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 the Group I invention in the reply filed on 7/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/15/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Enright (US 20230082410 A1).
Regarding independent claim 21, Enright discloses a method (Fig. 1), comprising:
positioning (permanently “positioning”) an enclosure (220; [0081]: “airlock”) over (“over” in at least some direction) a tank of an immersion cooler ([0068]: “an immersion cooling tank”), the tank having a lid (222; [0174]: “door”) and containing a coolant ([0041]: “utilize a liquid dielectric fluid 140”) and a device ([0041]: “computer component 170”) submerged in the coolant ([0041]: “immersing the component into a bath of the fluid”);
with the enclosure in place over the tank, opening the lid of the tank ([0176]: “the inner door 222 will open”);
lowering pressure in the enclosure via a pump ([0174]: “equalized with that of the outside atmosphere” in combination with [0049]: “a slight positive pressure”. Note: “lowering pressure” requires both high and low pressure states to exist, and the high pressure state is accomplished “via a pump”, [0049]: “expanding enclosures”; MPEP 2111);
filtering ([0076]: “maintain the purity”) vapor of the coolant in the enclosure ([0076]: “the condensation point of the dielectric fluid”) by a filtration system ([0076]: “vapor scrubbing process”); and
condensing the vapor of the coolant into liquid coolant ([0076]: “the condensation point of the dielectric fluid”) by a recycling system (Note: the recycling system is the portion of the filtration system that is not dedicated to the removal of contaminants; [0069]: “The dielectric fluid 140 then flows back into the liquid bath 142”).
Illustrated below is Fig. 1 of Enright.
PNG
media_image1.png
491
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Enright discloses the method of claim 21 (Fig. 1), further comprising: storing (“storing” for at least some amount of time) the liquid coolant in a storage (“storage” includes at least some portion of the entire system; Fig. 2: shows a demonstration of the recycling process) of the recycling system.
Regarding claim 23, Enright discloses the method of claim 21 (Fig. 7C), further comprising: removing the device from the tank by a robot arm (240) while the enclosure is in place over the tank.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Rejection Note: Italicized claim limitations indicate limitations that are not explicitly disclosed in the primary reference (or combination of references), but are disclosed or rendered obvious by secondary references or remarks.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enright as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Jhong (US 20210296148 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Enright only teaches generic intended use for the method (Enright: [0202]: “high performance computing”), and thus fails to teach the particularly claimed intended use of the method “performing semiconductor processing by a processing tool in data communication with the device while the device is submerged in the coolant”.
Jhong discloses a method (Fig. 4), comprising: performing semiconductor processing ([0056]: “semiconductor manufacturing”) by a processing tool (5; [0056]: “tool”) in data communication (107; [0056]: “network link”) with device while the device is submerged in the coolant (a generic device is relied upon here, 106; [0056]: “analysis unit”).
Modifying the method of Jhong by incorporating the “device while the device is submerged in the coolant” method configuration of Enright would arrive at the claimed method configuration. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success doing so because in each situation the devices are used in the same way as processors (Jhong: [0056]: “performs an artificial intelligence (AI) analytical process”; Enright: [0202]: “high performance computing”). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to include the “device while the device is submerged in the coolant” method configuration with the method of Jhong because Enright teaches the cooled device enables enhanced operational characteristics of the device ([0202]: “high end…high speed…high performance computing”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed method because it would enable enhanced operational characteristics of the device. MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Illustrated below is Fig. 4 of Jhong.
PNG
media_image2.png
330
499
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-4, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enright in view of Kulgevich (US 20230259182 A1) and Jhong.
Regarding claim 1, Enright discloses a method (Fig. 1), comprising:
forming a cooled device ([0041]: “utilize a liquid dielectric fluid 140 to cool computer component 170”) by cooling a device (170) in and by a first container of an immersion cooler ([0068]: “an immersion cooling tank”);
performing semiconductor processing by a processing tool in data communication with the cooled device;
determining whether the cooled device is in a condition to be removed from the immersion cooler ([0083]: “self-contained diagnostic program may run which analyzes the performance of the components…If a component 170 is not performing as desired…remove and/or replace the component automatically”);
in response to the cooled device not being in the condition, cooling the device by the immersion cooler ([0041]: “utilize a liquid dielectric fluid 140 to cool computer component 170”); and
in response to the cooled device being in the condition, removing the device from the first container, including ([0083]: “remove and/or replace the component automatically”):
positioning a second container over the first container; and
with the second container in place covering the first container:
opening a lid of the first container; and
removing the device from the first container ([0083]: “remove and/or replace the component automatically”).
Enright fails to teach the method including “positioning a second container” and thus fails to teach:
“positioning a second container over the first container; and
with the second container in place covering the first container:
opening a lid of the first container; and
removing the device from the first container”
Kulgevich discloses a method (Fig. 5A) including:
positioning a second container ([0058]: “chamber”) over the first container ([0060]: “sealed”); and
with the second container in place covering the first container:
opening ([0060]: “open…already sealed”) a lid ([0060]: “a lid 470”) of the first container ([0060]: “tank 412”); and
removing the device from the first container ([0060]: “transfer of components”).
Modifying the method (of Enright) by including the “second container” method configuration (of Kulgevich) would arrive at the claimed method. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success doing so because in each situation a similar device (Enright: device 170; Kulgevich: [0037]: “information technology (“IT”) or other hardware components 150”) is removed from a similar first container (Enright: [0068]: “an immersion cooling tank”; Kulgevich: [0060]: “tank 412”) in the same way (Enright: [0319]: “lift a computing device from the tank”; Kulgevich: [0056]: “lifts a component 150 from…the tank”). Kulgevich provides a teaching to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the “second container” method configuration in that it would enable improved utilization of the device ([0060]: “without pausing operation of the unit”), and reduce material loss ([0060]: “without…allowing vapor to escape”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed method because it would enable improved utilization of the device, and reduce material loss. MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Illustrated below is Fig. 5A of Kulgevich.
PNG
media_image3.png
434
561
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Enright in view of Kulgevich only teaches generic intended use for the method (Enright: [0202]: “high performance computing”), and thus fails to teach the particularly claimed intended use of the method “performing semiconductor processing by a processing tool in data communication with the cooled device”.
Jhong discloses a method (Fig. 4), comprising: performing semiconductor processing ([0056]: “semiconductor manufacturing”) by a processing tool (5; [0056]: “tool”) in data communication (107; [0056]: “network link”) with the cooled device (a generic device is relied upon here, 106; [0056]: “analysis unit”).
Modifying the method of Jhong by incorporating the “cooled device” method configuration of Enright and Kulgevich would arrive at the claimed method configuration. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success doing so because in each situation the devices are used in the same way as processors (Jhong: [0056]: “performs an artificial intelligence (AI) analytical process”; Enright: [0202]: “high performance computing”). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to include the “cooled device” method configuration with the method of Jhong because Enright teaches the cooled device enables enhanced operational characteristics of the device ([0202]: “high end…high speed…high performance computing”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed method because it would enable enhanced operational characteristics of the device. MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Regarding claim 2, Enright in view of Kulgevich and Jhong discloses the method of claim 1 (Enright: Fig. 7C), wherein the removing the device includes removing the device by a robot arm (240: [0173]: “external robotic arm”; similarly Kulgevich: [0058]: “crane system”).
Illustrated below is Fig. 7C of Enright.
PNG
media_image4.png
324
416
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Enright in view of Kulgevich and Jhong discloses the method of claim 2 (Enright: Fig. 7C), wherein the removing the device by a robot arm includes removing the device by the robot arm that is mounted in a vehicle ([0177]: “mounted on a movable base” and this base is illustrated as a vehicle; similarly Kulgevich: Fig. 5A: vehicle 300).
Regarding claim 4, Enright in view of Kulgevich and Jhong discloses the method of claim 3 (Enright: Fig. 7C), wherein the removing the device includes removing the device by the robot arm that is mounted in an overhead transport (Fig. 7C shows the device 170 is transported above other devices 170 that are still in the “first container”, thus the arm is “mounted in an overhead transport”). MPEP 2111.
Regarding independent claim 9, Enright discloses a method (Fig. 1) comprising:
covering an immersion cooler ([0068]: “an immersion cooling tank”) by a container;
with the container in place over the immersion cooler:
opening a lid of the immersion cooler (220; [0081]: “using the airlock”); and
inserting a device into the immersion cooler ([0083]: “component 170…replace the component”);
cooling the device by the immersion cooler ([0041]: “utilize a liquid dielectric fluid 140 to cool computer component 170”); and
performing semiconductor processing by a processing tool in data communication with the device cooled by the immersion cooler.
Enright fails to teach the method including “covering an immersion cooler by a container” and thus fails to teach:
covering an immersion cooler by a container;
with the container in place over the immersion cooler:
opening a lid of the immersion cooler; and
inserting a device into the immersion cooler;
Kulgevich discloses a method (Fig. 5A) including:
covering an immersion cooler ([0060]: “tank 412”) by a container ([0058]: “chamber”);
with the container in place over the immersion cooler:
opening ([0060]: “open…already sealed”) a lid ([0060]: “a lid 470”) of the immersion cooler; and
inserting a device into the immersion cooler ([0060]: “transfer of components”);
Modifying the method (of Enright) by including the “container” method configuration (of Kulgevich) would arrive at the claimed method. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success doing so because in each situation a similar device (Enright: device 170; Kulgevich: [0037]: “information technology (“IT”) or other hardware components 150”) is inserted into a similar immersion cooler (Enright: [0068]: “an immersion cooling tank”; Kulgevich: [0060]: “tank 412”) in the same way (Enright: [0319]: “lift a computing device from the tank”; Kulgevich: [0056]: “lifts a component 150 from…the tank”). Kulgevich provides a teaching to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the “container” method configuration in that it would enable improved utilization of the device ([0060]: “without pausing operation of the unit”), and reduce material loss ([0060]: “without…allowing vapor to escape”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed method because it would enable improved utilization of the device, and reduce material loss. MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Enright in view of Kulgevich only teaches generic intended use for the method (Enright: [0202]: “high performance computing”), and thus fails to teach the particularly claimed intended use of the method “performing semiconductor processing by a processing tool in data communication with the device cooled by the immersion cooler”.
