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 Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 recites “it” and should recite “the condensed liquid” for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 25 recites “wherein the condenser is at least partially disposed in a recess beneath the tank.” However, there is not appear to be support for this limitations in the originally filed specification. There does appear to be support for “Condenser 230 is also depicted in recess 215 below tank 210” in paragraph 0032.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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, 3, and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujiwara et al. (US 2018/0020570).
Per claim 1, Fujiwara teaches a cooling system comprising:
a tank (2a) configured to contain a liquid (3A), with a head space (space above 3a in 2a) above the liquid (3a); and
a first bellows (10A) is gaseously coupled (via 8a) with the head space, and is at least partially disposed below a bottom of the head space (see figure 5 showing 10a below the head space).
Per claim 3, Fujiwara meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Fujiwara teaches a condenser (11a) configured to condense heated vapor passing from the head space to the first bellows (see figure 5).
Per claim 27, Fujiwara meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 3. Further, Fujiwara teaches wherein the condenser (11a) is fluidly coupled to both the head space (space above 3a in 2a) and the first bellows (10a) (see figure 5) (dielectric fluid contact both 11A, 10A, and the space above 3A in 2A, thus the condenser is fluidly coupled to the head space and first bellows.
Per claim 28, Fujiwara meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 3. Further, Fujiwara teaches wherein the condenser (11A) is configured to condense vapor traveling between the head space (space above 3A in 2A) and the first bellows (10A) (the same dielectric fluid is circulated in the closed system, thus the vapor that is condensed in 2A will travel between the head space and the first bellows).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara et al. (US 2018/0020570) in view of Keehn et al. (US 2021/0059079).
Per claim 20-21, Fujiwara meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 3. Further, Fujiwara fails to explicitly teach a drain coupled to the condenser (claim 20), wherein the drain is configured to remove condensed liquid from the condenser without returning the condensed liquid to the tank (claim 21).
However, Keehn teaches an immersion cooling system comprising a drain (“sump”, para. 0049) coupled to a condenser (218) (claim 20), wherein the drain (“sump”, para. 0049) is configured to remove condensed liquid from the condenser (218) without returning the condensed liquid to a tank (202) (claim 21) for transferring the condensed liquid to another immersion cooling system (para. 0049). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a drain coupled to a condenser (claim 20), wherein the drain is configured to remove condensed liquid from the condenser without returning the condensed liquid to a tank (claim 21), as taught by Keehn in the invention of Fujiwara, in order to advantageously transfer condensed liquid to another immersion cooling system (para. 0049).
Per claim 22, Fujiwara meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 3. Further, Fujiwara fails to explicitly teach wherein the condenser is positioned outside the headspace.
However, Keehn teaches an immersion cooling system wherein a condenser (218) is positioned outside a headspace (see figure 2) for transferring the condensed liquid to another immersion cooling system (para. 0049). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a condenser positioned outside a headspace, as taught by Keehn in the invention of Fujiwara, in order to advantageously transfer condensed liquid to another immersion cooling system (para. 0049).
Per claim 23, Fujiwara meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 3. Further, Fujiwara fails to explicitly teach wherein the condenser is positioned outside the tank.
However, Keehn teaches an immersion cooling system wherein a condenser (218) is positioned outside a tank (204; see figure 2) for transferring the condensed liquid to another immersion cooling system (para. 0049). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a condenser positioned outside a tank, as taught by Keehn in the invention of Fujiwara, in order to advantageously transfer condensed liquid to another immersion cooling system (para. 0049).
Per claim 24, Fujiwara meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 3. Further, Fujiwara fails to explicitly teach wherein the condenser is positioned beneath the tank.
However, Keehn teaches an immersion cooling system wherein a condenser (218) is positioned beneath a tank (“In some embodiments, the supplemental condenser may be positioned underneath the immersion tank”, para. 0015) for transferring the condensed liquid to another immersion cooling system (para. 0049). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a condenser positioned beneath a tank, as taught by Keehn in the invention of Fujiwara, in order to advantageously transfer condensed liquid to another immersion cooling system (para. 0049).
Claim(s) 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara et al. (US 2018/0020570) in view of Keehn et al. (US 2021/0059079) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Kolar et al. (US 2019/0357378).
Per claim 25, Fujiwara meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 3. Further, Fujiwara fails to explicitly teach wherein the condenser is at least partially disposed in a recess beneath the tank.
Regarding the location of the condenser, Keehn teaches an immersion cooling system wherein a condenser (218) is disposed beneath a tank (“In some embodiments, the supplemental condenser may be positioned underneath the immersion tank”, para. 0015) for transferring the condensed liquid to another immersion cooling system (para. 0049). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a condenser disposed beneath a tank, as taught by Keehn in the invention of Fujiwara, in order to advantageously transfer condensed liquid to another immersion cooling system (para. 0049).
Regarding the recess, Kolar teaches an immersion cooling system including a condenser (136) disposed in a recess (space between 174 and 150) for preventing vapor from passing around the condenser (para. 0041). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide have a condenser disposed in a recess, as taught by Kolar in the combined teachings, in order to advantageously prevent vapor from passing around the condenser (para. 0041).
When the Kolar recess is combined with the condenser being disposed beneath the tank of Fujiwara, as modified, the result is wherein the condenser is at least partially disposed in a recess beneath the tank, as claimed.
Per claim 26, Fujiwara, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 3. Further, Fujiwara, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the condenser is entirely disposed in a recess beneath the tank.
Regarding the location of the condenser, Keehn teaches an immersion cooling system wherein a condenser (218) is disposed beneath a tank (“In some embodiments, the supplemental condenser may be positioned underneath the immersion tank”, para. 0015) (to clarify, there is necessarily a space underneath the tank for the condenser to reside, this “space” is considered a “recess”, thus there is necessarily a “recess” for the condenser underneath the tank) for transferring the condensed liquid to another immersion cooling system (para. 0049). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a condenser disposed beneath a tank, as taught by Keehn in the invention of Fujiwara, in order to advantageously transfer condensed liquid to another immersion cooling system (para. 0049).
Regarding the condenser entire within the recess, Kolar teaches an immersion cooling system including a condenser (136) disposed entirely in a recess (space between 174 and 150) (see figure 5) for preventing vapor from passing around the condenser (para. 0041). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide have a condenser disposed entirely in a recess, as taught by Kolar in the combined teachings, in order to advantageously prevent vapor from passing around the condenser (para. 0041).
When the Kolar condenser entirely disposed in the recess is combined with the condenser being disposed beneath the tank of Fujiwara, as modified, the result is wherein the condenser is at least partially disposed in a recess beneath the tank, as claimed.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara et al. (US 2018/0020570).
Per claim 29, Fujiwara meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 3. Further, Fujiwara fails to explicitly teach a second condenser configured to provide cooling to the liquid within the tank.
In regards to the second condenser, per MPEP 2144, section VI, paragraph B, a “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a second condenser in order to advantageously provide greater condensation capacity to the immersion cooling system.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara et al. (US 2018/0020570) in view of Wang et al. (US 2023/0045342).
Per clam 30, Fujiwara meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Fujiwara fails to explicitly teach
a valve on a top of the tank, wherein the valve is configured to regulate system pressure (claim 30).
However, Wang teaches an immersion cooling system including a valve (68) on a top of a tank (12), wherein the valve (68) is configured to regulate system pressure (para. 0039) for maintaining a safe pressure in the tank (para. 0039). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a valve on a top of the tank, wherein the valve is configured to regulate system pressure, as taught by Wang in the invention of Fujiwara, in order to advantageously maintain a safe pressure in the tank (para. 0039).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara et al. (US 2018/0020570) in view of Wang et al. (US 2023/0045342) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Mimberg et al. (US 2025/0167348).
Per claim 31, Fujiwara meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 30. Further, Fujiwara, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the valve is configured to admit ambient air into the head space (claim 31).
However, Mimberg teaches an immersion cooling system wherein a valve (90) is configured to admit ambient air into the head space (40) (“a safety valve 90 against underpressure and/or against overpressure”, para. 0201) (claim 31) for preventing the system from being underpressure or overpressure (para. 0201). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a valve a configured to admit ambient air into a head space, as taught by Mimberg in the invention of Fujiwara, in order to advantageously prevent the system from operating underpressure or overpressure (para. 0201).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara et al. (US 2018/0020570) in view of Enright et al. (US 2020/0093038).
Per claim 32, Fujiwara meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Fujiwara fails to explicitly teach a pressure regulation valve disposed along a conduit between the head space and the first bellows.
However, Enright teaches an immersion cooling system including a pressure regulation valve (912) disposed along a conduit (“piping”, para. 0242) between a head space (710) and a first bellow (905) (“Dielectric vapor may flow from the tank 710 through piping to one or more bellows 905”, para. 0242) for eliminating pressure buildup in a tank (para. 0242). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a pressure regulation valve disposed along a conduit between a head space and a first bellows, as taught by Enright in the invention of Fujiwara, in order to advantageously eliminate pressure buildup in a tank (para. 0242).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J TEITELBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5142. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571) 272-66816681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID J TEITELBAUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763