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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claim 1, applicant argues (para 3, pg. 7 ) “Nowhere does Tsoukatos disclose that the features of the textured surface are composed of microstructures, as claimed by Applicant, nor does Tsoukatos disclose dimensions of texture.” Tsoukatos clearly discloses (FIG. 5, FIG. 6) textured surface (234) composed of microstructures (236, 238). Tsoukatos also discloses the dimensions of the microstructures (para [0029] In certain embodiments, the channels 236 have a depth and are spaced from each other in the sub-millimeter range (e.g., on the order of hundreds or thousands of nanometers such as 100-5,000 nanometers, 500-2,000 nanometers, or 1,000-1,500 nanometers). Similarly, the pillars 238 can have heights and be spaced from each other in the sub-millimeter range.) Applicant continues to argue “Moreover, nowhere does Tsoukatos disclose the phenomenon of vapor blanket formation, which Applicant describes as a build up of bubbles in such a way that cooling liquid is prevented from touching the surface of the device being cooled. As such, Tsoukatos does not teach that the textured surface could be adapted to inhibit vapor blanket formation.” Paragraph [0026] of Tsoukatos discloses “In particular, textured surfaces 234 can enable management of the size in developing boil-off bubbles by limiting nucleation growth and release frequency. Further, the textured surfaces 234 can enhance cooling efficiency by increasing critical heat enhancement at the base deck-to-liquid interface.” In managing the size of boil-off bubbles and the release frequency, Tsoukatos is able to increase cooling efficiency by preventing a vapor blanket formation, although admittedly not using the words “vapor blanket formation” Tsoukatos goes on to say in paragraph [0029] “It has been found that bubbles formed on smooth surfaces tend to merge and create either large bubbles or vapor columns beginning at the smooth surface, while bubbles formed on textured surfaces are less likely to merge.” That is to say Tsoukatos clearly discloses preventing the accumulation of bubbles on the surface of the hard disk which would lead to vapor blanket formation, i.e. vapor columns and or large merging bubbles. Applicant argues further “Tsoukatos does not teach that the textured surface is designed to promote formation of vapor bubble(s).” Applicant then cites paragraph [0026] of Tsoukatos as saying the textured surface “can encourage propagation of bubbles rather than nucleation” to assert that bubble promotion is not an aspect of Tsoukatos invention. However, Examiner cites Merriam-Webster’s definition of the word propagation,
:the act or action of propagating: such as
a) increase (as of a kind of organism) in numbers.”
Considering this, the argument that Tsoukatos “does not seek to promote the formation of bubbles” is not persuasive. Finally, Applicant argues that nowhere does Tsoukatos argue “the microstructures are designed to promote formation and release of vapor bubbles that are at least ten times smaller than in the absence of the plurality of microstructures.” Citing Applicant’s own specification, paragraph [0022] “The lateral size, shape, depth, and spacing of the microstructures can be determined from models and/or experiments…” In the Examiner’s previous office action it was stated in paragraph 14, “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.” Further still, paragraph [0029] of Tsoukatos states the microstructures in Tsoukatos “have a depth and are spaced from each other in the sub-millimeter range (e.g., on the order of hundreds or thousands of nanometers such as 100-5,000 nanometers, 500-2,000 nanometers, or 1,000-1,500 nanometers).” 5,000 nanometers, for instance, is 5 microns, while Applicant states in paragraph [0022] of the spec that a spacing of 100 to 200 microns for 50 micron diameter pinholes would “form bubbles in the 100 to 200 micron range, or about ten times smaller than the bubbles formed on the same type of surface without the pinholes.” Hence, the examiner would contend that if this scale even remotely holds up, Tsoukatos having significantly smaller microstructures (e.g. 5 microns) would produce bubbles at least as small as that of Applicant.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 8 and 9, Examiner would re-iterate that even applicants’ own disclosure states in paragraph [0022] “The lateral size, shape, depth, and spacing of the microstructures can be determined from models and/or experiments…” Therefore, Examiner maintains the argument that suitable ranges of sizes of microstructures taught by Tsoukatos could be found by anyone having routine skill in the art.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 11, Examiner’s response to the previous arguments covers any issues raised in this regard. Further, Applicant argues that the obviousness rejection concerning the use of a microstructure layer on the front cover, Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a microstructure layer on any surface deemed necessary for the application.
Regarding arguments to claim 4, Applicant still has not demonstrated how a “pinhole” differs from an “open pore” structurally.
Regarding claim 7, lamination is defined by Webster-Merriam as “3b: to unite (layers of material) by an adhesive or other means”, thus adhering any two layers together can be considered lamination as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claims 13 and 15, see response to claim 4 above.
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 8-9 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.”). 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 the specification. 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.
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 50 microns to 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 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.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 14 and 16-19 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…”). 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 the specification. 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.
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. 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 the specification. 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.
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 50 microns to 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 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.
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]).
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0142831 to Tsoukatos in view of US 2024/0155809 to Wu et al.
As to claim 21, 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…”). Tsoukatos fails to disclose a laminated sheet that includes a first plurality of microstructures. Wu teaches a laminated sheet (10, para [0018] the heat dissipation substrate 10, lamination being defined by Webster-Merriam as “3b: to unite (layers of material) by an adhesive or other means”, substrate 10 clearly adhering to heat generating component 800 in e.g. FIG. 1) that includes a first plurality of microstructures (201) configured to promote generation and release of smaller vapor bubbles than in the absence of the first plurality of microstructures (para [0003]). 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 microstructure layer of Tsoukatos with a laminated sheet as taught by Wu for the purpose of fitting equipment with microstructure layers retro-actively.
As to claim 22, modified Tsoukatos disclose the hard disk drive of claim 21. Tsoukatos fails to disclose wherein the sheet is metal. Wu teaches a laminated sheet (10, para [0018] the heat dissipation substrate 10, lamination being defined by Webster-Merriam as “3b: to unite (layers of material) by an adhesive or other means”, substrate 10 clearly adhering to heat generating component 800 in e.g. FIG. 1) that includes a first plurality of microstructures (201) configured to promote generation and release of smaller vapor bubbles than in the absence of the first plurality of microstructures (para [0003]). Wu further teaches wherein the sheet is metal (para [0019] the heat dissipation substrate 10 can be made of a material having high thermal conductivity, such as aluminum, copper, or copper alloy). 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 microstructure layer of Tsoukatos with a laminated sheet as taught by Wu for the purpose of fitting equipment with microstructure layers retro-actively.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at (571) 272-3740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMIL ALEXANDER DECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/ROBERT J HOFFBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights