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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 4/10/2024 and 1/15/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 6/26/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6, 10, and 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah (U.S 2023/0225076 A1) in view of Hashimoto (U.S 2020/0383237 A1).
In regards to Claim 1, Shah discloses an immersion tank system comprising: an outer frame (Fig.1-2e, #100/200); an immersion tank (Fig.2e/3a, #242/300 is consider the immersion tank) disposed within the outer frame (Fig.2d-2e, discloses #242/300 disposed within the outer frame #200), the immersion tank further comprising: one or more ports (Fig.3a, #311/313); one or more pumps (Fig.1, #144-1, see paragraph [0044]); and a heat exchanger (Fig.3a and paragraph [0044], which discloses the coolant will travel to an internal heat exchanger via pump #144-1).
Shah fails to disclose: One or more sensors and a control system.
However, Hashimoto discloses: One or more sensors (Fig.1, #21-24) and a control system (Fig.1, #38 is a control system for the cooling system, as such the office notes that with the combination of Shah in view of Hashimoto, the immersion tank system (as taught by Shah) would be modified to further include one or more sensors and a control system (as taught by Hashimoto) to enable real time control over the cooling system).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the immersion tank system (as taught by Shah) to further include one or more sensors and a control system (as taught by Hashimoto) to enable real time control over the cooling system. By utilizing sensors and a control unit, would allow for more efficient control over the cooling system by reducing unnecessary usage of cooling elements when not needed.
In regards to Claim 2, Shah in view of Hashimoto discloses the immersion tank system of claim 1, wherein the one or more ports are configured to fill or drain the immersion tank (Shah, Fig.3b, #313/311 are used to fill and/or drain the tank #300)
In regards to Claim 3, Shah in view of Hashimoto discloses the immersion tank system of claim 1, wherein the one or more ports are disposed on a surface of the immersion tank (Shah, Fig.3b, #313/311 are disposed on a surface).
In regards to Claim 4, Shah in view of Hashimoto discloses the immersion tank system of claim 3, wherein the surface is a bottom surface of the immersion tank (Shah, Fig.3b/3c, #313/311 are disposed on a bottom surface of the side wall).
In regards to Claim 6, Shah in view of Hashimoto discloses the immersion tank system of claim 1, further comprising sliding rails (Shah, Fig.3a, #307 are sliding rails).
In regards to Claim 10, Shah in view of Hashimoto disclose the immersion tank system of claim 1, wherein the immersion tank further comprises a sealed access cover (Hashimoto, Fig.1, #16 is a sealed access cover for tank #2).
In regards to Claim 33, Shah in view of Hashimoto disclose the immersion tank system of claim 1, further comprising tubing coupled to the immersion tank further coupled to the heat exchanger for flowing a source fluid from an external environment (Hashimoto, Fig.1, #54 is tubing coupled to tank #2 to provide source fluid #52 from an external environment to heat exchanger ##32).
In regards to Claim 34, Shah in view of Hashimoto disclose the immersion tank system of claim 1, further comprising a locking rack (Shah, Fig.3c, #303-1 which is considered the locking rack for electronics) disposed within the immersion tank (Shah, Fig.3C) for receiving a payload therein (Shah, Fig.3d, #340 (payload) is disposed within #300).
In regards to Claim 35, Shah in view of Hashimoto disclose the immersion tank system of claim 34, wherein the locking rack is configured to hold the payload in a vertical position (Shah, Fig.3d, #340 is held in the vertical direction/position).
In regards to Claim 36, Shah in view of Hashimoto disclose the immersion tank system of claim 1, further comprising one or more filters for filtering at least particulates from a working fluid (Shah, Fig.1, the one or more pumps #144-1 includes a filter, see paragraph [0044]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah (U.S 2023/0225076 A1) in view of Hashimoto (U.S 2020/0383237 A1) and, further in view of Campbell (U.S 2011/0317367 A1).
In regards to Claim 5, Shah in view of Hashimoto disclose the immersion tank system of claim 1.
Shah in view of Hashimoto fail to explicitly disclose: Wherein the one or more pumps are variable speed pumps.
However, Campbell discloses: Wherein the one or more pumps are variable speed pumps (Fig.6 and paragraph [0019], discloses the one or more pumps are variable speed pumps which can be adjusted based on predetermine data, as such the office notes that with the combination of Shah in view of Hashimoto, the one or more pumps within the immersion tank (as taught by Shah) would be replaced with a variable speed pump (as taught by Campbell) which would allow the system to control the amount of fluid flowing within said tank).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the one or more pumps within the immersion tank (as taught by Shah) to be replaced with a variable speed pump (as taught by Campbell) which would allow the system to control the amount of fluid flowing within said tank. By utilizing variable speed pumps, it would allow control over the flow of cooling liquid required based on real time data, thereby making the system more energy efficient.
Claims 7-8 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah (U.S 2023/0225076 A1) in view of Hashimoto (U.S 2020/0383237 A1) and, further in view of Becklin (U.S 2010/0085709 A1).
In regards to Claim 7, Shah in view of Hashimoto disclose the immersion tank system of claim 1.
Shah in view of Hashimoto fail to disclose: Further comprising a shock cage disposed within the outer frame, the shock cage including a front access cover.
However, Becklin discloses: Further comprising a shock cage (Fig.1, #104, paragraph [0012]) disposed within the outer frame (Fig.1, #102), the shock cage including a front access cover (Fig.1, includes a front access cover, see paragraph [0011-0012], as such the office notes that with the combination of Shah in view of Hashimoto and Becklin, the outer frame comprising an immersion tank (as taught by Shah) would be modified to include a shock cage between said frame and tank (as taught by Becklin) to provide shock isolation to the electronic components placed within said tank).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the outer frame comprising an immersion tank (as taught by Shah) to further include a shock cage between said frame and tank (as taught by Becklin) to provide shock isolation to the electronic components placed within said tank. By placing a shock cage between the frame and tank, it would help isolated shocks from the tank, thereby protecting sensitive elements from damage.
In regards to Claim 8, Shah in view of Hashimoto and Becklin disclose the immersion tank system of claim 7, wherein shock mounts coupled to the outer frame provide shock absorption for the immersion tank (Becklin paragraph [0012], states there are shock isolating members disposed between #102 and #104 which would amount to the shock mounts capable of providing shock absorption).
In regards to Claim 27, Shah in view of Hashimoto and Becklin disclose the immersion tank system of claim 7, further comprising one or more control sensors in the shock cage enclosing the immersion tank (Hashimoto, Fig.1, #21-24 are consider the control sensors (control the level of fluid within the immersion tank) which are within the immersion tank which is in the shock cage (as taught by Becklin) which encloses said tank).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah (U.S 2023/0225076 A1) in view of Hashimoto (U.S 2020/0383237 A1), Becklin (U.S 2010/0085709 A1), and, further in view of Ortega (U.S 2023/0164952 A1).
In regards to Claim 28, Shah in view of Hashimoto and Becklin disclose the immersion tank system of claim 7.
Shah in view of Hashimoto and Becklin fail to disclose: Further comprising one or more leak detection sensors in the shock cage enclosing the immersion tank.
However, Ortega discloses: Further comprising one or more leak detection sensors in the shock cage enclosing the immersion tank (Fig.3, #334 which would be placed within the shock cage, outside the immersion tank #328/326 to detect any leaks, see paragraph [0031], as such the office notes that with the combination of Shah in view of Hashimoto, Becklin, and Ortega, the outer frame comprising a shock cage surrounding an immersion tank (as taught by Shah in view of Becklin) would be modified to include one or more leak sensors in the shock cage (as taught by Ortega) to detect any leaks coming from the tank).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the outer frame comprising a shock cage surrounding an immersion tank (as taught by Shah in view of Becklin) to further include one or more leak sensors in the shock cage below the tank (as taught by Ortega) to detect any leaks coming from said tank. By utilizing leak detection sensors within the system, would help notify and prevent further damage to the electronics being cooled and/or other electronics outside said tank.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah (U.S 2023/0225076 A1) in view of Hashimoto (U.S 2020/0383237 A1) and, further in view of Alissa (U.S 10,750,637 B1).
In regards to Claim 29, Shah in view of Hashimoto disclose the immersion tank system of claim 1.
Shah in view of Hashimoto fail to disclose: Further comprising a fluid quality sensor configured to monitor a health metric of a working fluid.
However, Alissa discloses: Further comprising a fluid quality sensor configured to monitor a health metric of a working fluid (Fig.3, #382 is a health sensor which can measure the chemical signature of the fluid or can be other type of sensors, see Column 10, lines 20-37, as such the office notes that with the combination of Shah in view of Hashimoto, the sensor disposed in the immersion tank (as taught by Hashimoto) would be modified to further include a health metric sensor (as taught by Alissa) to monitor the quality of the coolant used).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the sensor disposed in the immersion tank (as taught by Hashimoto) to further include a health metric sensor (as taught by Alissa) to monitor the quality of the coolant used. By utilizing a health metric sensor, it would enable to users the quality of said coolant and therefore, can replace and/or clean said coolant to properly dissipate heat generated via the components.
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah (U.S 2023/0225076 A1) in view of Hashimoto (U.S 2020/0383237 A1) and, further in view of Terava (U.S 2016/0081224 A1).
In regards to Claim 30, Shah in view of Hashimoto disclose the immersion tank system of claim 1.
Shah in view of Hashimoto fail to disclose: Further comprising an expansion tank coupled to the immersion tank.
However, Terava discloses: further comprising an expansion tank coupled to the immersion tank (Fig.1, expansion tank #7 is coupled to immersion tank #200, as such the office notes that with the combination of Shah in view of Hashimoto and Terava, the immersion tank system (as taught by Shah) would be modified to further include an expansion tank (as taught by Terava) to help alleviate any pressure build up within said system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the immersion tank system (as taught by Shah) to further include an expansion tank (as taught by Terava) to help alleviate any pressure build up within said system. By coupling an expansion tank to the immersion tank, it would help absorb fluid volume changes due to temperature shifts, prevent dangerous pressure spikes and protects hardware from physical stress due to excessive pressure.
In regards to Claim 31, Shah in view of Hashimoto and Terava disclose the immersion tank of claim 30, further comprising a fluid level sensor configured to monitor a fluid level of a working fluid in the expansion tank (Fig.1, #8 and paragraph [0021], which monitors fluid level within #7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 32 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regard to Claim 9, no prior art fairly suggests or discloses “wherein the immersion tank is configured to slide into and out of the shock cage on sliding rails”, in conjunction with the remaining elements.
In regard to Claim 32, no prior art fairly suggests or discloses “wherein gas and/or liquid exhausted is from one or more vents defined by a top surface of the immersion tank into the expansion tank”, in conjunction with the remaining elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen (U.S 2023/0413473 A1) – Discloses an outer frame and an immersion tank placed within said frame, wherein said tank includes one or more pumps, heat exchanger, sensor and a control unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDEEP S BUTTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4768. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-4:00PM.
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.
/MANDEEP S BUTTAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights