DETAILED ACTION
Claims 28-30 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:
The prior art does not appear to teach or fairly suggest the inclusion of bypass branching lines between the direct flow supply and tank bulk flow supply lines, as required by claim 28, in conjunction with all the limitations of the claims from which it depends.
Claims 29-30 depend from claim 28.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1, 3-7, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gordon (US 20233/0091814).
Regarding claim 1, Gordon teaches an immersion cooling system comprising: an immersion coolant tank (310) configured to contain heat generating electronic equipment (20); a heat exchanger (Para. [0017]) configured to remove heat absorbed by a first portion (from 350) of a volume of dielectric cooling fluid (322) within the immersion coolant tank; and an eductor (200) configured to receive the first portion of the volume of dielectric cooling fluid through a first port (Fig. 6; in lower eductor the port on the left side) as motive fluid (Para. [0032]); receive a second portion of the volume of dielectric cooling fluid from the immersion coolant tank through a second port (Fig. 6; in lower eductor the port on the top side) as a suction fluid, wherein the motive fluid creates suction by passing through the eductor (via venturi effect; Para. [0032]), which draws the suction fluid into the eductor; mix the motive fluid with the suction fluid inside the eductor (see Fig. 6); and release the mixture of the motive fluid and the suction fluid through a third port (Fig. 6; in lower eductor the port on the right side).
Gordon further teaches that: the eductor is a liquid venturi eductor (Fig. 6), per claim 3; the second portion of the volume of dielectric cooling fluid is drawn from an area within the immersion coolant tank (140) that is immediately adjacent at least one heat generating component (underneath 100) of the electronic equipment, per claim 4; the second portion of the volume of dielectric cooling fluid is drawn from an area within the immersion coolant tank (via 350; see fig. 1) that is remote from a mixing chamber of the eductor, per claim 5; a heatsink shroud at least partially enclosing at least one heat generating component of the heat generating electronic equipment (100) wherein the second portion of the volume of dielectric cooling fluid is drawn from within the heatsink shroud (Fig. 6), per claim 6; the eductor is disposed within the immersion coolant tank (Fig. 6), per claim 7; the heat exchanger is located outside the immersion coolant tank (Para. [0017]), per claim 14.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gao (US 10,667,427).
Regarding claim 15, Gao teaches a system comprising an immersion coolant tank (103) defining an open interior volume configured to hold the heat generating electronic equipment (104) at least partially submerged in dielectric cooling fluid (Col. 2:52-64); a heat exchanger (105) receives a first portion of the dielectric cooling fluid released from the immersion coolant tank (from 112) and returns the first portion to the immersion coolant tank (at 111); coolant circulation lines including: a coolant return line (212) fluidly coupling an outlet port of the immersion tank tot eh heat exchanger (Fig. 2); a coolant supply line coupling the heat exchanger to an inlet port of the tank (211); and a coolant bypass line (230) coupling the coolant return line to the coolant supply line to enable a second portion of the dielectric cooling fluid to bypass the heat exchanger before being delivered to the inlet port (fig. 2); a first pump (115) is configured to move the dielectric cooling fluid between the outlet port and inlet port via the circulation lines (Fig. 2) and at least one bypass flow control device (202) controls coolant flow to bypass the heat exchanger.
Gao further teaches that: the bypass flow control device may comprise a valve (202) downstream of the first pump (115) in at least one of the circulation lines (Fig. 2), per claim 16; the bypass flow control device may include a second pump (203) configured to move the dielectric cooling fluid between the heat exchanger and the inlet port (Fig. 2), per claim 17.
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) 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon in view of Matsumoto (US 10,212,849).
Regarding claims 8-13, Gordon teaches that the heat exchanger is associated with other heat rejection or cooling systems (Para. [0017]) but does not specify any details of those systems.
Matsumoto teaches that it is old and well-known to provide immersion tanks (1) with an external heat exchanger (Fig. 4) attached to a chiller (13), per claims 10 and 12; the chiller is a heat removal system which cools a secondary coolant for cooling the dielectric fluid (secondary coolant in the loop of 13), per claims 8 and 13; this system removes heat from the dielectric fluid before it is reintroduced to the tank (see Fig. 4), per claim 9; it comprises a condensing unit (Col. 3:32-35), per claims 11 and 13.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to provide the device of Gordon with the chiller of Matsumoto as Gordon has explicitly left the choice of external cooling system to one of ordinary skill.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon in view of Aoki (US 2019/0387641).
Regarding claim 2, Gordon does not teach directing the flow released through the third port toward at least a portion of the heat generating electronic equipment.
Aoki teaches that it is old and well-known to direct flow of the dielectric fluid across heat generating electronic equipment (e.g. Fig. 3; 78d) in order to ensure localized fluid flow at the concentrated thermal loads.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to form the device of Gordon with the directed fluid flows, as taught by Aoki, in order to ensure flow of fluid across the heat generating electronic equipment and induce further thermal transfer via forced and not merely passive local convective heat transfer.
Claim(s) 18-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of Tufty (US 2019/0090383).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Gao does not specify return and supply manifolds.
Tufty teaches that it is old and well-known to provide such immersion tanks (70) with return manifolds (102, 20) and supply (90, 94, 98, 96) manifolds.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Gao with return and supply manifolds in order to control the flow to and from the tank, as taught by Tufty.
Regarding claim 20, a directed coolant supply line (100) delivers at least a portion of the colder dielectric cooling fluid from the supply manifold to an area within the immersion coolant tank that is immediately adjacent to at least one heat generating component (Para. [0062]; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 21, Tufty further teaches that flow control devices (valves) may control the flow of the portion of the colder dielectric cooling fluid from the supply manifold to the area within the immersion coolant tank (via 98) immediately adjacent to the heat generating component (Para. [0061]).
Regarding claim 22, Tufty further teaches that a heatsink shroud at least partially encloses the heat generating component for delivery of the cooling fluid (Para. [0062]).
Regarding claim 23, Gao does not specify a supply manifold.
Tufty teaches that it is old and well-known to provide an immersion cooling tank (70) with a manifold (90-98) comprising a direct flow supply manifold (e.g. 94, 98; alternatively the portions 98 which are not connected to 100) to receive a first portion of a cooling fluid from the coolant supply line and distribute the first portion immediately adjacent (via 100) at least one heat generating component (86); and a tank bulk supply manifold (96; alternatively the portions of 98 not connected to 100) configured to receive a second portion of the cooling fluid and distribute it to a second area remote from the first area (Figs. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to provide the device of Gao with the manifold taught by Tufty to allow for more targeted cooling of hot spots in the tank.
Regarding claims 24-25, the adjustable valves (see, e.g., Para. [0061]) may direct the first portion of the cooling fluid to the direct flow supply manifold and the second portion to the tank bulk supply manifold. It is noted that adjustable valves for each pipe coming from the manifold trunk is explicitly envisioned by Tufty (see valves 586 in Fig. 30).
Claim(s) 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of Tufty and Heydari (US 2022/0071049).
Regarding claims 26-26, Gao, as modified, teaches the use of valves (Para. [0061] of Tufty) as control devices to direct flow from a manifold to different locations of a cooled system wherein the direct flow supply line and tank bulk flow supply line are branched from each other (see Fig. 2; 90, 96; Tufty).
Heydari teaches that it is old and well-known to utilize pumps and valves interchangeably (222a, b) to direct flow from a manifold to different locations of a cooled system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Gao, as modified, with pumps in place of valves, as taught by Heydari, in order to increase the level of flow control available to the operator.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-4 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11,085,624. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Devon Lane whose telephone number is (571)270-1858. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9-4.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571.270.5054. 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.
/DEVON LANE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights