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 § 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 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 of this title, 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 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juhasz et al. (US PG Pub. 2023/0112841A1) in view of Lau (US PG Pub 2020/0406175A1), hereinafter referred to as Juhasz and Lau, respectively.
Regarding Claim 31, Juhasz discloses a method of converting a pre-modification immersive cooling system to a post-modification immersive cooling system (“The practice of replacing an existing fluid with a new fluid in an existing system is often called ‘retrofit’, ¶21), comprising: and
using a high boiling point operating fluid as the a substitute operating fluid in the post- modification immersive cooling system (“at least one of 1,1,1,2,2,5,5,6,6,6-decafluoro-3-hexene, (HFO-153-10mczz) and 1,1,1,4,5,5,5-heptafluoro-4-trifluoromethyl-2-pentene, (HFO-153-10mzzy)” ¶8): wherein
the pre-modification immersive cooling system is a two-phase system (“FC-72, FC-3284, Novec-7100, Novec-7000” (¶21) are disclosed as the fluids that are being replaced), and wherein the post-modification immersive cooling system is a single-phase “(HFO-153-10mczz)…(HFO-153-10mzzy)” (¶8) is the post modification fluid) system (“the operational temperature is at least 25° C., at least 30° C., at least 40° C., at least 50° C., at least 60° C., less than 100° C., less than 90° C., less than 80° C., less than 70° C., less than 60° C., and combinations thereof” (¶26), wherein in the case that Novec-7000 is replaced by HFO-153-10mczz at an operating temperature of 40° C, the system changes from a two phase system to a single phase system, see Table 7). Although Juhasz discloses a filtering system, Juhasz fails to disclose modifying a structure of the pre-modification immersive cooling system.
Lau, also drawn to an immersion cooled system, teaches modifying a structure of the pre-modification immersive cooling system (“Filters can be removed and replaced with time, as necessary, to prevent or minimize clogging” (¶23)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Juhasz with modifying a structure of the pre-modification immersive cooling system, as taught by Lau, the motivation being to prevent clogging with routine maintenance.
Claims 37-38, 41 and 43-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enright et al. (US PG Pub. 2024/0349451A1) in view of Juhasz et al. (US PG Pub. 2023/0112841A1) and in further view of Liu (US PG Pub. 2023/0027552A1), hereinafter referred to as Enright, Juhasz and Liu, respectively.
Regarding Claim 37, Enright discloses a method of converting a pre-modification immersive cooling system to a post-modification immersive cooling system (“replacement equipment may be stored and/or housed within a modular enclosure such as the storage 716, which is outside of the tank 710” (¶186), wherein the structure of the system is modified by replacement equipment), comprising
providing the pre-modification immersive cooling system, wherein the pre-modification immersive cooling system comprises one or more bellows (517) and uses an operating fluid (“The two-phase immersion system may comprise a vessel configured to comprise a volume of thermally conductive, boilable and condensable dielectric fluid in a liquid phase and a vapor phase. A single phase immersion system may comprise a vessel configured to comprise a volume of thermally conductive dielectric fluid, e.g., mineral oil, in a liquid phase” ¶38). Enright fails to disclose removing the one or more bellows from the pre-modification immersive cooling system to produce the post-modification immersive cooling system; and using an alternative operating fluid in the post-modification immersive cooling system, wherein the alternative operating fluid is different from the operating fluid in the pre-modification immersive cooling system.
Juhasz, also drawn to an immersion cooling system, teaches using an alternative operating fluid (“The practice of replacing an existing fluid with a new fluid in an existing system is often called ‘retrofit’, ¶21) in the post-modification immersive cooling system (“at least one of 1,1,1,2,2,5,5,6,6,6-decafluoro-3-hexene, (HFO-153-10mczz) and 1,1,1,4,5,5,5-heptafluoro-4-trifluoromethyl-2-pentene, (HFO-153-10mzzy)” (¶8) are disclosed as the fluids that are introduced into the immersion cooling system), wherein the alternative operating fluid is different from the operating fluid in the pre-modification immersive cooling system (“FC-72, FC-3284, Novec-7100, Novec-7000” (¶21) are disclosed as the fluids that are being replaced). Juhasz further teaches “the operational temperature is at least 25° C., at least 30° C., at least 40° C., at least 50° C., at least 60° C., less than 100° C., less than 90° C., less than 80° C., less than 70° C., less than 60° C., and combinations thereof” (¶26), wherein in the case that Novec-7000 is replaced by HFO-153-10mczz at an operating temperature of 40° C, the system changes from a two phase system to a single phase system, see Table 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Enright with using an alternative operating fluid in the post-modification immersive cooling system, wherein the alternative operating fluid is different from the operating fluid in the pre-modification immersive cooling system, as taught by Juhasz, the motivation being to “provide novel specialty fluids for thermal management, with close to ambient and slightly elevated boiling temperature ranges, where these products are environmentally friendly (low GWP and ODP), non-flammable, non-conductive and have low liquid viscosities” (¶5).
Further a modified Enright having the fluids and operating temperatures of Juhasz further teaches removing the one or more bellows from the pre-modification immersive cooling system to produce the post-modification immersive cooling system. Enright states, “the vessel 500 may also include one or more bellows tank 517. The bellows tank 517 may be used to regulate pressure within the vessel. When the disclosed computing and/or cooling system is initially activated, the expanding dielectric fluid may be directed to the bellows tank so that it is not lost to the environment and/or to avoid pressure building up within the vessel” (¶158), wherein the bellows are utilized for controlling the expansion of the working fluid subsequent a phase change. A modified Enright utilizing the fluids and operating temperatures of Juhasz, eliminates the requirement for bellows as the pressure gradients found in two phase immersion cooling systems are not found in a single immersion cooling system. Additionally, Liu states, “Second, bellows, which are needed for vapor balance in a conventional dual-phase fluid immersion cooling system, take too much space. Third, because of the high potential for leakage, conventional dual-phase fluid immersion cooling systems are relatively expensive to manufacture and operate” ¶3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Enright with removing the one or more bellows from the pre-modification immersive cooling system to produce the post-modification immersive cooling system, as taught by Liu, the motivation being to minimize the overall envelope of the immersion cooling system or eliminate components that are prone to leaking working fluid.
It is noted, MPEP 2144.04 II A states, “Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) (Claims at issue were directed to a method for inhibiting corrosion on metal surfaces using a composition consisting of epoxy resin, petroleum sulfonate, and hydrocarbon diluent. The claims were rejected over a primary reference which disclosed an anticorrosion composition of epoxy resin, hydrocarbon diluent, and polybasic acid salts wherein said salts were taught to be beneficial when employed in a freshwater environment, in view of secondary references which clearly suggested the addition of petroleum sulfonate to corrosion inhibiting compositions. The Board affirmed the rejection, holding that it would have been obvious to omit the polybasic acid salts of the primary reference where the function attributed to such salt is not desired or required, such as in compositions for providing corrosion resistance in environments which do not encounter fresh water.). See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient).” In this case, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to eliminate the bellows of Enright as such bellows are not required in the single phase immersion cooling system taught in the prior art.
Regarding Claim 38, a modified Enright further teaches the alternative operating fluid is a high boiling point operating fluid (“at least one of 1,1,1,2,2,5,5,6,6,6-decafluoro-3-hexene, (HFO-153-10mczz) and 1,1,1,4,5,5,5-heptafluoro-4-trifluoromethyl-2-pentene, (HFO-153-10mzzy)” ¶8).
Regarding Claim 41, a modified Enright further teaches the pre-modification immersive cooling system is a two-phase system (“FC-72, FC-3284, Novec-7100, Novec-7000” (¶21) are disclosed as the fluids that are being replaced and “the operational temperature is at least 25° C., at least 30° C., at least 40° C., at least 50° C., at least 60° C., less than 100° C., less than 90° C., less than 80° C., less than 70° C., less than 60° C., and combinations thereof” (¶26), wherein in the case that Novec-7000 is replaced by HFO-153-10mczz at an operating temperature of 40° C, the system changes from a two phase system to a single phase system, see Table 7).
Regarding Claim 43, a modified Enright further teaches the post-modification immersive cooling system is a single-phase system (“the operational temperature is at least 25° C., at least 30° C., at least 40° C., at least 50° C., at least 60° C., less than 100° C., less than 90° C., less than 80° C., less than 70° C., less than 60° C., and combinations thereof” (¶26), wherein in the case that Novec-7000 is replaced by HFO-153-10mczz at an operating temperature of 40° C, the system changes from a two phase system to a single phase system, see Table 7).
Regarding Claim 44, a modified Enright further teaches the post-modification immersive cooling system is a single-phase system (“the operational temperature is at least 25° C., at least 30° C., at least 40° C., at least 50° C., at least 60° C., less than 100° C., less than 90° C., less than 80° C., less than 70° C., less than 60° C., and combinations thereof” (¶26), wherein in the case that Novec-7000 is replaced by HFO-153-10mczz at an operating temperature of 40° C, the system changes from a two phase system to a single phase system, see Table 7).
Regarding Claim 45, a modified Enright further teaches the post-modification immersive cooling system is a single-phase system (“the operational temperature is at least 25° C., at least 30° C., at least 40° C., at least 50° C., at least 60° C., less than 100° C., less than 90° C., less than 80° C., less than 70° C., less than 60° C., and combinations thereof” (¶26), wherein in the case that Novec-7000 is replaced by HFO-153-10mczz at an operating temperature of 40° C, the system changes from a two phase system to a single phase system, see Table 7).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enright et al. (US PG Pub. 2024/0349451A1) in view of Juhasz et al. (US PG Pub. 2023/0112841A1) in view of Liu (US PG Pub. 2023/0027552A1) as applied in Claims 37-38, 41 and 43-45 above and in further view of Heydari (US PG Pub. 2023/0240052A1), hereinafter referred to as Heydari.
Regarding Claim 42, although a modified Enright teaches changing an immersive cooling system, Enright fails to disclose the pre-modification immersive cooling system is a hybrid system.
Heydari, also drawn to an immersion cooling system, teaches a pre-modification immersive cooling system is a hybrid system (“In at least one embodiment, heat removal using air cooling alone, single-phase cooling alone, or two-phase cooling alone may be various methods of removing heat from high heat density servers (¶53)…a hybrid of single-phase fluid, such as a coolant, and a two-phase fluid, such as a refrigerant, may be used as a hybrid cooling media that is deployed where a two-phase heat exchanger provides a refrigerant that is cooled by a coolant or is circumvented to directly provide refrigerant-based cooling from a refrigerant source to address cooling requirements of high-heat generating components (such as, a CPU, a GPU, or a Switch)” (¶54)).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting a pre-modification immersive cooling system being a two phase system with a pre-modification immersive cooling system being a hybrid system; further the prior art to Heydari teaches that a hybrid system is a known equivalent of a two phase system for cooling electronic components. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Enright with having a pre-modification immersive cooling system being a hybrid system, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat exchanger device due to the modification; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Heydari there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Enright by having a pre-modification immersive cooling system being a hybrid system. Heydari demonstrates that a hybrid system and a two phase system were art recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a hybrid system for a two phase system.
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 PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0930-1800.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights