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 .
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
The electronic board includes openings to accommodate mechanical attachment of the at least one baffle element 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
The objections to claims 15-19 are withdrawn in view of the amendments thereto.
Claims 3-7 are objected to.
Claim 3 depends from itself.
It appears claims 3 should be changed to depend from claim 1 and for the purposes of examination claim 3 will be considered as such.
Claims 4-7 depend from claim 3 and inherit the deficiency therein.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 15-16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau et al. (US 11,608,217 – hereinafter, “Lau”) in view of Moon (US 2022/0248564).
With respect to claim 1, Lau teaches (In Figs 18a-p) a baffling assembly for minimizing overflow movement of a heat-transfer liquid (135) in an immersion case (300), the immersion case 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 (310) disposed proximate to an open-ended top side portion (Top side of 300 which includes 110s1, see Fig 18H) of the rack-mounted immersion case and configured to extend laterally across the top portion of the immersion case to minimize heat-transfer liquid overflow (See Fig 18H, 310 extends laterally across the top open portion of 300).
Lau fails to specifically teach or suggest that the immersion case is rack mounted and that the electronic device is an electronic board containing at least one electronic device.
Moon, however, teaches an immersion case (100) which is rack (200) mounted (See Fig 2), wherein the immersion case contains an electronic board containing at least one electronic device (¶ 0018, “For example, one subvolume may contain a printed circuit board (PCB) holding a power supply for an information handling system”).
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 Moon with that of Lau such that the immersion case of Lau is rack mounted, as taught by Moon, since doing so would allow for the immersion case to be mechanically protected by a rack. Further, a rack provides for the ability to have multiple immersion cases stacked one atop the other.
Note that when the immersion case of Lau is rack mounted that then the baffling assembly of Lau will be configured to minimize overflow of the liquid during racking and de-racking, as functionally claimed.
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 15, Lau as modified by Moon teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above and Moon further teaches a rack-mounted immersion case assembly (100) for housing an electronic board (10a) containing an electronic device (¶ 0018, “For example, one subvolume may contain a printed circuit board (PCB) holding a power supply for an information handling system”), the immersion case assembly comprising: a rack-mounted immersion case (100) configured to contain a heat-transfer liquid (30) in which the electronic device is at least partially submerged (See Fig 1B).
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 Moon with that of Lau such that Lau further includes a rack-mounted immersion case assembly for housing an electronic board containing an electronic device, the immersion case assembly comprising: a rack-mounted immersion case configured to contain a heat-transfer liquid in which the electronic device is at least partially submerged, as taught by Moon, since doing so would allow for the baffling assembly of Lau to be provided in a rack which would allow for the immersion case to be mechanically protected by the rack. Further, a rack provides for the ability to have multiple immersion cases stacked one atop the other.
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 along the lateral edge of the open-ended top side of the immersion case (See Figs 18c, 18k), the second baffle element extending 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
Claims 5-6, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau in view of Moon and further in view of Chang et al. (US 2020/0236802 – hereinafter, “Chang”).
With respect to claims 5-6, Lau as modified by Moon 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 is configured to at least partially overhang 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 as modified by Moon 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).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau in view of Moon and further in view of Ellis et al. (US 5,992,011 – hereinafter, “Ellis”).
With respect to claim 13, Lau as modified by Moon teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest that the electronic board includes openings to accommodate mechanical attachment of the at least one baffle element.
Ellis, however, teaches an electronic board (24) which includes openings (27) to accommodate mechanical attachment of at least one baffle element (23, see Fig 14).
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 Ellis with that of Lau such that, in Lau the electronic board includes openings to accommodate mechanical attachment of the at least one baffle element, as taught by Ellis, since doing so would allow for the baffles to also or alternately attach to the electronic board of Lau. When the baffles of Lau are attached to an additional structure, it reduces the chances that the baffles will become completely detached from the immersion case.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s remarks to the drawing objection that “By this Response, claim 13 has been amended to recite that the "electronic board includes openings to accommodate mechanical attachment of the at least one baffle element," which is supported by the disclosed embodiments. (See, as-filed App: [0055]). As such, the amendments to claim 13 render this Drawing objection moot.” (Present remarks page 5) the Examiner respectfully notes that the amended language of claim 13 is not shown in the figures and that the drawing objection thereto is maintained.
With respect to the Applicant’s remarks to the drawing objection that “Moreover, the as-filed disclosures indicate that the detachable "frame" or electronic "board" 218 is configured to be inserted and removed from the immersion case 216. (See, as-filed App: [0049]). Clearly, reference numeral 218 of FIG. 2 identifies the side handles of the electronic board 218 to facilitate insertion/removal thereof from the immersion case 216 and is completely separate from the immersion case 216 itself.” (Present remarks page 5) the Examiner respectfully notes that this does not address the noted issue of Fig 3A not having the callout line for element 218 end at the board. Applicant should amend Fig 3A such that the callout line for element 218 ends at the board instead of at the immersion case as is presently the case.
With respect to the Applicant’s remarks to the previous rejection to claim 1 in view of Lau (Present remarks pages 6-8) the Examiner agrees that Lau alone does not teach or suggest all the limitations of amended claim 1 and the previous 102(a) rejection thereto has been withdrawn. However, a new grounds rejection to claim 1 in view of Lau and Moon is provided above where Moon is believed to remedy any deficiencies of Lau. Indeed, Moon is believed to disclose a rack mounted immersion case in which an electronic board containing at least one electronic device is at least partially immersed in the immersion case.
Accordingly, claim 1 is believed to be prima facie obvious in view of Lau and Moon.
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 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 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 2841
Prosecution Insights