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 .
Email Communication
Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502, 502.05.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/27/2024 has been fully considered and is attached hereto.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 2/17/2026 is acknowledged.
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
At least one baffle element is mechanically attached to a board of the electronic device as in claim 13,
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Further, the drawings are objected to because the callout line for element 218 ends at the immersion case instead of at the board.
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 Objections
Claims 15-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 recites, “in which an electronic device” which appears to be incorrect. It appears it should be changed to read - - in which the electronic device - -.
Claim 16 recites, “the IC” which lacks antecedent basis. It appears it should be changed to read, “the immersion case”.
Claims 17-19 are objected to since they depend from claim 16 and inherit the deficiency therein.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 14-16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lau et al. (US 11,608,217 – hereinafter, “Lau”).
With respect to claim 1, Lau teaches (In Figs 18a-p) a baffling assembly for mitigating movement of a heat-transfer liquid in an immersion case (300), the immersion case being configured to contain the heat-transfer liquid (135) in which an electronic device (125) is at least partially submerged (See Fig 18C), the baffling assembly comprising: at least one baffle element (350a, 350b, 310) configured to be disposed proximate a top portion of the immersion case (See Fig 18C).
With respect to claim 2, Lau further teaches wherein the at least one baffle element (350a, 350b, 310) is disposed at an open-ended top side of the immersion case (See Fig 18E, when lid 325 is removed, 350a, 350b, 310 will be disposed at an open-ended top side of 300).
With respect to claim 3, Lau further teaches wherein the at least one baffle element comprises a first baffle element (350a, 310) and a second baffle element (350b, 310), the first baffle element extending along a first edge of the open-ended top side of the immersion case, the second baffle element extending along a second edge of the open-ended top side, opposed to the first edge of the open-ended top side of the immersion case (See Fig 18C).
With respect to claim 4, Lau further teaches wherein the first and second baffle elements have a curved planar shape (See Fig A below), a first convex surface of the first baffle element and a second convex surface of the second baffle element are facing at least partially away from a surface of the heat-transfer liquid side of the immersion case, the first convex surface is disposed opposite to the second convex surface (See Fig A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
601
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 7, Lau further teaches wherein the first and second baffle elements are disposed at least in part above the surface of the heat-transfer liquid (See Fig A above).
With respect to claim 8, Lau further teaches that the at least one baffle element (350a, 350b, 310) comprises a plurality of baffle elements.
With respect to claim 14, Lau further teaches that the at least one baffle element is mechanically attached to the electronic device (310, 350a, 350b are indirectly mechanically attached to 125 via the case and other structural elements).
With respect to claim 15, Lau further teaches an immersion case assembly for hosting an electronic device (125), the immersion case assembly comprising: an immersion case (300) configured to contain a heat-transfer liquid (135) in which the electronic device is at least partially submerged (See Fig 18C); and the baffling assembly of claim 1 (See the above rejection to claim 1).
With respect to claim 16, Lau further teaches that the at least one baffle element comprises a first baffle element (350a + 310) and a second baffle element (350b + 310), the first baffle element extending longitudinally along an edge of the open-ended top side of the immersion case (See Figs 18c, 18k), the second baffle element extending longitudinally parallel to the first baffle element (See Figs 18c, 18k).
With respect to claim 18, Lau further teaches that the at least one of the first and second baffles has a curved shape (See Fig A above, the “first and second convex surfaces” provide a curved shape).
With respect to claim 19, Lau further teaches that wherein a lateral section of at least one of the first and second baffles has a circular arc shape (See Fig B below).
PNG
media_image2.png
480
671
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau.
With respect to claim 13, Lau teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above and further teaches that the at least one baffle element is indirectly mechanically connected to the electronic device (310, 350a, 350b are indirectly mechanically attached to 125 via the case and other structural elements) but fails to specifically teach or suggest that the electronic device has a board and thus that the at least one baffle element is mechanically attached to a board of the device.
The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of the conventionality of an electronic device having a circuit board.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the electronic device (125) of Lau have a circuit board, since doing so would allow for the device to accommodate several electronic components and act as a server.
Note that when the electronic device of Lau is modified to include a board, that then the at least one baffle element would be indirectly mechanically attached to a board of the electronic device, as claimed.
Claims 5-6, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau in view of Chang et al. (US 2020/0236802 – hereinafter, “Chang”).
With respect to claims 5-6, Lau teaches the limitations of claim 4 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein the first and second baffle elements are staggered with respect to each other in a direction orthogonal to the first edge and the second edge, wherein the first baffle element at least partially overhangs the second baffle element.
Chang, however, teaches (In Fig 2) a case (10) wherein first (22) and second (22) baffle elements are staggered with respect to each other in a direction orthogonal to a first edge (211) and a second edge (211) of the case, wherein the first baffle element at least partially overhangs the second baffle element (See Fig C below).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chang with that of Lau such that, in Lau the first and second baffle elements are staggered with respect to each other in a direction orthogonal to the first edge and the second edge, wherein the first baffle element at least partially overhangs the second baffle element, as taught by Chang, since doing so would better prevent liquid from escaping the immersion case (Since the first and second baffle elements now overlap, it is less likely that liquid will escape from the case).
PNG
media_image3.png
550
650
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 17, Lau teaches the limitations of claim 16 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein the first and second baffle elements overlap each other.
Chang, however, teaches a case (10) wherein first (22) and second (22) baffle elements overlap each other (See Fig C above).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chang with that of Lau, such that, in Lau the first and second baffle elements overlap each other, as taught by Chang, since doing so would better prevent liquid from escaping the immersion case (Since the first and second baffle elements now overlap, it is less likely that liquid will escape from the case).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2025/0063686 to Wang et al. which teaches an immersion type cooling device with a baffle (106);
US 2022/0361366 to Hsieh et al. which teaches a tank providing cooling by immersion with sealing baffles (30); and
WO 2021/212425 to Lan et al. which teaches a server tank and liquid immersion cooling system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY M PAPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2201. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am - 6pm EST.
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.
/ZACHARY PAPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835