerant, such that the condenser tubes are configured to condense a gaseous phase of the refrigerant.
However, Chu discloses:
wherein the one or more condenser tubes (1242) (Fig. 4c) are positioned above the liquid phase of the refrigerant (See Fig. 4c), such that the condenser tubes are configured to condense a gaseous phase of the refrigerant (See Fig. 4c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Tokuda-Chu combination with the condenser tube placement above the liquid phase as taught by Chu. One of ordinary skill in related art(s) would have been motivated to do so in order to maximize the efficiency of condensation, as vapor will move upwards due to differences in density while under the effects of gravity.
See also KSR, supra.
With regards to claim 5, Tokuda and Chu disclose all as applied to claim 1, and Tokuda additionally discloses:
a controller (600) (Fig. 8) configured to control a flow rate of the cooling fluid through the one or more tubes based at least in part on a refrigerant temperature of the two-phase refrigerant (Col. 6 line 60 – Col. 7 line 6 states that the pump 203 is driven by 600 in response to temperature readings of refrigerant 130).
Tokuda does not disclose:
that the tubes are the condenser tubes.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) to have modified the Tokuda-Chu combination with the teaching of pumped coolant tubes of Tokuda such that the condenser tubes would be actively pumped in response to temperature readings of the refrigerant. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to improve condensation rates and efficiently remove heat from the system.
Also, such a modification would amount to no more than a rearrangement or duplication of parts, i.e., moving/providing an additional controlled pump/valve to the condenser tubes instead of the circulating tubes. Such a change would be an obvious matter of design choice, with the end result of improving the cooling efficiency of the device and no unexpected results being produced. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
See also KSR, supra.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokuda and Chu in further view of Bergamini et al. (EP 2552182 A1), hereafter referred to as Bergamini.
With regards to claim 3, Tokuda and Chu disclose all as applied to claim 1, but do not disclose:
wherein the one or more processors include a coating on an exterior surface thereof, the coating configured to minimize a temperature difference between the exterior surface and the two-phase refrigerant and to electrically insulate the one or more processors from the two-phase refrigerant.
However, Bergamini discloses:
wherein the one or more processors include a coating on an exterior surface thereof, the coating configured to minimize a temperature difference between the exterior surface and the refrigerant and to electrically insulate the one or more processors from the refrigerant (Page 7 lines 25-26 describe a thermo-conductive electric insulator that is thermally connected to electric components. Increased conduction of heat would also minimize a temperate difference).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Tokuda-Chu combination with the thermo-conductive electric insulator on the electronic components (i.e., processors) as taught by Bergamini. One of ordinary skill in related art(s) would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for the use of conductive coolants, and also to increase the rate of heat transfer from components.
Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau (US 20170325355 A1) and Gao (US 20220418146 A1), hereafter referred to as Lau and Gao ‘146, respectively.
With regards to claim 8, Lau discloses:
A two-phase immersion cooling system (Contents of Fig. 1) comprising: a first pressure vessel (34) (Fig. 1); a second pressure vessel (30) (Fig. 1) in selective fluid communication (See pipes 32 and 39, along with associated filter 38) (Fig. 1) with the first pressure vessel (See Fig. 1); one or more electronic devices (10) (Fig. 1) within the second pressure vessel (See Fig. 1); a two-phase refrigerant (12) (Fig. 1) within the first and second pressure vessels (See Fig. 1), the two-phase refrigerant being configured to extract heat from the one or more electronic devices (See Fig. 1; Electronics 10 boil liquid to be condensed and returned, transferring heat energy), wherein a liquid phase of the two-phase refrigerant at least partially covers the one or more electronic devices (See Fig. 1; surface 13 of the coolant 12 is above electronics 10); and one or more condenser tubes within the first pressure vessel (Paragraph [0022] discusses that the condenser 34 includes internal tubes, not pictured, which circulate a secondary coolant to condense the primary coolant), wherein the one or more condenser tubes are configured to receive cooling fluid into and transmit cooling fluid out of the first pressure vessel (Paragraph [0022] discusses that the condenser 34 includes internal tubes, not pictured, which circulate water, see also “cooling water” pictured in Fig. 1.), thereby removing heat from the second pressure vessel (See Fig. 1; Paragraph [0022]).
Lau does not disclose:
wherein the one or more electronic devices are processors.
However, Gao ‘146 discloses:
wherein the one or more electronic devices are processors (Paragraph [0017] discusses an immersion cooling tank with electronic components including processors.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Lau with the processor of Gao. One of ordinary skill in related art(s) would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for the system to be used for tasks requiring a processor, i.e., most computing tasks.
Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With regards to claim 13, Lau and Gao ‘146 disclose all as applied to claim 8, and Lau additionally discloses:
wherein the liquid phase of the two-phase refrigerant (12) (Fig. 1) completely covers (See that 10 is below the surface 13 of coolant 12) (Fig. 1) the one or more processors (10; Modified to be processors by Gao) (Fig. 1) and wherein the one or more condenser tubes (Paragraph [0022] discusses that the condenser 34 includes internal tubes, not pictured, which circulate a secondary coolant to condense the primary coolant) are positioned above the liquid phase of the two-phase refrigerant (See Fig. 1, paragraph [0022] describes that a riser tube connects condenser 34, containing the condenser tubes, to the roof of tank 30, i.e., above tank 30 and associated coolant surface 13), such that the condenser tubes are configured to condense a gaseous phase of the two-phase refrigerant (See Fig. 1, paragraphs [0022] and [0024]).
See also KSR, supra.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau and Gao ‘146 in view of Tokuda.
With regards to claim 10, Lau and Gao ‘146 disclose all as applied to claim 8, but do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the second pressure vessel comprises a chamber having a flange and a plate bolted to the flange, wherein the one or more processors are physically secured mounted to the plate, and wherein the one or more processors receive power and communications through the plate.
However, Tokuda discloses:
wherein the second pressure vessel (100) (Fig. 1) comprises a chamber having a flange (106) (Fig. 1) and a plate (120) (Fig. 1) bolted to the flange (Bolts 102) (Fig. 1), wherein the one or more processors are mounted to the plate (Mounted through 140, 103, 110, 101, and cables 122) (Fig. 1), and wherein the one or more processors receive power and communications through the plate (Col. 5 lines 40-42 state that, “the cable 122 allow[s] signal transmission and power supply between the circuit board 141 and the outside.” See also Fig. 1.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Lau-Gao ‘146 combination to include the pressure vessel specifics for the chamber containing a processor. One of ordinary skill in related art(s) would have been motivated to do so in order to improve structural stability and modularity, and to allow better access to the electronic components.
Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau and Gao ‘146 in further view of Fitch et al. (US 20220341860 A1), hereafter referred to as Fitch.
With regards to claim 11, Lau and Gao ‘146 disclose all as applied to claim 8, but do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the one or more processors include a coating on an exterior surface thereof, the coating configured to minimize a temperature difference between the exterior surface and the two-phase refrigerant.
However, Fitch discloses:
wherein the one or more processors include a coating on an exterior surface thereof, the coating configured to minimize a temperature difference between the exterior surface and the two-phase refrigerant (Paragraph [0039] suggests treating heat generating components with boiling enhancement coating to increase surface area and the rate of boiling. An increase in boiling rate and surface area would be associated with an increase heat transfer rate, and thus a lower temperate difference.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Lau-Gao ‘146 combination with the boiling enhancement coating as taught by Fitch. One of ordinary skill in related art(s) would have been motivated to do so in order to increase the efficiency and rate of heat transfer within the cooling system.
Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau and Gao ‘146 in further view of Bergamini.
With regards to claim 12, Lau and Gao ‘146 disclose all as applied to claim 8, but do not disclose:
wherein an exterior surface of the one or more processors is configured to electrically insulate the one or more processors from the two-phase refrigerant.
However, Bergamini discloses:
wherein an exterior surface of the one or more processors is configured to electrically insulate the one or more processors from the refrigerant (Page 7 lines 25-26 describe a thermo-conductive electric insulator that is thermally connected to electric components.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Lau-Gao ‘146 combination with the thermo-conductive electric insulator on the electronic components (i.e., processors) as taught by Bergamini. One of ordinary skill in related art(s) would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for the use of conductive coolants, and also to increase the rate of heat transfer from components.
Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokuda and Chu in further view of Gao (US 11659683 B1) and Brey et al. (US 20130073096 A1), hereafter referred to as Gao ‘683 and Brey, respectively.
With regards to claim 6, Tokuda and Chu disclose all as applied to claim 5, but do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the controller is configured to monitor an electrical power consumption of the one or more processors and further control the flow rate of the cooling fluid through the one or more condenser tubes based on the electrical power consumption of the one or more processors.
However, Gao ‘683 discloses:
wherein the controller (234) (Fig. 2) is configured to monitor an electrical power consumption of the one or more processors (i.e., through temperature readings which reflect electrical power being dissipated) (Col. 5 line 62 – Col. 6 line 15) and further control the flow rate of the cooling fluid through the one or more condenser tubes based on the electrical power consumption of the one or more processors (Col. 5 line 62 – Col. 6 line 15 discusses altering the strength of a pump in response to temperature readings from sensors placed on electronic components. As the electrical power consumed by an electronic device is converted to heat, the temperature of the device is a measure of the electrical power consumption. Implicit disclosure, In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).).
Additionally, Brey discloses:
wherein the electrical power consumption is measured, and a cooling flow rate adjusted in response (Paragraph [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Tokuda-Chu combination with the temperature sensor locations and control specifics as taught by Gao ‘683. One of ordinary skill in related art(s) would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the cooling efficacy of the setup, and to avoid damage to the processor due to overheating.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Tokuda-Chen-Gao ‘683 combination with the electrical power monitoring as described by Brey. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to have a leading indicator of heating of components, allowing for faster cooling action (Paragraph [0015]) (Brey).
Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokuda and Chu in further view of Gao (US 11659683 B1), hereafter referred to as Gao ‘683.
With regards to claim 7, Tokuda and Chu disclose all as applied to claim 5, but do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the controller is configured to further control the flow rate of the cooling fluid through the one or more condenser tubes based on a processor temperature of the one or more processors.
However, Gao ‘683 discloses:
wherein the controller (234) (Fig. 2) is configured to further control the flow rate of the cooling fluid through the one or more condenser tubes based on a processor temperature of the one or more processors (Col. 5 line 62 – Col. 6 line 15 discusses altering the strength of a pump in response to temperature readings from sensors placed on electronic components.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Tokuda-Chu combination with the temperature sensor locations and control specifics as taught by Gao ‘683. One of ordinary skill in related art(s) would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the cooling efficacy of the setup, and to avoid damage to the processor due to overheating.
Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau and Gao ‘146 in further view of Gao ‘683.
With regards to claim 14, Lau and Gao ‘146 disclose all as applied to claim 8, but do not explicitly disclose:
a controller configured to control a flow rate of the cooling fluid through the one or more condenser tubes based at least in part on a refrigerant temperature of the two-phase refrigerant.
However, Gao ‘683 discloses:
a controller (234) (Fig. 2) configured to control a flow rate of the cooling fluid through the one or more condenser tubes (Condenser 212) based at least in part on a refrigerant temperature of the two-phase refrigerant (Col. 5 line 62 – Col. 6 line 15 discusses altering the strength of pump 222 supplying condenser 212 in response to temperature readings of the two-phase coolant within loop 216.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Lau-Gao ‘146 combination to include the teachings of Gao ‘683 with regards to cooling of condensers in response to thermal measurements. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the cooling efficacy of the setup, allowing the electronic devices to perform better and have longer lifespans.
Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With regards to claim 16, Lau, Gao ‘146, and Gao ‘683 disclose all as applied to claim 14, but Lau and Gao ‘146 do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the controller is configured to further control the flow rate of the cooling fluid through the one or more condenser tubes based on a processor temperature of the one or more processors.
However, Gao ‘683 discloses:
wherein the controller (234) (Fig. 2) is configured to further control the flow rate of the cooling fluid through the one or more condenser tubes based on a processor temperature of the one or more processors (Col. 5 line 62 – Col. 6 line 15 discusses altering the strength of a pump in response to temperature readings from sensors placed on electronic components.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Lau - Gao ‘146 - Gao ‘683 combination with the temperature sensor locations and control specifics as taught by Gao. One of ordinary skill in related art(s) would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the cooling efficacy of the setup, and to avoid damage to the processor due to overheating.
See also KSR, supra.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau and Gao ‘146 in further view of Gao ‘683 and Brey.
With regards to claim 15, Lau, Gao ‘146, and Gao ‘683 disclose all as applied to claim 14, but Lau and Gao ‘146 do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the controller is configured to monitor an electrical power consumption of the one or more processors and further control the flow rate of the cooling fluid through the one or more condenser tubes based on the electrical power consumption of the one or more processors.
However, Gao ‘683 discloses:
wherein the controller (234) (Fig. 2) is configured to monitor an electrical power consumption of the one or more processors (i.e., through temperature readings which reflect electrical power being dissipated) (Col. 5 line 62 – Col. 6 line 15) and further control the flow rate of the cooling fluid through the one or more condenser tubes based on the electrical power consumption of the one or more processors (Col. 5 line 62 – Col. 6 line 15 discusses altering the strength of a pump in response to temperature readings from sensors placed on electronic components. As the electrical power consumed by an electronic device is converted to heat, the temperature of the device is a measure of the electrical power consumption. Implicit disclosure, In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).).
Additionally, Brey discloses:
wherein the electrical power consumption is measured, and a cooling flow rate adjusted in response (Paragraph [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Lau - Gao ‘146 - Gao ‘683 combination with the temperature sensor locations and control specifics as taught by Gao ‘683. One of ordinary skill in related art(s) would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the cooling efficacy of the setup, and to avoid damage to the processor due to overheating.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Lau - Gao ‘146 - Gao ‘683 combination with the electrical power monitoring as described by Brey. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to have a leading indicator of heating of components, allowing for faster cooling action (Paragraph [0015]) (Brey).
Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau ‘146 and Gao in further view of Tokuda.
With regards to claim 17, Lau and Gao ‘146 disclose all as applied to claim 8, but do not explicitly disclose:
a controller configured to control a flow rate of the two-phase refrigerant based at least in part on a refrigerant temperature of the two-phase refrigerant.
However, Tokuda discloses:
a controller (600) (Fig. 8) configured to control a flow rate (via use of pump 203) (Visible in Figs. 1 and 8) of the two-phase refrigerant (130) (Fig. 1) based at least in part on a refrigerant temperature of the two-phase refrigerant (Col. 6 line 60 – Col. 7 line 6 states that the pump 203 is driven by 600 in response to temperature readings of refrigerant 130).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Lau ‘146 – Gao combination to include the pumping of two-phase coolant in response to temperature readings of said coolant. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the cooling efficacy of the system, allowing for improved performance and/or lifespan for the electrical components.
Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau, Gao ‘146, and Tokuda in further view of Brey.
With regards to claim 18, Lau, Gao ‘146, and Tokuda disclose all as applied to claim 17, but Lau and Gao ‘146 do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the controller is configured to monitor an electrical power consumption of the one or more processors and further control the flow rate of the cooling fluid through the one or more condenser tubes based on the electrical power consumption of the one or more processors.
However, Tokuda discloses:
wherein the controller (600) (Fig. 8) is configured to monitor an electrical power consumption (Col. 6 line 60 – Col. 7 line 6 states that the pump 203 is driven by 600 in response to temperature readings of refrigerant 130, a strong proxy for power consumption) of the one or more processors (Processor of board 141) (Fig. 1) and further control the flow rate of the two-phase refrigerant based on the electrical power consumption of the one or more processors (Col. 6 line 60 – Col. 7 line 6).
Additionally, Brey discloses:
wherein the electrical power consumption is measured, and a cooling flow rate adjusted in response (Paragraph [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Lau - Gao ‘146 - Tokuda combination with the temperature sensors and control specifics as taught by Tokuda. One of ordinary skill in related art(s) would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the cooling efficacy of the setup, and to avoid damage to the processor due to overheating.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Lau - Gao ‘146 - Tokuda combination with the electrical power monitoring as described by Brey. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to have a leading indicator of heating of components, allowing for faster cooling action (Paragraph [0015]) (Brey).
Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau, Gao ‘146, and Tokuda in further view of Tokuda.
With regards to claim 19, Lau, Gao ‘146, and Tokuda disclose all as applied to claim 17, but Lau and Gao ‘146 do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the controller is configured to further control the flow rate of the two-phase refrigerant based on a processor temperature of the one or more processors.
However, Tokuda discloses:
wherein the controller (600) (Fig. 8) is configured to further control (Via pump 203) (Figs. 1, 8) the flow rate of the two-phase refrigerant (130) (Figs. 1, 8) based on a processor temperature (Col. 6 line 60 – Col. 7 line 6 states that the pump 203 is driven by 600 in response to temperature readings of refrigerant 130, heated by the processor.) of the one or more processors (Processor of board 141) (Figs. 1, 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Lau - Gao ‘146 - Tokuda combination with the temperature sensors and control specifics as taught by Tokuda. One of ordinary skill in related art(s) would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the cooling efficacy of the setup, and to avoid damage to the processor due to overheating.
Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered. The arguments directed to claim 8 have been considered as persuasive, and the rejection of claim 8 has been withdrawn. However, the Office has provided a new rejection of claim 8, produced above. The remaining arguments are viewed as non-persuasive, and are addressed below.
Applicant begins on line 1 of page 7, and discusses that limitations have been incorporated from claim 2 into independent claim 1, as well as a change to the language of claim 1 to replace “physically secured” with “mounted”. While these amendments are appreciated, the Office does not view “mounted” as significantly narrower than “physically secured”. As such, with regards to the arguments directed to the newly amended claim 1, the claims are viewed as being broader than argued. The rejection of independent claim 1 has been updated in view of the new language, visible above.
Applicant continues on line 20 of page 7, and discusses the rejection of claim 5. Applicant notes that Tokuda pumps coolant based on the temperature of the specific coolant being pumped. The Office agrees with this assessment. Applicant continues, and claims that the Office asserts without supporting citation, that it would be reasonable to pump multiple coolant streams based on a single temperature reading. The secondary source of Chu is also discussed. While the upshot of Applicant’s argument is understood, the Office takes the position that one of ordinary skill in related art(s) would have been capable of making the claimed combination before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as supported by the cited relevant case law and outlined in the previous rejection. To clarify the position taken by the Office, controlling cooling systems based on temperature readings is not new in the art in general, barring limitations that clearly offer differentiation from the art of record.
Applicant continues, and states that as claims 2 and 4 depend on claim 1, they should be allowable in view of the arguments directed to claim 1. As the Office respectfully disagrees with the arguments to claim 1, claims 2 and 4 are also viewed as not being in condition for allowance at this time.
Applicant continues in line 1 of page 9, and discusses the rejection of claim 6. The Office has provided a new rejection to better read on the stated intent of the claimed language.
As the Office does not agree with the arguments directed to claim 5 being allowable, the Office also respectfully disagrees that dependent claim 7 would be allowable in view of the above arguments.
Applicant continues in line 17 of page 12, and discusses the amendments of claim 10, where “physically secured” has been replaced with “mounted”, similar in form to claim 1. The Office takes the stance that “mounted” is still a generally broad term, and that the new language does not significantly change the scope of the claim, as discussed above in reference to similar changes to claim 1. As such, the Office respectfully disagrees with the arguments that the inclusion of “mounting” would bring claim 10 to be allowable.
Applicant continues in line 25 of page 12, and discusses the rejection of claim 14. Applicant outlines a similar argument as presented to the arguments addressing claim 5. The Office disagrees with the points made for similar reasons, i.e., that it is reasonable to activate various cooling systems based on a single temperature measurement. Applicant notes that Tokuda only has one pump. It is noted that the current rejection and previous rejection discuss duplication and rearrangement case law in order to cure this deficiency. However, a new rejection has also been supplied in view of the new rejection for claim 8.
As the Office disagrees that claim 8 is allowable, the Office also respectfully disagrees that dependent claims of claim 8 are allowable in view of the above arguments.
Applicant continues in line 6 of page 14, and discusses the rejection of claim 15, and the newly amended claim language. The Office has provided a new rejection to better read on the stated intent of the claimed language.
Applicant continues in line 6 of page 15, and rehashes a similar argument as directed to claims 6 and 15 regarding the new language of ‘electrical’ in reference to the power usage measured. The argument is noted to be moot, in view of the new rejections provided above and subject matter objected to.
As the Office does not agree that claim 8 is allowable, the Office respectfully disagrees that the remaining claims depending from claim 8 are also allowable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 20 are 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: the allowability resides in the overall structure and functionality of the device as recited in the subject matter of dependent claims 9 and 20, and at least in part, because claims 9 and 20 recite the limitations:
(Claim 9): “… further including a liquid line connected between a lower portion of the first pressure vessel and a lower portion of the second pressure vessel and a vapor line connected between an upper portion of the first pressure vessel and an upper portion of the second pressure vessel.”
(Claim 20): “… further including a third pressure vessel in selective fluid communication with the first pressure vessel, and one or more processors within the third pressure vessel, wherein the one or more condenser tubes are further configured to remove heat from the third pressure vessel.”
The aforementioned limitations, in combination with all remaining limitations of independent claim 8, are believed to render the subject matter as allowable over the prior art references of record, taken either alone or in combination.
Lau and Gao ‘146 are believed to be the closest prior art references, and are discussed above.
However, Lau and Gao ‘146 fail to disclose, at least, the aforementioned allowable limitations of dependent claims 9 and 20.
The remaining prior art references teach various systems for immersion cooling with pressure vessels, particularly those that are similar in form to the instant Application. However, none of the prior art references, taken alone or in combination, are believed to teach and/or suggest the aforementioned allowable limitations of dependent claims 9 and 20.
Finally, the Office has not identified any double patenting issues. For all of the reasons outlined above, it is believed that the instant Application contains allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE OXENKNECHT whose telephone number is (703)756-1976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 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, 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.
/K.O./Examiner, Art Unit 2835
/MANDEEP S BUTTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights