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 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 7-9 and 18-20 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.
The term “about” in claims 7-9, and 18-20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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. The term "about" renders the range of "about 50 to about 100 microns" in claims 7 and 18 indefinite. The term "about" renders the range "of about 100 microns to 200 microns" in claims 8 and 19 indefinite. The term "about" renders the quantity of "about ten times smaller" in claims 10 and 20 indefinite. .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0142831 to Tsoukatos in view of US 2023/0403821 to Oruganti et al.
As to claim 1, Tsoukatos discloses in (e.g. fig. 2) an electronic device (200) immersed in a bath of dielectric cooling fluid (see para [0021] “As mentioned above, when data storage drives such as hard disk drives are immersed in a dielectric liquid coolant, the data storage devices can generate enough heat at certain points to cause the liquid coolant to boil.”), the electronic device having a surface (234) that includes a plurality of microstructures (236/238) adapted to inhibit vapor blanket formation at the surface during heat transfer from the electronic device to the dielectric cooling fluid by promoting formation and release of smaller vapor bubbles in the dielectric cooling fluid than in the absence of the plurality of microstructures (para [0026] “The textured surfaces 234 can discourage conglomeration of larger bubbles and can direct bubbles away from the hard disk drive 200.”) Tsoukatos fails to disclose a two-phase immersion cooling system for cooling electronic devices comprising: a sealed tank that encloses a condenser unit disposed over a bath of dielectric cooling fluid. Oruganti teaches (see e.g. fig. 1) a two-phase immersion cooling system (100) for cooling electronic devices (115) comprising: a sealed tank (para [0034] “This container is a type of sealable pressure vessel that can be used to contain a desired pressure therein”) that encloses a condenser unit (140) disposed over a bath of dielectric cooling fluid (120). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the disk drive of Tsoukatos with the pressurized cooling system of Oruganti in order to facilitate different cooling rates at different times depending on the heat output of electrical components as taught by Oruganti (see Abstract “Techniques for dynamically changing a pressure within a pressurized cooling system to thereby allow different cooling rates to be used to cool electronic equipment are disclosed.”)
As to claim 2, modified Tsoukatos further discloses the two-phase immersion cooling system of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is a processing device or a data storage device. Tsoukatos discloses that element (200) is a “hard disk drive,” i.e. a storage device.
As to claim 3, modified Tsoukatos further discloses the two-phase immersion cooling system of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is a hard disk drive. Tsoukatos discloses that element (200) is a “hard disk drive.”
As to claim 5, modified Tsoukatos further discloses the two-phase immersion cooling system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of microstructures comprises a plurality of indentations. See e.g. fig. 5, (236) represent grooves which can also be considered indentations, as the bottom surface of the groove is indented from the surface (Indented defined by Oxford dictionary as “having deep recesses or notches”.)
As to claim 6, modified Tsoukatos further discloses the two-phase immersion cooling system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of microstructures (234) comprises a plurality of protrusions (238) (see fig. 6).
As to claim 8, modified Tsoukatos discloses the two-phase immersion cooling system of claim 1. Modified Tsoukatos fails to disclose wherein the plurality of microstructures comprises microstructures having an average lateral dimension relative to the surface of about 50 microns to about 100 microns. Tsoukatos does disclose that the protrusions can have “heights and be spaced from each other in the sub-millimeter range” (which includes microns as a micron is a sub-millimeter measurement) encapsulating the ranges set forth by the applicant. Applicant has not demonstrated any criticality for the claimed ranges. Further it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the protrusions of Tsoukatos to any sub-millimeter range of depth or spacing depending on the desired outcome in respect to the materials used, temperature of heating devices, temperature of cooling liquid, desired heat transfer rate, etc.
As to claim 9, modified Tsoukatos discloses the two-phase immersion cooling system of claim 1. Modified Tsoukatos fails to disclose wherein the plurality of microstructures comprises microstructures distributed to have an average spacing of about 100 microns to 200 microns. Tsoukatos does disclose that the protrusions can have “heights and be spaced from each other in the sub-millimeter range” (which includes microns as a micron is a sub-millimeter measurement) encapsulating the ranges set forth by the applicant. Applicant has not demonstrated any criticality for the claimed ranges. Further it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the protrusions of Tsoukatos to any sub-millimeter range of depth or spacing depending on the desired outcome in respect to the materials used, temperature of heating devices, temperature of cooling liquid, desired heat transfer rate, etc.
As to claim 10, modified Tsoukatos discloses the two-phase immersion cooling system of claim 1. Modified Tsoukatos fails to disclose wherein the plurality of microstructures are designed to promote formation and release of vapor bubbles that are about 10 times smaller than in the absence of the plurality of microstructures. The examiner takes notice that the only structural limitations given in either the spec or claims to achieve the desired outcome of “vapor bubbles that are about 10 times smaller than in the absence of the plurality of microstructures” are the ranges of the dimensions and spacing of the protrusions given in claims 8 and 9. Similarly Tsoukatos discloses that the protrusions can have “heights and be spaced from each other in the sub-millimeter range” (which includes microns as a micron is a sub-millimeter measurement), encapsulating the ranges set forth by the applicant. Further it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the protrusions of Tsoukatos to any sub-millimeter range of depth or spacing depending on the desired outcome in respect to the materials used, temperature of heating devices, temperature of cooling liquid, desired heat transfer rate, etc.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0142831 to Tsoukatos.
As to claim 11, Tsoukatos discloses a hard disk drive (200) comprising: data storage components (e.g. 214) disposed between a front cover (206) and a base (210) of a sealed enclosure (212). Tsoukatos fails to disclose the front cover (206) having a front surface that includes a first plurality of microstructures configured to promote generation and release of smaller vapor bubbles than in the absences of the first plurality of microstructures when the hard disk drive is operated while immersed in a dielectric fluid of a two-phase immersion cooling system. Tsoukatos does disclose a first plurality of microstructures (234) located on a rear surface (230) of hard disk drive (200), the rear surface includes a first plurality of microstructures (234) configured to promote generation and release of smaller vapor bubbles (para [0026] “The textured surfaces 234 can discourage conglomeration of larger bubbles and can direct bubbles away from the hard disk drive 200.”) than in the absence of the first plurality of microstructures when the hard disk drive is operated while immersed (see para [0021] “As mentioned above, when data storage drives such as hard disk drives are immersed in a dielectric liquid coolant, the data storage devices can generate enough heat at certain points to cause the liquid coolant to boil.”) in a dielectric fluid of a two-phase immersion cooling system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify Tsoukatos to having a plurality of microstructures on the front surface of the front cover, if the need so arose, such as depending on the location of hot spots of the hard disk drive, as taught by Tsoukatos (para [0025] “The particular size and location of the areas with the textured surfaces 234 can vary depending on, for example, the likely locations of hot spots for a particular hard disk drive design…”)
As to claim 12, modified Tsoukatos disclose all of the limitations of claim 11. Tsoukatos further discloses wherein the base (210) comprises a back surface (230) that includes a second plurality of microstructures (234) configured to promote generation and release of smaller vapor bubbles than in the absence of the second plurality of microstructures when the hard disk drive is operated while immersed in a dielectric fluid of a two-phase immersion cooling system.
As to claim 14, modified Tsoukatos disclose all of the limitations of claim 11. Modified Tsoukatos fails to disclose wherein the first plurality of microstructures is imparted directly onto the front cover. Tsoukatos does disclose wherein a first plurality of microstructures (234) is imparted directly (para [0030] “In certain embodiments, the textured surfaces 234 are created by etching processes…”) onto a rear surface (230). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify Tsoukatos to having a plurality of microstructures on the front surface of the front cover depending on various needs, for instance the location of hot spots of the hard disk drive, as taught by Tsoukatos (para [0025] “The particular size and location of the areas with the textured surfaces 234 can vary depending on, for example, the likely locations of hot spots for a particular hard disk drive design…”)
As to claim 16, modified Tsoukatos further discloses the hard disk drive of claim 11, wherein the plurality of microstructures comprises a plurality of indentations. See e.g. fig. 5, (236) representing grooves which can also be considered indentations, as the bottom surface of the groove is indented from the surface (Indented defined by Oxford dictionary as “having deep recesses or notches”.)
As to claim 17, modified Tsoukatos further discloses the hard disk drive of claim 11, wherein the plurality of microstructures (234) comprises a plurality of protrusions (238) (see fig. 6).
As to claim 18, modified Tsoukatos discloses the hard disk drive of claim 11. Modified Tsoukatos fails to disclose wherein the plurality of microstructures comprises microstructures having an average lateral dimension relative to the surface of about 50 microns to about 100 microns. Tsoukatos does disclose that the protrusions can have “heights and be spaced from each other in the sub-millimeter range” (which includes microns as a micron is a sub-millimeter measurement) encapsulating the ranges set forth by the applicant. Applicant has not demonstrated any criticality for the claimed ranges. Further it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the protrusions of Tsoukatos to any sub-millimeter range of depth or spacing depending on the desired outcome in respect to the materials used, temperature of heating devices, temperature of cooling liquid, desired heat transfer rate, etc.
As to claim 19, modified Tsoukatos discloses the hard disk drive of claim 11. Modified Tsoukatos fails to disclose wherein the plurality of microstructures comprises microstructures distributed to have an average spacing of about 100 microns to 200 microns. Tsoukatos does disclose that the protrusions can have “heights and be spaced from each other in the sub-millimeter range” (which includes microns as a micron is a sub-millimeter measurement) encapsulating the ranges set forth by the applicant. Applicant has not demonstrated any criticality for the claimed ranges. Further it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the protrusions of Tsoukatos to any sub-millimeter range of depth or spacing depending on the desired outcome in respect to the materials used, temperature of heating devices, temperature of cooling liquid, desired heat transfer rate, etc.
As to claim 20, modified Tsoukatos discloses the hard disk drive of claim 11. Modified Tsoukatos fails to disclose wherein the plurality of microstructures are designed to promote formation and release of vapor bubbles that are about 10 times smaller than in the absence of the plurality of microstructures. The examiner takes notice that the only structural limitations given in either the spec or claims to achieve the desired outcome of “vapor bubbles that are about 10 times smaller than in the absence of the plurality of microstructures” are the ranges of the dimensions and spacing of the protrusions given in claims 8 and 9. Similarly Tsoukatos discloses that the protrusions can have “heights and be spaced from each other in the sub-millimeter range” (which includes microns as a micron is a sub-millimeter measurement), encapsulating the ranges set forth by the applicant. Further it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the protrusions of Tsoukatos to any sub-millimeter range of depth or spacing depending on the desired outcome in respect to the materials used, temperature of heating devices, temperature of cooling liquid, desired heat transfer rate, etc.
Claim(s) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0142831 to Tsoukatos in view of US 2023/0403821 to Oruganti et al. further in view of US 2023/0180435 to Yang et al.
As to claim 4, Tsoukatos in view of Oruganti disclose all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Tsoukatos fails to teach wherein the first plurality of microstructures comprises a plurality of pinholes. Yang in a similar endeavor teaches a microstructure comprising a plurality of pinholes (110). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to substitute the microstructures of Tsoukatos with the pinholes of Yang as a mere design choice as Yang teaches that pinholes, i.e. the porous surface (11) “has a plurality of open pores (110) so as to generate air bubbles, thereby enhancing a heat dissipation capacity of the porous heat dissipation material (10)” (para [0024]).
As to claim 7, Tsoukatos in view of Oruganti disclose all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Tsoukatos fails to teach the wherein the plurality of microstructures is imparted onto a sheet that is laminated onto the electronic device. Yang teaches a plurality of microstructures (110) imparted onto a sheet (10) that is laminated (Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “laminate” as “to unite (layers of material) by adhesive or other means” Yang teaches in para [0023] a porous heat dissipation material 10 that is in a form of a sheet (i.e. layer of material), which can be used to contact (unite with) heat generating components. Uniting a sheet to a heat generating component would fulfil the dictionary definition of laminating.) onto an electronic device (Para. [0002] “heat producing elements (such as servers and disk arrays)”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the device of Tsoukatos with a sheet containing a microstructure material as taught by Yang in order to prevent possible damage to the integrity of the housing of the device that may occur when manufacturing a microstructure directly into the surface of the electronic component.
Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0142831 to Tsoukatos in view of US 2023/0180435 to Yang et al.
As to claim 13, Tsoukatos discloses all of the limitations of claim 11. Tsoukatos fails to teach the hard disk drive of claim 11, wherein the first plurality of microstructures is imparted on a sheet that is laminated to the front surface of the front cover. Yang teaches a plurality of microstructures (110) imparted onto a sheet (10) that is laminated (Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “laminate” as “to unite (layers of material) by adhesive or other means” Yang teaches in para [0023] a porous heat dissipation material 10 that is in a form of a sheet (i.e. layer of material), which can be used to contact (unite with) heat generating components. Uniting a sheet to a heat generating component would fulfil the dictionary definition of laminating.) onto an electronic device (20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the front surface of the front cover of modified Tsoukatos with a sheet containing a microstructure material as taught by Yang in order to prevent possible damage to the integrity of the housing of the hard disk drive that may occur when manufacturing a microstructure directly into the surface of the hard disk drive.
As to claim 15, Tsoukatos discloses all of the limitations of claim 11. Modified Tsoukatos fails to teach wherein the first plurality of microstructures comprises a plurality of pinholes. Yang in a similar endeavor teaches a microstructure comprising a plurality of pinholes (110). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to substitute the microstructures of Tsoukatos with the pinholes of Yang as a mere design choice as Yang teaches that pinholes, i.e. the porous surface (11) “has a plurality of open pores (110) so as to generate air bubbles, thereby enhancing a heat dissipation capacity of the porous heat dissipation material (10)” (para [0024]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2023/0363111 to Lee et al. showing various microstructures for use in immersion-type liquid cooling.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIL ALEXANDER DECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6578. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm Mon-Fri.
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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached at 571-272-5960. 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.
/JAMIL ALEXANDER DECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2835
/ROBERT J HOFFBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835