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 06/26/2026 to the non-final Office action of 04/15/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-16 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by .
US 2018/0027695 to WAKINO et al. (hereafter “Wakino”).
Regarding claim 1, Wakino discloses a server (Figs. 2, 3 (20,40), [0022]) , comprising:
a first chassis ((24,26,28), [0024]) and a primary heat generation component ((40), [0028]), the first chassis (24,26,28) having a first containment chamber (24) containing cooling liquid ([0026]), the primary heat generation component (40) being arranged within the first containment chamber (24), the first chassis (24,26,28) having a first liquid inlet (Fig. 3 (72A), [0067]) and a first liquid outlet (72B) which are both in communication with the first containment chamber (24), the first chassis (24,26,28) having a first end ((34), [0023]); and
a second chassis ((32), [0023]) and a secondary heat generation component (Figs. 2, 3 (58,74), [0032]), the second chassis (32) being arranged at the first end (34) and fixedly connected to the first chassis (24,26,28), the second chassis (32) having a second containment chamber (Figs. 2, 3), the second containment chamber being sealed and isolated from the first containment chamber ([0024]: since (24) is a sealed container, the second containment chamber (32)
can be regarded as being sealed and isolated from the first containment chamber (24,26,28)),
the secondary heat generation component (58,74) being arranged in the second containment chamber (32).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/095481 to MA et al. (hereafter “Ma”).
Regarding claim 1, Ma discloses server (Figs. 1, 2A, 2B (100,200), [0024], [0036]), comprising: a first chassis ((228), [0038]) and a primary heat generation component, the first
chassis (228) having a first containment chamber containing cooling liquid, the primary heat generation component being arranged within the first containment chamber, the first chassis (228) having a first liquid inlet (230) and a first liquid outlet (232) which are both in communication with the first containment chamber (228), the first chassis (228) having a first end (for example end comprising (234)); and a second chassis ((216), [0040]) and a secondary heat generation component, the second chassis (216) being arranged at the first end (Figs. 2A, 2B) and fixedly connected to the first chassis ([0037]), the second chassis (216) having a second containment chamber, the second containment chamber being sealed and isolated from the first containment chamber (it is clear from [0039], that (228) is sealed, which implies that (216) is sealed and isolated from (228)), the secondary heat generation component being arranged in the second containment chamber ((216), [0040]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-16 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 2-14, the limitation of claim 2 (“the primary heat generation component comprises a motherboard arranged at a lower part of the first chassis in a first direction, where the first direction is a height direction of the first chassis; and the server further comprises a first liquid cooling module arranged on a surface of the motherboard, the first liquid cooling module having a second liquid inlet and a second liquid outlet in communication with the second liquid inlet, the second liquid inlet being in communication with the first liquid inlet, the second liquid outlet being in communication with the first containment chamber”) in combination with all of the limitations of the parent claim 1, are believed to render the combined subject matter and claims 3-14 dependent therefrom allowable over the art of record taken alone or in combination.
Regarding claims 15-16, the limitation of claim 15 (“the first chassis further has a second end opposite to the first end, the first chassis comprises a casing and a lid, the casing has an opening on one side thereof, the opening is located between the first end and the second end, the lid is arranged at the opening, the casing has a receiving groove at the side where the opening is located, a sealing member is arranged within the receiving groove, and the lid is sealingly engaged with the casing through the sealing member”) in combination with all of the limitations of the parent claim 1, are believed to render the combined subject matter and claim 16 dependent therefrom allowable over the art of record taken alone or in combination.
Response to Arguments
With regards to Wakino and claim 1, the Office believes that Applicant had misconstrued the art and therefore arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that, allegedly, “Applicant submits that all heat generation electronic components in Wakino that require cooling are disposed within the cooling medium bath 24. The equipment chamber 32 in Wakino contains only components for circulating and cooling the refrigerants-the refrigerant condenser, pump, and connection pipes, rather than any heat generation components…no heat generation components are disposed in the equipment chamber 32 of Wakino.”
In response the Office would like to direct the Applicant’s attention to the fact that, contrary to the Applicant’s position, the pumps (58, 74), arranged in the second containment chamber (32), are inherently heat producing (generating) components. Claim 1 does not recite that the “heat generation electronic components…that require cooling” being arranged in the second containment chamber, but just broadly recites that “the secondary heat generation component being arranged in the second containment chamber”. The pumps (58, 74) of Wakino meet claimed “secondary heat generation component being arranged in the second containment chamber”. Claim 1 is broader than argued.
Furthermore, with regards to Ma and claim 1, the Office believes that Applicant had misconstrued the art and therefore arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that, allegedly, “Claim 1 of the present application clearly defines that "the second chassis being arranged at the first end and fixedly connected to the first chassis". In other words, in the present application, the second chassis is directly and fixedly connected to an end of the first chassis, such that the two chassis from [sic] an integrated server structure without the need for an external chassis for assembly.”, wherein “the liquid cooled segment 214 and the air cooled segment 216 in Ma are two independent removable modules, which are separately inserted and secured into a shared chassis 218, rather than being directly connected end-to-end to form a single integrated server. Therefore, the overall assembly structure in Ma is completely different from the connection configuration between the first and second chassis in the present application” (emphasis added).
In response the Office would like to direct the Applicant’s attention to the fact that, contrary to the Applicant’s position, in Ma the first chassis (228) having a first end (for example end comprising (234)); and a second chassis (216) being arranged at the first end (Figs. 2A, 2B) and fixedly connected to the first chassis by the external chassis (218).
The limitations “being arranged at the first end” are very broad and do not mean “being directly connected end-to-end to form a single integrated server”, or “the second chassis is directly and fixedly connected to an end of the first chassis, such that the two chassis from an integrated server structure without the need for an external chassis for assembly”, as alleged by the Applicant. The claim does not recite that “the second chassis is directly and fixedly connected to an end of the first chassis, such that the two chassis from [sic] an integrated server structure without the need for an external chassis for assembly” or that said chassis are “directly connected end-to-end to form a single integrated server.” Claim 1 is broader than argued.
Furthermore, 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).
Accordingly, claim 1 continues to read on Wakino and Ma references and the rejection is hereby maintained.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights