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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a communication device receives data” (claim 8, lines 1-6) as disclosed on page 11, lines 8-20 of the specification.
“a communication device receives data” (claim 15, lines 1-3) as disclosed on page 11, lines 8-20 of the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas and laws of nature without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites: “a processor configured to determine whether a change in the temperature near the target to be cooled that is measured through the second temperature sensor is normal based on data of the target to be cooled, and in a case where the change is normal, control an operation of the pump based on the temperature of the target to be cooled and the temperature of the coolant” (lines 8-12).
This limitation falls under mental processes of abstract ideas in that determining, measuring, and controlling, are capable of being performed in the human mind or are capable of being performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04).
The above identified judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole is generally vague and nebulous. Namely, the recitation is directed to an abstract idea with an additional generic “processor”. The processor is recited at a high level of generality without limiting how the processor functions, and amounts to no more than a mere instrument to implement the abstract idea of “determining whether a change in the temperature near the target to be cooled that is measured through the second temperature sensor is normal” and “controlling an operation of the pump based on the temperature of the target to be cooled and the temperature of the coolant”. It is noted that the claim does not identify how the processor determines whether a change in the temperature is normal or how the operation of the pump is controlled by the processor.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. While the claim recites “a first temperature sensor” (line5) and “a second temperature sensor” (line 6), none of these elements appear to provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites: “the processor determines whether the change in the temperature is normal in a case where the temperature of the target to be cooled is a reference temperature or higher and outputs a warning in a case where the change in the temperature is determined as abnormal as a result of determining whether the change in the temperature is normal” (lines 1-5).
This limitation falls under mental processes of abstract ideas in that determining and outputting are capable of being performed in the human mind or are capable of being performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04).
The above identified judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole is generally vague and nebulous. Namely, the recitation is directed to an abstract idea with an additional generic “processor”. The processor is recited at a high level of generality without limiting how the processor functions, and amounts to no more than a mere instrument to implement the abstract idea of “whether the change in the temperature is normal in a case where the temperature of the target to be cooled is a reference temperature or higher” and “outputting a warning in a case where the change in the temperature is determined as abnormal as a result of determining whether the change in the temperature is normal”. It is noted that the claim does not identify how the processor determines whether a change in the temperature is normal, how the processor determines whether a change in the temperature is abnormal, or how the processor outputs a warning.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites: “based on a temperature of a heat generating component disposed at the target to be cooled, the processor determines that a change in the temperature of the heat generating component is normal in at least any one of a case where a use amount of the heat generating component is a predetermined value or more and a case where the use amount of the heat generating component increases” (lines 1-6).
This limitation falls under mental processes of abstract ideas in that determining is capable of being performed in the human mind or are capable of being performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04).
The above identified judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole is generally vague and nebulous. Namely, the recitation is directed to an abstract idea with an additional generic “processor”. The processor is recited at a high level of generality without limiting how the processor functions, and amounts to no more than a mere instrument to implement the abstract idea of “based on a temperature of a heat generating component disposed at the target to be cooled, the processor determines that a change in the temperature of the heat generating component is normal in at least any one of a case where a use amount of the heat generating component is a predetermined value or more and a case where the use amount of the heat generating component increases”. It is noted that the claim does not identify how the processor determines whether a change in the temperature is normal or how the processor determines a use amount of the heat generating component under the claimed conditions.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites: “the processor determines that the change in the temperature of the heat generating component is abnormal in at least any one of a case where the use amount of the heat generating component is less than the predetermined value and a case where the use amount of the heat generating component has decreased for a predetermined amount of time or more” (lines 1-5).
This limitation falls under mental processes of abstract ideas in that determining is capable of being performed in the human mind or are capable of being performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04).
The above identified judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole is generally vague and nebulous. Namely, the recitation is directed to an abstract idea with an additional generic “processor”. The processor is recited at a high level of generality without limiting how the processor functions, and amounts to no more than a mere instrument to implement the abstract idea of “determining that the change in the temperature of the heat generating component is abnormal in at least any one of a case where the use amount of the heat generating component is less than the predetermined value and a case where the use amount of the heat generating component has decreased for a predetermined amount of time or more”. It is noted that the claim does not identify how the processor determines whether a change in the temperature is abnormal under the claimed conditions or how the processor determines a use amount of the heat generating component under the claimed conditions.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites: “the processor analyzes temperature changes relating to the temperature of the target to be cooled and the temperature of the coolant and controls the pump to operate in a case where a degree of a temperature increase is a predetermined value or more and additional cooling is necessary and controls the pump to not operate in at least any one of a case where the degree of the temperature increase is less than the predetermined value and a case where a temperature change is temporary” (lines 1-7).
This limitation falls under mental processes of abstract ideas in that analyzing and controlling are capable of being performed in the human mind or are capable of being performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04).
The above identified judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole is generally vague and nebulous. Namely, the recitation is directed to an abstract idea with an additional generic “processor”. The processor is recited at a high level of generality without limiting how the processor functions, and amounts to no more than a mere instrument to implement the abstract idea of “analyzes temperature changes relating to the temperature of the target to be cooled and the temperature of the coolant” and “controls the pump to operate in a case where a degree of a temperature increase is a predetermined value or more and additional cooling is necessary and controls the pump to not operate in at least any one of a case where the degree of the temperature increase is less than the predetermined value and a case where a temperature change is temporary”. It is noted that the claim does not identify how the processor analyzes temperature changes, how the processor controls the pump to operate under the claimed conditions, or how the controller controls the pump to not operate under the claimed conditions.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites: “in a case where the target to be cooled is provided as a plurality of targets to be cooled, the processor controls the pump to not operate in a case where temperatures of some of the plurality of targets to be cooled increase and a change in the temperature of the coolant is less than a predetermined variation value” (lines 1-5).
This limitation falls under mental processes of abstract ideas in that controlling is capable of being performed in the human mind or are capable of being performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04).
The above identified judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole is generally vague and nebulous. Namely, the recitation is directed to an abstract idea with an additional generic “processor”. The processor is recited at a high level of generality without limiting how the processor functions, and amounts to no more than a mere instrument to implement the abstract idea of “controls the pump to not operate in a case where temperatures of some of the plurality of targets to be cooled increase and a change in the temperature of the coolant is less than a predetermined variation value”. It is noted that the claim does not identify how the processor controls the pump to not operate under the claimed conditions.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites: “the processor creates a table relating to a speed of the pump corresponding to the temperature of the target to be cooled, controls the speed of the pump based on the table to control a flow of the coolant, and controls the pump to stop operating once the temperature of the coolant reaches a set temperature” (lines 1-5).
This limitation falls under mental processes of abstract ideas in that creating and controlling are capable of being performed in the human mind or are capable of being performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04).
The above identified judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole is generally vague and nebulous. Namely, the recitation is directed to an abstract idea with an additional generic “processor”. The processor is recited at a high level of generality without limiting how the processor functions, and amounts to no more than a mere instrument to implement the abstract idea of “creates a table relating to a speed of the pump corresponding to the temperature of the target to be cooled”, “controls the speed of the pump based on the table to control a flow of the coolant”, and “controls the pump to stop operating once the temperature of the coolant reaches a set temperature”. It is noted that the claim does not identify how the processor creates a table or how the processor or controls the speed of the pump under the claimed conditions.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites: “the communication device receives data relating to a temperature, power, and a water level through a plurality of sensors installed in the tank, receives, from the target to be cooled, data relating to a use amount of a central processing unit (CPU), a use amount of a memory, and a temperature, and applies the received data to the processor” (lines 2-6).
This limitation falls under mental processes of abstract ideas in that receiving and applying are capable of being performed in the human mind or are capable of being performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04).
The above identified judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole is generally vague and nebulous. Namely, the recitation is directed to an abstract idea with an additional generic “processor”. The processor is recited at a high level of generality without limiting how the processor functions, and amounts to no more than a mere instrument to implement the abstract idea of “receives data relating to a temperature, power, and a water level through a plurality of sensors installed in the tank”, “receives, from the target to be cooled, data relating to a use amount of a central processing unit (CPU), a use amount of a memory, and a temperature”, and “applies the received data to the processor”. It is noted that the claim does not identify how the communication device receives data or how the received data is applied by the processor.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites: “an operation in which a processor determines whether a change in the temperature of the target to be cooled is normal based on data received from the target to be cooled; and an operation in which, in a case where the change in the temperature of the target to be cooled is normal, the processor controls an operation of a pump based on the temperature of the target to be cooled and the temperature of the coolant” (lines 7-12).
This limitation falls under mental processes of abstract ideas in that determining, measuring, and controlling, are capable of being performed in the human mind or are capable of being performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04).
The above identified judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole is generally vague and nebulous. Namely, the recitation is directed to an abstract idea with an additional generic “processor”. The processor is recited at a high level of generality without limiting how the processor functions, and amounts to no more than a mere instrument to implement the abstract idea of “determining whether a change in the temperature near the target to be cooled that is measured through the second temperature sensor is normal” and “controlling an operation of the pump based on the temperature of the target to be cooled and the temperature of the coolant”. It is noted that the claim does not identify how the processor determines whether a change in the temperature is normal or how the operation of the pump is controlled by the processor.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. While the claim recites “a first temperature sensor” (line5) and “a second temperature sensor” (line 6), none of these elements appear to provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites: “the in the operation in which the processor determines whether the change in the temperature of the target to be cooled is normal, the processor determines whether the change in the temperature of the target to be cooled is normal in a case where the temperature of the target to be cooled is a reference temperature or higher” (lines 1-5).
This limitation falls under mental processes of abstract ideas in that determining is capable of being performed in the human mind or are capable of being performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04).
The above identified judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole is generally vague and nebulous. Namely, the recitation is directed to an abstract idea with an additional generic “processor”. The processor is recited at a high level of generality without limiting how the processor functions, and amounts to no more than a mere instrument to implement the abstract idea of “determining whether the change in the temperature of the target to be cooled is normal in a case where the temperature of the target to be cooled is a reference temperature or higher”. It is noted that the claim does not identify how the processor determines whether a change in the temperature is normal under the claimed conditions.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites: “an operation in which, based on a temperature of a heat generating component disposed at the target to be cooled, the processor determines that a change in the temperature of the heat generating component is normal in at least any one of a case where a use amount of the heat generating component is a predetermined value or more and a case where the use amount of the heat generating component increases; and an operation in which the processor determines that the change in the temperature of the heat generating component is abnormal in at least any one of a case where the use amount of the heat generating component is less than the predetermined value and a case where the use amount of the heat generating component has decreased for a predetermined amount of time or more” (lines 4-13).
This limitation falls under mental processes of abstract ideas in that determining is capable of being performed in the human mind or are capable of being performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04).
The above identified judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole is generally vague and nebulous. Namely, the recitation is directed to an abstract idea with an additional generic “processor”. The processor is recited at a high level of generality without limiting how the processor functions, and amounts to no more than a mere instrument to implement the abstract idea of “determining that a change in the temperature of the heat generating component is normal” or “determining that a change in the temperature of the heat generating component is abnormal”. It is noted that the claim does not identify how the processor determines whether a change in the temperature is normal under the claimed conditions or how the processor determines whether a change in the temperature is abnormal under the claimed conditions.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites: “an operation in which the processor analyzes temperature changes relating to the temperature of the target to be cooled and the temperature of the coolant; an operation in which the processor controls the pump to operate in a case where a degree of a temperature increase is a predetermined value or more and additional cooling is necessary; and an operation in which the processor controls the pump to not operate in at least any one of a case where the degree of the temperature increase is less than the predetermined value and a case where a temperature change is temporary” (lines 3-10).
This limitation falls under mental processes of abstract ideas in that analyzing and controlling are capable of being performed in the human mind or are capable of being performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04).
The above identified judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole is generally vague and nebulous. Namely, the recitation is directed to an abstract idea with an additional generic “processor”. The processor is recited at a high level of generality without limiting how the processor functions, and amounts to no more than a mere instrument to implement the abstract idea of “analyzes temperature changes”, “controlling the pump to operate”, or “controlling the pump to not operate”. It is noted that the claim does not identify how the processor determines whether a change in the temperature is abnormal under the claimed conditions or how the processor analyzes temperature changes, how the processor controlling the pump to operate under the claimed conditions, or how the processor controlling the pump to not operate under the claimed conditions.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites: “an operation in which, in a case where the target to be cooled is provided as a plurality of targets to be cooled, the processor controls the pump to not operate in a case where temperatures of some of the plurality of targets to be cooled increase and a change in the temperature of the coolant is less than a predetermined variation value” (lines 3-8).
This limitation falls under mental processes of abstract ideas in that controlling is capable of being performed in the human mind or are capable of being performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04).
The above identified judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole is generally vague and nebulous. Namely, the recitation is directed to an abstract idea with an additional generic “processor”. The processor is recited at a high level of generality without limiting how the processor functions, and amounts to no more than a mere instrument to implement the abstract idea of “controlling the pump to not operate”. It is noted that the claim does not identify how the processor controls the pump to not operate under the claimed conditions.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites: “an operation in which the processor creates a table relating to a speed of the pump corresponding to the temperature of the target to be cooled; an operation in which the processor controls the speed of the pump based on the table to control a flow of the coolant; and an operation in which the processor controls the pump to stop operating once the temperature of the coolant reaches a set temperature” (lines 3-8).
This limitation falls under mental processes of abstract ideas in that controlling is capable of being performed in the human mind or are capable of being performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04).
The above identified judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole is generally vague and nebulous. Namely, the recitation is directed to an abstract idea with an additional generic “processor”. The processor is recited at a high level of generality without limiting how the processor functions, and amounts to no more than a mere instrument to implement the abstract idea of “creating a table”, “controlling a speed of a pump”, or “controlling a pump to stop”. It is noted that the claim does not identify how the processor creates a table or how the processor or controls the speed of the pump under the claimed conditions.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites: “an operation in which a communication device receives data of the target to be cooled installed inside the tank from the target to be cooled; and an operation in which the communication device receives data relating to the coolant accommodated in the tank, where the communication device receives data relating to a temperature, power, and a water level through a plurality of sensors installed in the tank and receives, from the target to be cooled, data relating to a use amount of a central processing unit (CPU), a use amount of a memory, and a temperature” (lines 2-9).
This limitation falls under mental processes of abstract ideas in that receiving is capable of being performed in the human mind or are capable of being performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04).
The above identified judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole is generally vague and nebulous. Namely, the recitation is directed to an abstract idea with an additional generic “processor”. The processor is recited at a high level of generality without limiting how the processor functions, and amounts to no more than a mere instrument to implement the abstract idea of “receiving data”. It is noted that the claim does not identify how the communication device receives data or how the received data is utilized.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 1-15 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 claim 1, the recitation “in which a coolant and a target to be cooled are accommodated” (lines 3-4) renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which previously recited claim element the coolant and target are located. For examination purposes it is assumed that the coolant and target are accommodated in the tank.
Further regarding claim 1, the term “normal” (lines 10 and 11) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “normal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the instant case, the claims do not define or set forth boundaries as to what constitutes a normal change in temperature of the target to be cooled.
Further regarding claim 1, the recitation “a processor configured to determine whether a change in the temperature near the target to be cooled that is measured through the second temperature sensor is normal based on data of the target to be cooled, and in a case where the change is normal, control an operation of the pump based on the temperature of the target to be cooled and the temperature of the coolant” (lines 8-12) renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the processor is configured to control the pump when a change temperature is normal.
Regarding claim 2, the terms “normal” (line 2) and “abnormal” (line 4) are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “normal” and “abnormal” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the instant case, the claims do not define or set forth boundaries as to what constitutes normal and/or abnormal change in temperature of the target to be cooled.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation “the processor determines whether the change in the temperature is normal in a case where the temperature of the target to be cooled is a reference temperature or higher and outputs a warning in a case where the change in the temperature is determined as abnormal as a result of determining whether the change in the temperature is normal” (lines 1-5) renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the processor is configured to determine whether a change temperature is abnormal based on determining whether a change temperature is normal.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation “based on a temperature of a heat generating component disposed at the target to be cooled” (lines 1-2) renders the claim indefinite. Since the claims previously set forth “a second temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of the target to be cooled” (claim 1, lines 6-7) it is unclear if the “target to be cooled” and the “heat generating component” are the same or different.
Further regarding claim 3, the term “normal” (line 3) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “normal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the instant case, the claims do not define or set forth boundaries as to what constitutes a normal change in temperature of the target to be cooled.
Further regarding claim 3, the term “increases” (line 6) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “increases” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the instant case, the claims do not define or set forth boundaries as to what constitutes increases in a use amount of the heat generating component.
Further regarding claim 3, the recitation “the processor determines that a change in the temperature of the heat generating component is normal in at least any one of a case where a use amount of the heat generating component is a predetermined value or more and a case where the use amount of the heat generating component increases” (lines 1-5) renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the processor is configured to determine whether a change temperature is normal based on a use amount.
Regarding claim 4, the term “abnormal” (line 2) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “abnormal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the instant case, the claims do not define or set forth boundaries as to what constitutes an abnormal change in temperature of the target to be cooled.
Further regarding claim 4, the term “decreased” (line 5) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “decreased” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the instant case, the claims do not define or set forth boundaries as to what constitutes a decrease in a use amount of the heat generating component.
Further regarding claim 4, the recitation “the processor determines that the change in the temperature of the heat generating component is abnormal in at least any one of a case where the use amount of the heat generating component is less than the predetermined value and a case where the use amount of the heat generating component has decreased for a predetermined amount of time or more” (lines 1-5) renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the processor is configured to determine whether a change temperature is abnormal based on a use amount.
Regarding claim 5, the terms “necessary” (line 4), “temporary” (line 7), and “increase” (line 4, 6) are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “necessary”, “temporary”, and “increase” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the instant case, the claims do not define or set forth boundaries as to what constitutes necessary cooling and/or temporary change in temperature.
Further regarding claim 5, the recitation “the processor analyzes temperature changes relating to the temperature of the target to be cooled and the temperature of the coolant and controls the pump to operate in a case where a degree of a temperature increase is a predetermined value or more and additional cooling is necessary and controls the pump to not operate in at least any one of a case where the degree of the temperature increase is less than the predetermined value and a case where a temperature change is temporary” (emphasis added) (lines 1-7) renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the processor is configured to control the pump to operate or not operate based on temperature. It is also unclear which temperature the control is based on.
Regarding claim 6, the term “increase” (line 4) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “increase” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the instant case, the claims do not define or set forth boundaries as to what constitutes an increase in temperature.
Regarding claim 8, the recitation “a plurality of sensors installed in the tank” (line 3) renders the claim indefinite. Since the claims previously set forth “a first temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of the coolant; a second temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of the target to be cooled” (claim 1, lines 5-7), it is unclear if the “plurality of sensors” include the “first” and “second” temperature sensors or separate and distinct temperature sensors.
Further regarding claim 8, the recitation “the communication device receives data relating to a temperature, power, and a water level through a plurality of sensors installed in the tank” (emphasis added) (lines 2-3) renders the claim indefinite. Since the claim previously set forth “a coolant” (claim 1, line 3) it is unclear it the coolant is water. It is also unclear if the temperature refers to the first temperature sensor, second temperature sensor, or some other temperature.
Further regarding claim 8, the recitation “the communication device receives -from the target to be cooled-data relating to a use amount of a central processing unit (CPU), a use amount of a memory, and a temperature” (emphasis added) (lines 4-5) renders the claim indefinite. Since the claim previously set forth “a target to be cooled” (claim 1, line 3) it is unclear it the CPU and memory refer to the target to be cooled, or separate and distinct elements. It is also unclear if the “temperature” (claim 8, line 5) refers to the “temperature” (claim 8, line 2), the “first temperature sensor” (claim 1, line 5), the “second temperature sensor” (claim 1, line 6), or some other temperature.
Further regarding claim 8, the recitation “receives, from the target to be cooled- data relating to a use amount of a central processing unit (CPU), a use amount of a memory, and a temperature, and applies the received data to the processor” (lines 3-6) renders the claim indefinite as the claim previously set forth “where the communication device receives data relating to a temperature, power, and a water level through a plurality of sensors installed in the tank” (lines 2-3). It is unclear if “use amount” (lines 4 and 5) relates to “power” (line 3). It is also unclear how the processor is configured to apply the data received by the communication device.
Regarding claim 9, the term “normal” (lines 8 and 11) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “normal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the instant case, the claims do not define or set forth boundaries as to what constitutes a normal change in temperature of the target to be cooled.
Further regarding claim 9, the recitation “an operation in which a processor determines whether a change in the temperature of the target to be cooled is normal based on data received from the target to be cooled, and an operation in which, in a case where the change in the temperature of the target to be cooled is normal, the processor controls an operation of a pump based on the temperature of the target to be cooled and the temperature of the coolant” (lines 7-12) renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the processor is configured to control the pump when a change temperature is normal.
Regarding claim 10, the term “normal” (lines 2 and 4) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “normal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the instant case, the claims do not define or set forth boundaries as to what constitutes a normal change in temperature of the target to be cooled.
Further regarding claim 10, the recitation “in the operation in which the processor determines whether the change in the temperature of the target to be cooled is normal, the processor determines whether the change in the temperature of the target to be cooled is normal in a case where the temperature of the target to be cooled is a reference temperature or higher” (lines 1-5) renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the processor is configured to determine when a change temperature is normal.
Regarding claim 11, the terms “normal” (line 2) and “abnormal” (line 4) are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “normal” and “abnormal” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the instant case, the claims do not define or set forth boundaries as to what constitutes normal and/or abnormal change in temperature of the target to be cooled.
Further regarding claim 11, the recitation “based on a temperature of a heat generating component disposed at the target to be cooled” (lines 1-2) renders the claim indefinite. Since the claims previously set forth “a second temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of the target to be cooled” (claim 9, lines 5-6) it is unclear if the “target to be cooled” and the “heat generating component” are the same or different.
Further regarding claim 11, the terms “increases” (line 8) and “decreased” (line 12) are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “increases” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the instant case, the claims do not define or set forth boundaries as to what constitutes increases or decreases in a use amount of the heat generating component.
Further regarding claim 11, the recitation “the processor determines that a change in the temperature of the heat generating component is normal in at least any one of a case where a use amount of the heat generating component is a predetermined value or more and a case where the use amount of the heat generating component increases” (lines 4-8). It is unclear how the processor is configured to determine whether a change temperature is normal based on use amount.
Further regarding claim 11, the recitation “the processor determines that the change in the temperature of the heat generating component is abnormal in at least any one of a case where the use amount of the heat generating component is less than the predetermined value and a case where the use amount of the heat generating component has decreased for a predetermined amount of time or more” (lines 9-13). It is unclear how the processor is configured to determine whether a change temperature is abnormal based on use amount.
Regarding claim 12, the terms “necessary” (line 7), “temporary” (line 10), and “increase” (line 6, 9) are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “necessary”, “temporary”, and “increase” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the instant case, the claims do not define or set forth boundaries as to what constitutes necessary cooling and/or temporary change in temperature.
Further regarding claim 12, the recitation “the processor analyzes temperature changes relating to the temperature of the target to be cooled and the temperature of the coolant; an operation in which the processor controls the pump to operate in a case where a degree of a temperature increase is a predetermined value or more and additional cooling is necessary; and an operation in which the processor controls the pump to not operate in at least any one of a case where the degree of the temperature increase is less than the predetermined value and a case where a temperature change is temporary” (emphasis added) (lines 3-10). It is unclear how the processor is configured to control the pump to operate or not operate based on temperature. It is also unclear which temperature the control is based on.
Regarding claim 13, the term “increase” (line 5) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “increase” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the instant case, the claims do not define or set forth boundaries as to what constitutes an increase in temperature.
Regarding claim 15, the recitation “a plurality of sensors installed in the tank” (line 7) renders the claim indefinite. Since the claims previously set forth “a first temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of the coolant; a second temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of the target to be cooled” (claim 9, lines 3-6), it is unclear if the “plurality of sensors” include the “first” and “second” temperature sensors or separate and distinct temperature sensors.
Further regarding claim 15, the recitation “the communication device receives data relating to a temperature, power, and a water level through a plurality of sensors installed in the tank” (emphasis added) (lines 6-9) renders the claim indefinite. Since the claim previously set forth “a coolant” (claim 9, line 4) it is unclear it the coolant is water. It is also unclear if the temperature refers to the first temperature sensor, second temperature sensor, or some other temperature.
Further regarding claim 15, the recitation “the communication device receives -from the target to be cooled- data relating to a use amount of a central processing unit (CPU), a use amount of a memory, and a temperature” (emphasis added) (lines 6-9) renders the claim indefinite. Since the claim previously set forth “a target to be cooled” (claim 9, line 6) it is unclear it the CPU and memory refer to the target to be cooled, or separate and distinct elements. It is also unclear if the “temperature” (claim 15, line 9) refers to the “temperature” (claim 15, line 6), the “first temperature sensor” (claim 9, lines 3-4), the “second temperature sensor” (claim 9, lines 5-6), or some other temperature.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
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 1, 9, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2024/0130086), and further in view of Kenny et al. (US 2007/0034356).
Regarding claim 1, Li et al discloses an immersion cooling type apparatus for controlling a flow, the apparatus comprising:
A pump (32) connected to a tank (12) in which a coolant (20) and a target to be cooled (14) are accommodated (Figure 1 and Paragraph 45) and configured to circulate the coolant (Paragraph 46),
A first temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of the coolant (Paragraph 57: At least one temperature sensor is located in the tank).
A second temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature near the target to be cooled (Paragraph 57: At least one temperature sensor is located near the target to be cooled),
A processor (80) configured to determine whether a change in the temperature near the target to be cooled that is measured through the second temperature sensor is normal based on data of the target to be cooled (Paragraphs 58 and 60: The controller is configured to compare measured temperatures to temperature thresholds), and -in a case where the change is normal- control an operation of the pump based on the temperature of the target to be cooled and the temperature of the coolant (Paragraphs 58 and 60: The controller is configured to control the pump to maintain temperature thresholds).
However, Li et al. does not explicitly teach or disclose that the second temperature sensor is configured to measure a temperature of the target to be cooled.
Kenny et al. teaches a system comprising at least: a target to be cooled (99') and at least one temperature sensor (e.g. 124) configured to measure a temperature of the electronic device (Paragraph 170). As a result, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to configure the second temperature sensor as disclosed by Li et al. to measure a temperature of the target to be cooled as taught by Kenny et al. to improve system safety and reliability by ensuring that a temperature of a target to be cooled is within desired parameters and adjust flow rates accordingly by directly measuring target to be cooled temperature (Paragraph 170 of Kenny et al.).
Regarding claim 9, Li et al discloses an immersion cooling type method for controlling a flow, the method comprising:
an operation in which a first temperature sensor installed in a tank measures a temperature of a coolant accommodated in the tank (Paragraph 57: At least one temperature sensor is located in the tank),
an operation in which a second temperature sensor measures a temperature near a target to be cooled disposed inside the tank (Paragraph 57: At least one temperature sensor is located near the target to be cooled),
an operation in which a processor (80) determines whether a change in the temperature of the target to be cooled is normal based on data received from the target to be cooled (Paragraphs 58 and 60: The controller is configured to compare measured temperatures to temperature thresholds), and
an operation in which, in a case where the change in the temperature of the target to be cooled is normal, the processor controls an operation of a pump based on the temperature of the target to be cooled and the temperature of the coolant (Paragraphs 58 and 60: The controller is configured to control the pump to maintain temperature thresholds).
However, Li et al. does not explicitly teach or disclose that the second temperature sensor is configured to measure a temperature of the target to be cooled.
Kenny et al. teaches a system comprising at least: a target to be cooled (99') and at least one temperature sensor (e.g. 124) configured to measure a temperature of the electronic device (Paragraph 170). As a result, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to configure the second temperature sensor as disclosed by Li et al. to measure a temperature of the target to be cooled as taught by Kenny et al. to improve system safety and reliability by ensuring that a temperature of a target to be cooled is within desired parameters and adjust flow rates accordingly by directly measuring target to be cooled temperature (Paragraph 170 of Kenny et al.).
Regarding claim 10, Li et al discloses an immersion cooling type method for controlling a flow as discussed above, where -in the operation in which the processor determines whether the change in the temperature of the target to be cooled is normal- the processor determines whether the change in the temperature of the target to be cooled is normal in a case where the temperature of the target to be cooled is a reference temperature or higher (Paragraphs 58 and 60: The controller is configured to control the pump to maintain temperature thresholds).
Regarding claim 11, Li et al discloses an immersion cooling type method for controlling a flow as discussed above, where the operation in which the processor determines whether the change in the temperature of the target to be cooled is normal includes:
An operation in which, based on a temperature of a heat generating component disposed at the target to be cooled, the processor determines that a change in the temperature of the heat generating component is normal in at least any one of a case where a use amount of the heat generating component is a predetermined value or more and a case where the use amount of the heat generating component increases (Paragraphs 56, 58, and 60: The controller is configured to control on the basis of temperature and power consumption), and
An operation in which the processor determines that the change in the temperature of the heat generating component is abnormal in at least any one of a case where the use amount of the heat generating component is less than the predetermined value and a case where the use amount of the heat generating component has decreased for a predetermined amount of time or more (Paragraphs 56, 58, and 60: The controller is configured to control on the basis of temperature and power consumption).
Claims 2, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2024/0130086) and Kenny et al. (US 2007/0034356), and further in view of Onodera (US 2021/0007237).
Regarding claim 2, Li et al discloses an immersion cooling type apparatus as discussed above, where the processor determines whether the change in the temperature is normal in a case where the temperature of the target to be cooled is a reference temperature or higher (Paragraphs 58 and 60: The controller is configured to compare measured temperatures to temperature thresholds). However, Li et al. does not explicitly teach or disclose that the processor outputs a warning.
Onodera teaches an immersion cooling type apparatus comprising at least: a target to be cooled (41) and at least one temperature sensor (4e1) configured to measure a temperature near the electronic device (Paragraph 30), where a controller (11) is configured to output a warning in a case where a change in the temperature is determined as abnormal as a result of determining whether the change in the temperature is normal (Paragraphs 30, 36, and 49). As a result, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to configure the processor as disclosed by Li et al. to output a warning when an abnormal change in temperature is detected as taught by Onodera to improve system safety and reliability by alerting an operator to correct an abnormality in the system.
Regarding claim 3, Li et al discloses an immersion cooling type apparatus as discussed above, where -based on a temperature of a heat generating component disposed at the target to be cooled- the processor determines that a change in the temperature of the heat generating component is normal in at least any one of a case where a use amount of the heat generating component is a predetermined value or more and a case where the use amount of the heat generating component increases (Paragraphs 56, 58, and 60: The controller is configured to control on the basis of temperature and power consumption).
Regarding claim 4, Li et al discloses an immersion cooling type apparatus as discussed above, where the processor determines that the change in the temperature of the heat generating component is abnormal in at least any one of a case where the use amount of the heat generating component is less than the predetermined value and a case where the use amount of the heat generating component has decreased for a predetermined amount of time or more (Paragraphs 56, 58, and 60: The controller is configured to control on the basis of temperature and power consumption).
Claims 5, 6, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2024/0130086) and Kenny et al. (US 2007/0034356), and further in view of Hashimoto (US 2020/0383237).
Regarding claim 5, Li et al discloses an immersion cooling type apparatus as discussed above, where the processor analyzes temperature changes relating to the temperature of the target to be cooled and the temperature of the coolant (Paragraphs 5, and 60: The controller is configured to control on the basis of coolant and device temperature) and controls the pump to operate in a case where a degree of a temperature increase is a predetermined value or more and additional cooling is necessary (Paragraphs 58 and 60: The controller is configured to control the pump to maintain temperature thresholds) and controls the pump in at least any one of a case where the degree of the temperature increase is less than the predetermined value (Paragraphs 58 and 60: The controller is configured to control the pump to maintain temperature thresholds) and a case where a temperature change is temporary (Paragraphs 58 and 60: The system is dynamic, thus all temperature changes are temporary). However, Li et al. does not explicitly teach or disclose that the processor controls the pump to not operate in at least any one of a case where the degree of the temperature increase is less than the predetermined value.
Hashimoto teaches an immersion cooling type apparatus comprising at least: a target to be cooled (8) and at least one temperature sensor (Paragraph 30), where a processor (38) controls a pump (34) to not operate in at least any one of a case where the degree of the temperature increase is less than the predetermined value (Paragraph 81). As a result, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to configure the processor as disclosed by Li et al. to stop or start pump operation based on temperature as taught by Hashimoto to improve system operating efficiency by reducing power requirements when not temperature control is not needed.
Regarding claim 6, Li et al discloses an immersion cooling type apparatus as discussed above, where the target to be cooled is provided as a plurality of targets to be cooled (Paragraph 45: There are a plurality of targets to be cooled 14). However, Li et al. does not explicitly teach or disclose that the processor controls the pump to not operate in a case where temperatures of some of the plurality of targets to be cooled increase and a change in the temperature of the coolant is less than a predetermined variation value.
Hashimoto teaches an immersion cooling type apparatus comprising at least: a plurality of targets to be cooled (8) and at least one temperature sensor (Paragraph 30), where a processor (38) controls a pump (34) to not operate in a case where temperatures of some of the plurality of targets to be cooled increase and a change in the temperature of the coolant is less than a predetermined variation value (Paragraph 81: The pump is configured to not operate when cooling of the plurality of targets to be cooled is not necessary). As a result, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to configure the processor as disclosed by Li et al. to stop or start pump operation based on temperature as taught by Hashimoto to improve system operating efficiency by reducing power requirements when not temperature control is not needed.
Regarding claim 12, Li et al discloses an immersion cooling type method for controlling a flow as discussed above, where the operation in which the processor controls the operation of the pump includes:
An operation in which the processor analyzes temperature changes relating to the temperature of the target to be cooled and the temperature of the coolant (Paragraphs 5, and 60: The controller is configured to control on the basis of coolant and device temperature),
An operation in which the processor controls the pump to operate in a case where a degree of a temperature increase is a predetermined value or more and additional cooling is necessary (Paragraphs 58 and 60: The controller is configured to control the pump to maintain temperature thresholds), and
An operation in which the processor controls the pump in at least any one of a case where the degree of the temperature increase is less than the predetermined value (Paragraphs 58 and 60: The controller is configured to control the pump to maintain temperature thresholds) and a case where a temperature change is temporary (Paragraphs 58 and 60: The system is dynamic, thus all temperature changes are temporary). However, Li et al. does not explicitly teach or disclose that the processor controls the pump to not operate in at least any one of a case where the degree of the temperature increase is less than the predetermined value.
Hashimoto teaches an immersion cooling type apparatus comprising at least: a target to be cooled (8) and at least one temperature sensor (Paragraph 30), where a processor (38) controls a pump (34) to not operate in at least any one of a case where the degree of the temperature increase is less than the predetermined value (Paragraph 81). As a result, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to configure the processor as disclosed by Li et al. to stop or start pump operation based on temperature as taught by Hashimoto to improve system operating efficiency by reducing power requirements when not temperature control is not needed.
Regarding claim 13, Li et al discloses an immersion cooling type method for controlling a flow as discussed above, where the operation in which the processor controls the operation of the pump includes:
An operation in which, in a case where the target to be cooled is provided as a plurality of targets to be cooled (Paragraph 45: There are a plurality of targets to be cooled 14). However, Li et al. does not explicitly teach or disclose that the processor controls the pump to not operate in a case where temperatures of some of the plurality of targets to be cooled increase and a change in the temperature of the coolant is less than a predetermined variation value.
Hashimoto teaches an immersion cooling type apparatus comprising at least: a plurality of targets to be cooled (8) and at least one temperature sensor (Paragraph 30), where a processor (38) controls a pump (34) to not operate in a case where temperatures of some of the plurality of targets to be cooled increase and a change in the temperature of the coolant is less than a predetermined variation value (Paragraph 81: The pump is configured to not operate when cooling of the plurality of targets to be cooled is not necessary). As a result, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to configure the processor as disclosed by Li et al. to stop or start pump operation based on temperature as taught by Hashimoto to improve system operating efficiency by reducing power requirements when not temperature control is not needed.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2024/0130086) and Kenny et al. (US 2007/0034356), and further in view of Shaw et al. (US 2022/0201902) and Hashimoto (US 2020/0383237).
Regarding claim 7, Li et al discloses an immersion cooling type apparatus as discussed above. While Li et al. discloses the processor as controlling a speed of a pump corresponding to the temperature of the target to be cooled (Paragraphs 58: The processor controls an amount of coolant moved by the pump based on temperature), Li et al. does not explicitly teach or disclose that the processor creates a table.
Shaw et al. teaches a cooling type apparatus comprising at least: a target to be cooled (101), at least one temperature sensor (Paragraph 33), a processor (118), and a pump (114), where the processor creates a table (i.e. stored data in memory) relating to a speed of the pump corresponding to the temperature of the target to be cooled, controls the speed of the pump based on the table to control a flow of the coolant (Paragraphs 34, 35, 36 and 39: The processor is configured to store and retrieve data pertaining to pump speed and coolant temperature in operating the pump to cool the target to be cooled). As a result, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to configure the processor as disclosed by Li et al. to create a table as taught by Shaw et al. to improve system operating efficiency and operation of the system by accumulating a database of historical system operating parameters that are capable of being accessed by the processor or a user to tailor a customized temperature control system (Paragraph 39 of Shaw et al.).
Further, Li et al. does not explicitly teach or disclose that the processor controls the pump to stop operating once the temperature of the coolant reaches a set temperature.
Hashimoto teaches an immersion cooling type apparatus comprising at least: a target to be cooled (8) and at least one temperature sensor (Paragraph 30), where a processor (38) controls a pump (34) to stop operating once the temperature of the coolant reaches a set temperature (Paragraph 81). As a result, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to configure the processor as disclosed by Li et al. to stop or start pump operation based on temperature as taught by Hashimoto to improve system operating efficiency by reducing power requirements when not temperature control is not needed.
Regarding claim 14, Li et al discloses an immersion cooling type method for controlling a flow as discussed above. While Li et al. discloses the processor as controlling a speed of a pump corresponding to the temperature of the target to be cooled (Paragraphs 58: The processor controls an amount of coolant moved by the pump based on temperature), Li et al. does not explicitly teach or disclose that the processor creates a table.
Shaw et al. teaches a cooling type apparatus comprising at least: a target to be cooled (101), at least one temperature sensor (Paragraph 33), a processor (118), and a pump (114), where the processor creates a table (i.e. stored data in memory) relating to a speed of the pump corresponding to the temperature of the target to be cooled, controls the speed of the pump based on the table to control a flow of the coolant (Paragraphs 34, 35, 36 and 39: The processor is configured to store and retrieve data pertaining to pump speed and coolant temperature in operating the pump to cool the target to be cooled). As a result, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to configure the processor as disclosed by Li et al. to create a table as taught by Shaw et al. to improve system operating efficiency and operation of the system by accumulating a database of historical system operating parameters that are capable of being accessed by the processor or a user to tailor a customized temperature control system (Paragraph 39 of Shaw et al.).
Further, Li et al. does not explicitly teach or disclose that the processor controls the pump to stop operating once the temperature of the coolant reaches a set temperature.
Hashimoto teaches an immersion cooling type apparatus comprising at least: a target to be cooled (8) and at least one temperature sensor (Paragraph 30), where a processor (38) controls a pump (34) to stop operating once the temperature of the coolant reaches a set temperature (Paragraph 81). As a result, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to configure the processor as disclosed by Li et al. to stop or start pump operation based on temperature as taught by Hashimoto to improve system operating efficiency by reducing power requirements when not temperature control is not needed.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2024/0130086) and Kenny et al. (US 2007/0034356), and further in view of Hashimoto (US 2020/0383237) and Oseen-Senda (US 2023/0189486).
Regarding claim 8, Li et al. discloses an immersion cooling type apparatus as discussed above, further comprising a communication device (Paragraphs 57 and 60: The processor is configured to send and receive data), where the communication device receives data relating to temperature (Paragraph 56: As defined by one or more temperature sensors) and power (Paragraph 56: As defined by power consumption) through a plurality of sensors installed in the tank (Figure 1 and Paragraph 56). However, Li et al. does not explicitly teach or disclose a water level sensor.
Hashimoto teaches an immersion cooling type apparatus comprising at least: a plurality of targets to be cooled (8), a tank (14), a plurality of sensors (20, 21, 22, 23, 24, etc.), and a controller (38), where one of the sensors (i.e. 20) is configured to measure a water level within the tank (Paragraph 19). As a result, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to configure the system as disclosed by Li et al. with a water level sensor as taught by Hashimoto to improve system safety and reliability by ensuring that the target to be cooled is fully immersed and not exposed to atmosphere.
Li et al. further discloses that the communication device receives -from the target to be cooled- data relating to a use amount of the target to be cooled (Paragraph 56: As defined by power consumption) and a temperature (Paragraph 56: As defined by one or more temperature sensors), where the communication device applies the received data to the processor (Paragraph 56). While Li et al. discloses that the target to be cooled comprises servers (Paragraph 51: The target to be cooled comprises a server with a CPU and a GPU), Li et al. does not explicitly teach or disclose that the target to be cooled includes a central processing unit (CPU) and a memory.
Oseen-Senda teaches an immersion cooling type apparatus comprising at least: a plurality of targets to be cooled (108) and a tank (102), where the targets to be cooled comprise a variety of electronic devices (Paragraph 12: The targets to be cooled include CPUs, GPU, memory, etc.). As a result, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to configure the target to be cooled by Li et al. in the form of a CPU and memory as taught by Oseen-Senda to improve system versatility and industrial applicability by configuring the immersion cooling type apparatus to cool a variety of disparate heat generating elements.
Regarding claim 15, Li et al discloses an immersion cooling type method for controlling a flow as discussed above, further comprising:
an operation in which a communication device receives data of the target to be cooled installed inside the tank from the target to be cooled (Paragraphs 57 and 60: The processor is configured to send and receive data), and
an operation in which the communication device receives data relating to the coolant accommodated in the tank, where the communication device receives data relating to a temperature (Paragraph 56: As defined by one or more temperature sensors), power (Paragraph 56: As defined by power consumption) through a plurality of sensors installed in the tank (Figure 1 and Paragraph 56). However, Li et al. does not explicitly teach or disclose a water level sensor.
Hashimoto teaches an immersion cooling type apparatus comprising at least: a plurality of targets to be cooled (8), a tank (14), a plurality of sensors (20, 21, 22, 23, 24, etc.), and a controller (38), where one of the sensors (i.e. 20) is configured to measure a water level within the tank (Paragraph 19). As a result, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to configure the system as disclosed by Li et al. with a water level sensor as taught by Hashimoto to improve system safety and reliability by ensuring that the target to be cooled is fully immersed and not exposed to atmosphere
Li et al. further discloses that the communication device receives -from the target to be cooled- data relating to a use amount of the target to be cooled (Paragraph 56: As defined by power consumption) and a temperature (Paragraph 56: As defined by one or more temperature sensors), where the communication device applies the received data to the processor (Paragraph 56). While Li et al. discloses that the target to be cooled comprises servers (Paragraph 51: The target to be cooled comprises a server with a CPU and a GPU), Li et al. does not explicitly teach or disclose that the target to be cooled includes a central processing unit (CPU) and a memory.
Oseen-Senda teaches an immersion cooling type apparatus comprising at least: a plurality of targets to be cooled (108) and a tank (102), where the targets to be cooled comprise a variety of electronic devices (Paragraph 12: The targets to be cooled include CPUs, GPU, memory, etc.). As a result, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to configure the target to be cooled by Li et al. in the form of a CPU and memory as taught by Oseen-Senda to improve system versatility and industrial applicability by configuring the immersion cooling type apparatus to cool a variety of disparate heat generating elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2024/0074119 discloses an immersion cooling device.
US 2022/0104394 discloses an immersion cooling device.
US 2015/0233967 discloses an immersion cooling device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON N THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6391. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 8:30 am -5:00 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/JASON N THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763