Jhong discloses a method (Fig. 4), comprising: performing semiconductor processing ([0056]: “semiconductor manufacturing”) by a processing tool (5; [0056]: “tool”) in data communication (107; [0056]: “network link”) with the device cooled by the immersion cooler (a generic device is relied upon here, 106; [0056]: “analysis unit”).
Modifying the method of Jhong by incorporating the “device cooled by the immersion cooler” method configuration of Enright and Kulgevich would arrive at the claimed method configuration. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success doing so because in each situation the devices are used in the same way as processors (Jhong: [0056]: “performs an artificial intelligence (AI) analytical process”; Enright: [0202]: “high performance computing”). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to include the “device cooled by the immersion cooler” method configuration with the method of Jhong because Enright teaches the cooled device enables enhanced operational characteristics of the device ([0202]: “high end…high speed…high performance computing”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed method because it would enable enhanced operational characteristics of the device. MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Regarding claim 10, Enright in view of Kulgevich and Jhong discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising: prior to the covering an immersion cooler, transporting the container by a vehicle (Kulgevich: Fig. 5A: [0059]: “module 300 is moveable”), the container being mounted to the vehicle (Kulgevich: [0058]: “module 300 includes a wall or partition 360”), the vehicle holding the container over the immersion cooler ([0060]: “sealed”).
Regarding claim 11, Enright in view of Kulgevich and Jhong discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the covering an immersion cooler includes lowering the container to a position over the immersion cooler by an overhead transport (Kulgevich: Fig. 5B; transport 465; [0059]: “may be placed on a rail 465 to guide movement”).
Regarding claim 12, Enright in view of Kulgevich and Jhong discloses the method of claim 11 (Kulgevich: Fig. 5B), further comprising: after the inserting a device, lifting the container and transporting the container away ([0060]: “module 300 is movable between immersion cooling units 400”) from the immersion cooler by the overhead transport.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 13-14, and 24-25 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 primary reason for the allowable subject matter of claim 5 is the inclusion of the limitation “lowering pressure in the second container via a pump in the vehicle” in combination with the other limitations in the claim. For example, the prior art of record teaches “pressure” and “a pump” but fails to teach combining these features “in the vehicle”, and in combination with all other limitations in claims 5, 3, 2, and 1. Additionally, these features were not disclosed elsewhere in the prior art in a way that would suggest they were reasonably combinable “in the vehicle”, consistent with the guidance of MPEP 2143 (I)(A).
The primary reason for the allowable subject matter of claim 6 is the inclusion of the limitation “filtering vapor of coolant of the first container by a filtration system in the vehicle” in combination with the other limitations in the claim. For example, the prior art of record teaches “filtering” and “a filtration system” but fails to teach combining these features “in the vehicle”, and in combination with all other limitations in claims 6, 3, 2, and 1. Additionally, these features were not disclosed elsewhere in the prior art in a way that would suggest they were reasonably combinable “in the vehicle”, consistent with the guidance of MPEP 2143 (I)(A).
The primary reason for the allowable subject matter of claims 7-8 is the inclusion of the limitation “condensing vapor of coolant of the first container into liquid coolant by a recycling system in the vehicle” in combination with the other limitations in the claim. For example, the prior art of record teaches “condensing vapor” and “a recycling system” but fails to teach combining these features “in the vehicle”, and in combination with all other limitations in claims 7, 3, 2, and 1. Additionally, these features were not disclosed elsewhere in the prior art in a way that would suggest they were reasonably combinable “in the vehicle”, consistent with the guidance of MPEP 2143 (I)(A).
The primary reason for the allowable subject matter of claims 13-14 is the inclusion of the limitation “wherein the transporting the container by a vehicle includes transporting the container by the vehicle having a robot arm and a pump positioned therein” in combination with the other limitations in the claim. For example, the prior art of record teaches “a vehicle” and teaches “a robot arm” and “a pump” but fails to teach combining all of these features “positioned therein”, in combination with all other limitations in claims 13, 10, and 9. Additionally, these features were not disclosed elsewhere in the prior art in a way that would suggest they were reasonably combinable “positioned therein”, consistent with the guidance of MPEP 2143 (I)(A).
The primary reason for the allowable subject matter of claims 24-25 is the inclusion of the limitation “placing the device in a housing of a vehicle, the vehicle having the pump, the filtration system, the recycling system and the robot arm positioned therein” in combination with the other limitations in the claim. For example, the prior art of record teaches “a vehicle” and teaches “the pump”, “the filtration system”, “the recycling system”, and “the robot arm”, but fails to teach combining all of these features “positioned therein”, in combination with all other limitations in claims 24, 23, and 21. Additionally, these features were not disclosed elsewhere in the prior art in a way that would suggest they were reasonably combinable “positioned therein”, consistent with the guidance of MPEP 2143 (I)(A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-5:00.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/WILLIAM H ANDERSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights