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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II, Figs. 7-8, claims 6-15 in the reply filed on 10/15/2025 is acknowledged. The non-elected claims 1-5 and 16-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration on the merits. The Office action on elected claims 6-15 follows.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “multiple holes” (claim 7) and “lower pipe wall” (claim 9) must be shown and reference numbers provided therefor on the drawings and in the specification, or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claims 6-15, are 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.
Regarding independent claim 6, the limitation “the coolant in the cooling tank” (l. 6) lacks antecedent basis.
Furthermore, the clause “a cooling tank liquid inlet pipe extending along a length direction of the cooling tank, with a rectangular cross-section and multiple holes arranged on opposite side walls along the length direction of the tank body” (ll. 14-16) is ambiguous and indefinite. It’s unclear whether the “rectangular cross-section” and “multiple holes” define the “cooling tank” or the “liquid inlet pipe”. Clarification is required. For examination purposes the Office will interpret that the aforementioned limitations limit the “liquid inlet pipe”.
All dependent claims 7-15 have been also rejected since they inherit the aforementioned problems of the independent claim 6.
Appropriate corrections are required. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting of any remaining problems and informalities of which Applicant may become aware in the claims.
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 6-15, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 114885567 to LONG, Zheng-Xiang et al. (hereafter “Long”, see English translation of record).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Long discloses a cooling device (Figs. 1-3A, 5) comprising a frame (102, 121) with a structure having at least an upper part and a lower part (inherently as seen on Fig. 2A), the frame comprising support brackets (101, 201) arranged at the upper part and lower part, respectively; a cooling tank (210) arranged on the support bracket at the upper part of the frame (Fig. 2A) and a heat exchanger (300) arranged on the support bracket at the lower part of the frame, for exchanging heat between the coolant (203) in the cooling tank and another cooling medium (i.e., water (304) and cooling air blown by fans (330)) flowing through the heat exchanger, a coolant outlet (319) of the heat exchanger being connected to a lower part of the cooling tank (210) through a liquid outlet pipe (230) of the heat exchanger and a coolant inlet (311) of the heat exchanger being connected to an upper part of the cooling tank (210) through a liquid inlet pipe (240) of the heat exchanger (Figs. 2A and 5), wherein the cooling tank comprises: a tank body (Fig. 2A, 3A) for accommodating coolant (203) and computing equipment (202) immersed in the coolant; a cooling tank liquid inlet pipe (230) extending along a length direction of the cooling tank (Fig. 3A), with [extending along the length direction of the tank body, and arranged at a higher position than the cooling tank liquid inlet pipe (230), (Fig. 3A).
The cooling device of claim 6 differs from this known cooling device taught by Long only in that the cooling tank liquid inlet pipe has a rectangular cross section.
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in cooling art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any desired shape for the cooling tank liquid inlet pipe of Long, including as claimed, in order to achieve desired mechanical and thermal characteristics of the cooling device (e.g., amount of the heat dissipation, cooling efficiency, space utilization, weight, etc.), while not exceeding its targeted production costs, since the rational that a particular shape is a design choice may be found in legal precedent. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Alternatively, a proper positioning of the cooling tank and heat exchanger, including as claimed, would have been also obvious to a person of the ordinary skill for the reasons as stated above, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). 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).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Long discloses a flow guide (249) having a trench shape is provided on circumference of the cooling tank liquid outlet pipe (240) for accommodating the cooling tank liquid outlet pipe, the flow guide is installed on the tank body of the cooling tank (Fig. 3B), wherein multiple holes are formed on the cooling tank liquid outlet pipe (240), and the multiple holes are formed in a lower pipe wall of the cooling tank liquid outlet pipe (240), (Figs. 3A, 3B).
Regarding claim 10, Long discloses a support block (201a, 201b) is provided at a bottom of the cooling tank (210), but does not teach that a height of the support block is flush with a height of the cooling tank liquid inlet pipe.
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in cooling art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any desired height and shape of the support block in Long, including as claimed, in order to achieve desired mechanical and thermal characteristics of the cooling device (e.g., amount of the heat dissipation, cooling efficiency, space utilization, weight, etc.), while not exceeding its targeted production costs, since the rational that a particular shape is a design choice may be found in legal precedent. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Also, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Also, see KSR, supra.
Regarding claim 11, Long discloses that the liquid inlet pipe (240) of the heat exchanger is connected to an oil pump (242) (Figs (4A-4C) arranged on the support bracket (inherently, directly or indirectly, since the entire device is an interconnected mechanical structure), for pumping coolant (203) flowing out of the cooling tank (210) into the heat exchanger, but does not disclose that the specific location of the oil pump is at the lower part of the frame.
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in cooling art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned the oil pump in Long at any desired optimal location, including as claimed, in order to achieve desired mechanical and thermal characteristics of the cooling device (e.g., amount of the heat dissipation, cooling efficiency, space utilization, weight, etc.), while not exceeding its targeted production costs, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 12, Long discloses that a first end of the heat exchanger (300) is provided with a water inlet (311) and a water outlet (319), and cooling water flows into or out of the heat exchanger through a water pump (3220 arranged on the support bracket at the lower part of the frame (Figs. 2A, 5).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in cooling art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned the water pump in Long at any desired optimal location, including as claimed, in order to achieve desired mechanical and thermal characteristics of the cooling device (e.g., amount of the heat dissipation, cooling efficiency, space utilization, weight, etc.), while not exceeding its targeted production costs, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 13, Long does not specifically teach particular locations of the coolant inlet and outlet on the heat exchanger, i.e., that the coolant outlet of the heat exchanger is arranged at the first end of the heat exchanger, and the coolant inlet of the heat exchanger is arranged at a second end of the heat exchanger, the second end being opposite to the first end.
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in cooling art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned the coolant inlet and outlet on the heat exchanger of Long at any desired optimal location, including as claimed, in order to achieve desired mechanical and thermal characteristics of the cooling device (e.g., amount of the heat dissipation, cooling efficiency, space utilization, weight, etc.), while not exceeding its targeted production costs, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 14, Long discloses (Figs. 4A-4C, pars. [n0018], [n0019], claim 14)
that the cooling device further comprises one or more of the following sensors: an outlet temperature sensor (414) for monitoring coolant temperature at the coolant outlet of the heat exchanger, an inlet temperature sensor (413) for monitoring coolant temperature at the coolant inlet of the heat exchanger, a coolant flow sensor (431) for monitoring coolant flow, a coolant pressure sensor (441) for monitoring coolant pressure, an ambient temperature sensor for monitoring temperature around the cooling tank (pars. [n0018], [n0019], claim 14), and a cooling tank level sensor (461) for detecting a level of coolant in the cooling tank (Figs. 4A-4C, pars. [n0018], [n0019], claim 14).
Regarding claim 15, Long discloses that the cooling device further comprises a control cabinet (224), which is arranged on the support bracket (101, 201) at the lower part of the frame (par. [n0049]) for controlling operation of the cooling device based on sensing data monitored by one or more of the sensors (Fig. 2A, pars. [n0047]-[n0049], [n0085], claim 6).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in cooling art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned the control cabinet of Long at any desired optimal location, including as claimed, in order to achieve desired mechanical characteristics of the cooling device (e.g., space utilization, weight, etc.), while not exceeding its targeted production costs, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Conclusion
The additional prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, because of the teachings of various liquid coolant immersion arrangements for cooling of electronic and electrical devices. Further, the US 2014/0218859, US 2014/0301037, US 2014/0362527, US 9504190, US 20150062806, US 20150181762, US 2015/ 0334880, US 2017/0295676, US 2017/0354061, US 2018/0084671, US 2019/0383559, US 2020/0029464, US 10782751, US 2020/0352058, US 2020/0371569, US 11714467, US 11375638, US 2023/0084765, US 11889658, US 11744043, US 11839053, US 20240/064934,
US 11968803, US 12075599, and US 12189441 teach various liquid coolant immersion arrangements utilizing coolant pumps.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is (571)272-2047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 pm.
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 N. 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.
/Anatoly Vortman/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2835