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 .
Reply Under 37 CFR 1.111
The submission of the reply filed on 06/12/2026 to the non-final Office action of 03/17/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-13 and 15 are currently pending. The Office action follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 12, and 15, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 10, 542, 635 to Nishiyama.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Nishiyama discloses a single-phase immersion cooling equipment (Figs. 1-5 and 12) configured to cool an electronic device (30), wherein the immersion cooling equipment comprises: a tank (20) filled with coolant (21), wherein the electronic device is disposed in the tank (20) and immersed in the coolant (Fig. 1); and a hollow fluid blocking member (40) replaceably placed in the tank (20) to be immersed in the coolant (21) and configured to fill an unused space in the tank, wherein the hollow blocking member (40) is configured to allow a portion of the coolant (21) in the tank to flow into the hollow fluid blocking member (40) upon placement of the hollow fluid blocking member (40) into the tank (20) (the embodiment of Fig. 12 depicts multiple hollow units (102) which are inserted into, and removed from, the fluid blocking member (40), in order to reduce buoyancy thereof, thus resulting in the initial inflow of the coolant (21) into the fluid blocking member (40) from the tank (20) during the process of placing said hollow fluid blocking member (40) into the tank (20), wherein said coolant (21) is then displaced from the hollow blocking member (40) upon subsequent insertion of said hollow units (102) into said hollow blocking member (40); col. 9, l. 51-col. 10, l. 7), and to allow the coolant (21) in the hollow fluid blocking member (40) to flow out of the hollow fluid blocking member (40) and to flow back to the tank (20) upon detachment of the hollow fluid blocking member (40) from the tank (20) (upon opening of holes (43), by removing screws (44), the air is discharged from the hollow blocking member (40) and from hollow units (102), thus initially letting in the coolant (21) to reduce buoyancy, which then flows back into the tank (20) during the process of detaching of said hollow fluid blocking member (40) from said tank (20); col. 4, l. 54 – col. 5, l. 25; col. 9, l. 51-col. 10, l. 7; Figs. 4, 5, 12), wherein the hollow fluid blocking member (40) is configured to be filled with the coolant to cause the hollow fluid blocking member (40) to be positioned at a bottom of the tank (20) (the embodiment of Fig. 12 depicts multiple hollow units (102) which are inserted into, and removed from, the fluid blocking member (40), in order to reduce buoyancy thereof, thus resulting in the initial inflow of the coolant (21) into the fluid blocking member (40) from the tank (20) during the process of placing said hollow fluid blocking member (40) into the tank (20), wherein said coolant (21) is then displaced from the hollow blocking member (40) upon subsequent insertion of said hollow units (102) into said hollow blocking member (40); col. 9, l. 51-col. 10, l. 7), and the hollow fluid blocking member (40) is configured to fill an unused space in the tank (20).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have manipulated the hollow units of Nishiyama accordingly, so that during the process of placing the hollow fluid blocking member into the tank, a portion of the coolant in the tank flows into the hollow fluid blocking member, and during the process of detaching the hollow fluid blocking member from the tank, the coolant in the hollow fluid blocking member flows out of the hollow fluid blocking member and flows back to the tank, as claimed, wherein the hollow fluid blocking member is configured to be filled with the coolant to cause the hollow fluid blocking member to be positioned at a bottom of the tank, in order to predictably adjust buoyancy of said hollow fluid blocking member, and subsequently, to predicably adjust force need for placement of said hollow fluid blocking member into, and detaching it from, said tank, since all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 12, Nishiyama, as best understood, discloses that the hollow fluid blocking member (40) is a chassis structure with a single-side opening (45).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1 and 12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0064862 to Miyoshi.
Regarding claim 1, Miyoshi discloses an immersion cooling equipment (Fig. 9A-9C) configured to cool an electronic device (940), wherein the immersion cooling equipment comprises: a tank (910) filled with coolant, wherein the electronic device is disposed in the tank and immersed in the coolant; and a hollow fluid blocking member (942) configured to fill an unused space in the tank (910) and replaceably placed in the tank (910) to be immersed in the coolant, wherein the hollow fluid blocking member (942) is configured to allow a portion of the coolant in the tank (910) to (inherently) flow into the hollow fluid blocking member (942) upon placement of the hollow fluid blocking member (942) in the tank (910) (Figs. 9A-9C), and to allow the coolant in the hollow fluid blocking member (942) to (inherently) flow out of the hollow fluid blocking member (942) and to flow back to the tank (910) upon detachment of the hollow fluid blocking member (942) from the tank (910), (Figs. 9A-9C), wherein the hollow fluid blocking member (942) is configured to be filled with the coolant to cause the hollow fluid blocking member (942) to be positioned at a bottom of the tank (910), and the hollow fluid blocking member (942) is configured to fill an unused space in the tank (910), (Figs. 9A-9C).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Miyoshi also discloses that the hollow fluid blocking member (942) is a chassis structure with a single-side opening (e.g., on the bottom), (Fig. 9C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11 and 13, 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 2-11, limitations of claim 2 (“the hollow fluid blocking member has a first movable gate, a second movable gate, a third movable gate, a first side plate, and a second side plate opposite to the first side plate, the first movable gate is located on the first side plate, the second movable gate is located on the second side platof claim 1, are believed to render the combined subject matter and claims 2-11 dependent therefrom allowable over the prior art of record taken alone or in combination.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, limitations of claim 12 (“the hollow fluid blocking member is a chassis structure with a single-side opening”) in combination with all of the limitations of claim 1, are believed to render the combined subject matter and claim 13 dependent therefrom allowable over the prior art of record taken alone or in combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Nishiyama reference, the Applicant argues that, allegedly,
“Applicant respectfully submits that the cited reference Nishiyama fails to teach, disclose, or suggest the claim limitation requiring that the hollow fluid blocking member be configured
to permit ingress of coolant upon placement into the tank. As expressly disclosed in paragraph [0045] of Nishiyama, the dummy unit 40, when submerged in refrigerant 21, maintains its screw 44 in a closed by screwing the screw 44 state -that is, in a hermetically sealed, closed configuration. In this operative state, the dummy unit 40 retains internal air, so as to displace the surrounding refrigerant 21, thereby preventing any ingress of refrigerant 21 into the interior of the dummy unit 40. It is only upon preparation for removal of the dummy unit 40 from the refrigerant bath - as disclosed in paragraphs [0048]- [0049] of Nishiyama -that the screw 44 is removed to release the retained internal air, thereby permitting refrigerant 21 to enter the dummy unit 40 for the sole purpose of neutralizing the buoyant force generated by the entrapped air and preventing the dummy unit 40 from being abruptly ejected upon extraction. Accordingly, the operative state of Nishiyama's dummy unit 40 at the time of placement (i.e., upon submersion in refrigerant 21) is one of complete exclusion of refrigerant 21 from the interior of the dummy unit 40. This operative principle is diametrically opposed to the claimed invention, which expressly requires that the hollow fluid blocking member be configured to be filled with the coolant upon placement into the tank, such that the coolant- filled member is caused to be positioned at the bottom of the tank. The structural and functional distinction between Nishiyama's sealed, air-retaining dummy unit and the presently claimed hollow fluid blocking member is therefore clear and unambiguous. Nishiyama neither teaches nor renders obvious the claimed configuration.”
In response the Office would like to direct the Applicant’s attention to the fact that the embodiment of Fig. 12 depicts multiple hollow units (102) which are inserted into, and removed from, the fluid blocking member (40), in order to reduce buoyancy thereof, thus resulting in the initial inflow of the coolant (21) into the fluid blocking member (40) from the tank (20) during the process of placing said hollow fluid blocking member (40) into the tank (20), wherein said coolant (21) is then displaced from the hollow blocking member (40) upon subsequent insertion of said hollow units (102) into said hollow blocking member (40) (col. 9, l. 51-col. 10, l. 7), wherein upon opening of holes (43), by removing screws (44), the air is discharged from the hollow blocking member (40) and from hollow units (102), thus initially letting in the coolant (21) to reduce buoyancy, which then flows back into the tank (20) during the process of detaching of said hollow fluid blocking member (40) from said tank (20) (col. 4, l. 54 – col. 5, l. 25; col. 9, l. 51-col. 10, l. 7; Figs. 4, 5, 12).
Accordingly, contrary to the Applicant’s possiiton, claims continue to read on the Nishiyama reference as explained above in the body of the rejection.
Furthermore, regarding the Miyoshi reference, the Applicant argues that, allegedly,
“Applicant further respectfully submits that the cited reference Miyoshi likewise fails to teach or suggest the claimed hollow fluid blocking member. As disclosed in paragraph [0115] of Miyoshi, the shell structure of Miyoshi is configured to directly house heat-generating components (HGC) and constitutes an active cooling chamber in operative use. The interior space of Miyoshi's shell is, by definition, an occupied and actively utilized space-one that is functionally dedicated to the accommodation and thermal management of heat-generating elements during operation. Under the applicable principles of claim construction, including the doctrine of structural and functional correspondence, a housing or enclosure that contains core heat-generating components cannot be construed as a "fluid blocking member" within the meaning of the present claims. The claimed hollow fluid blocking member is expressly directed to a structure that occupies unused space within the tank -that is, space not otherwise occupied by active components -for the purpose of displacing coolant and thereby optimizing the fluid dynamics within the tank. Miyoshi's shell, by contrast, occupies used space -space actively engaged in the performance of a primary functional role -and therefore does not correspond, either structurally or functionally, to the claimed hollow fluid blocking member. The distinction is not merely one of degree but one of fundamental structural purpose and operational role.”
In response the Office would like to point out that no limitations pertained to the “structure that occupies unused space within the tank -that is, space not otherwise occupied by active components -for the purpose of displacing coolant and thereby optimizing the fluid dynamics within the tank” are present in the rejected claims. The claims are broader than argued and continue to read on the Miyoshi reference as explained above in the body of the rejection.
Also, it appears that the Applicant is attempting to import claim limitations from the specification. However, “it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification”. MPEP 2111.01 (II).
Furthermore, the Applicant went on by presenting arguments pertained to the combination of Nishiyama and Miyoshi. It’s not clear why the Applicant argues the Nishiyama- Miyoshi combination since no claim rejection based on this combination was made.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is (571)272-2047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jayprakash N. Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.7/23/2026
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.
/Anatoly Vortman/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2841
/A.V./7/23/2026
Prosecution Insights