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 8/26/2026 to the non-final Office action of 05/27/2026 is acknowledged. The Office action on currently pending claims 1, 2, 4-14, and 16-20 follows.
Drawings
The amended Drawings filed on 08/26/2026 have been accepted by the Office.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 14 are objected.
The limitation “pump” in claim 1 (l. 8) and in claim 14 (l. 7) lacks proper antecedent basis (i.e., the article “a” is not present).
Applicant's cooperation is hereby requested in correcting of any remaining errors and informalities in the claims.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 08/25/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of the full statutory term of any patent granted on pending reference application No. 18/754, 103 and which would extend beyond the expiration date of the full statutory term of prior patent No. 12, 075, 599, has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Accordingly, the outstanding Double Patenting rejection of claims 1 and 14 has been obviated, and is hereby withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-14, and 16-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110290667 A to Lin et al. (hereafter “Lin”, reference of record, cited in parent US patent No. 12,075,559) in view of US 2019/0090383 to Tufty et al. (hereafter “Tufty”, reference of record, cited in parent US patent No. 12,075,559).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Lin discloses (Figs. 1-3 and English translation of record) an electronic apparatus, comprising: a plurality of heat generating components (disposed in the area (102)); and an immersion cooling system, comprising: at least one single compartment main tank (defined by the area (102) between (10) and (11), or between (11), (12), and (13) on Fig. 3), that contains a heat dissipation medium therein, wherein the plurality of heat generating components is disposed in the at least one main tank and immersed in the heat dissipation medium (Fig. 3); and a liquid amount adjusting module ((90), (40), (101), and a pump (par. [0067])), comprising an auxiliary tank (101), a pipeline (40), a pump (par. [0067]), wherein the auxiliary tank is adjacent to the at least one main tank (Fig. 3), wherein at least a portion of the heat dissipation medium flowing out of the main tank, apart from the rest portion of the heat dissipation medium retained therein, is flowed over a top surface of a sidewall (11) of the at least one main tank and overflowed into the auxiliary tank (101), (par. [0067]), wherein the pump disposed outside of the at least one main tank and the auxiliary tank (par. [0067] in Lin), and the pipeline (30, 40) is extended respectively from the at least one main tank and the auxiliary tank to connect the pump and the filter (Fig. 3, par. [0067] in Lin).
Regarding claims 14 and 16, Lin discloses (Fig. 1-3 and English translation of record) a cooling system, configured for heat dissipation of a plurality of heat generating components (disposed in the area (102)), comprising: at least one main tank (defined by the area (102) between (10) and (11), or between (11), (12), and (13) on Fig. 3), that accommodates a heat dissipation medium therein, and the plurality of heat generating components is immersed in the heat dissipation medium (Fig. 3); and a liquid amount adjusting module ((90), (40), (101), and a pump (par. [0067])), comprising an auxiliary tank (101), a pipeline (40), a pump (par. [0067]), wherein the auxiliary tank (101) is adjacent to the at least one main tank (Fig. 3), wherein at least a portion of the heat dissipation medium flowing out of the main tank, apart from the rest portion of the heat dissipation medium retained therein, is flowed over a top surface of a sidewall (11) of the at least one main tank and overflowed into the auxiliary tank (101), (par. [0067]), wherein the pump disposed outside of the at least one main tank and the auxiliary tank (par. [0067] in Lin), and the pipeline (30, 40) is extended respectively from the at least one main tank and the auxiliary tank to connect the pump and the filter (Fig. 3, par. [0067] in Lin).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Lin does not disclose: a filter connected to the pump, wherein the filter is disposed outside of the at least one main tank and the auxiliary tank, and the pipeline is extended respectively from the at least one main tank and the auxiliary tank to connect the filter and the pump.
Tufty discloses a liquid immersion cooling system (Fig. 1) comprising: a filter (54), the filter (54) is connected to a pump (22), and the pump (22) is adapted to drive 25a heat dissipation medium (50) in a tank (18) to flow through the filter (54) so as to be filtered, wherein the filter (54) may be positioned on the pump inlet (Tufty, Fig. 1; par. [0053]).
Since inventions of Lin and Tufty are from the same field of endeavor (i.e., immersion liquid cooling systems for electronic devices), the purpose of the filter taught by Tufty would be recognized in the cooling system of Lin.
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 further modify to Lin according to the teachings of Tufty by providing a filter connected to the pump and positioned on the pump inlet, in order to filter the heat dissipation medium (Tufty, par. [0053]), thus predictably enhancing cooling efficiency and reliability of the cooling system. Furter, positioning of the filter outside of the tanks would render the size of the filter independent of the tanks’ constraints, thus simplifying design. Also, 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). Furter, 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 positioned the filter in the Lin-Tufty combination at any desirable optimal location along the cooling loop, including outside of the at least one main tank and auxiliary tank as claimed, in order to position it next to the pump, thus achieving desired space utilization, cooling efficiency, etc., since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Furter, positioning of the filter outside of the tanks would render the size of the filter independent of the tanks’ constraints, thus simplifying design.
Regarding claim 4, Lin discloses that a capacity of the auxiliary tank (101) is smaller than a capacity of the main tank (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claims 5, 10, and 20, Lin discloses that a liquid level of the heat dissipation medium disposed in the at least one main tank (defined by the area (102) between (10) and (11), or between (11), (12), and (13) on Fig. 3) is higher than a liquid level of the heat dissipation medium in the auxiliary tank (101) and higher than top surfaces of the plurality of heat generating components immersed therein (i.e., in the area (102), Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 6, 8, 17, and 18, Lin as modified by Tufty discloses that the liquid amount adjusting module further comprises a level sensor (90) disposed at the auxiliary tank (101) and a pipeline (30, 40) extended between the pump in the auxiliary tank (101) and the at least one main tank (Fig. 3, par. [0067] in Lin), wherein the pump drives the heat dissipation medium flowed away from the auxiliary tank (101) to flow into the at least one main tank through the pipeline (30, 40), (Fig. 3, par. [0067] in Lin) and the filter (54) connected thereto (Fig. 1 in Tufty).
Regarding claim 7, 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 controlled the liquid level of the heat dissipation medium in the main tank of the Lin-Tufty combination to be at any suitable optimal level, including to be 2 mm to 3 mm higher than top surfaces of the plurality of heat generating components as claimed, in order to achieve proper and efficient cooling of said heat generating components and also to maintain proper outflow of the heat dissipation medium into the auxiliary tank, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Lin discloses (Figs. 2 and 3) a condensation structure top wall of the housing (10)), wherein the condensation structure is disposed above the at least one main tank (defined by the area (102) between (10) and (11), or between (11), (12), and (13) on Fig. 3), and the heat dissipation medium in a liquid state is adapted to be vaporized into the heat dissipation medium in a gaseous state by absorbing heat energy of the plurality of heat generating components immersed in the heat dissipation medium in the liquid state (inherently), wherein the heat dissipation medium in the gaseous state condenses into the heat dissipation medium in the liquid state as reaching the condensation structure and is attached thereon (inherently, since the temperature of the housing (10) is lower than heated cooling liquid), wherein the heat dissipation medium in the liquid state attached to the condensation structure is (inherently) pulled back into the at least one main tank by gravity.
Regarding claim 11, Lin as modified by Tufty discloses (in reference to Tufty): a pressure sensor (304) used to govern the operation of the pump (22) to satisfy a min/max set of pressure limits (par. [0080]), but does not disclose that the liquid amount adjusting File: 105138usf module comprises a pressure gauge, and the pressure gauge is connected to the pump.
However, the official notice is taken1 that the liquid pressure gauges have been notoriously known and widely used in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to allow users to know the pressure level.
Accordingly, 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 further modify to Lin-Tufty combination by providing the liquid amount adjusting File: 105138usf module with a pressure gauge connected to the pump in order to allow users to know pressure level and inform them whether the pump is operating normally. 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, Lin discloses that a capacity of the auxiliary tank (101) is grater or equal to a volume of the plurality of heat generating components (Figs. 1-3).
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 selected the capacity of the auxiliary tank in Lin-Tufty combination to be of any desired optimal range, including to be grater or equal to a volume of the plurality of heat generating components as claimed, in order to achieve proper and efficient cooling of said heat generating components and also to predictably accommodate the desired outflow of the heat dissipation medium into the auxiliary tank, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 13, Lin discloses that all flows of the heat dissipation medium out of the at least one main tank flow along a single flowing path over the top surface of the sidewall (11) of the at least one main tank and towards the auxiliary tank (101), (Fig. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendment combines previously rejected claims 1 and 3 and 14 and 15. Applicant did not add any new limitations to the previously rejected combined subject matter of the aforementioned claims.
Applicant contends that, allegedly, “para. [0067] of Lin does not describe anything regarding the pump's location, nor does it teach or imply that the pump is located outside the tank.”
The aforementioned Applicant’s conclusion is in error. Lin states in par. [0067] -“In a specific embodiment, the liquid inlet pipeline 30 is communicated with the liquid return pipeline 40, and a heat exchanger and a pressure pump are arranged between the liquid inlet pipeline 30 and the liquid return pipeline 40. The high-temperature cooling liquid enters the heat exchanger through the liquid return line 40 for cooling and cooling, and the cooled low-temperature cooling liquid re-enters the return area 103 through the liquid inlet line 30 under the drive of the pressure pump.” (emphasis added).
In view of the above, the pump is clearly disclosed by Lin. Furter, all figures of Lin do not show any pump. As such, the pump is clearly “disposed outside of the at least one main tank and the auxiliary tank”, since said main tank (defined by the area (102) between (10) and (11), or between (11), (12), and (13) on Fig. 3), and said auxiliary tank (101) are shown on Figs. 2 and 3 of Lin. The Office reminds Applicant that "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences (emphasis added) which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. (MPEP 2112). The disclosure of the structure (or material or acts) may be implicit or inherent in the specification if it would have been clear to those skilled in the art what structure (or material or acts) corresponds to the means (or step)-plus-function claim limitation. See Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., at 1380, 53 USPQ2d at 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946-47, 42 USPQ2d 1881, 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Furthermore, Tufty clearly teaches that the filter (54) is “provided on the pump inlet” (next to/on the pump, i.e., used together). Therefore, in view of the above, in the Lin-Tufty combination “the pump and the filter are disposed outside of the at least one main tank and the auxiliary tank, and the pipeline is extended respectively from the at least one main tank and the auxiliary tank to connect the pump and the filter”, as claimed.
The Office would like to emphasize that the disclosure of Tufty was used for its teaching of conventionality of the filter and of the concept of the pump and filter being used together (i.e., in one location) in order to filter the coolant (i.e., not for the positioning of the pump per se). The positioning of the pump outside of the tanks is taught by Lin.
Furthermore, Applicant went on by stating that, allegedly, “[t]he Office, clearly based on a review of the contents of paras. [0038] and [0039] of the application, concluded that the above-mentioned feature of the application is a routine skill in the art for achieving desired space utilization and cooling efficiency with hindsight bias.”
In response the Office would like to remind the Applicant that it must be recognized that any judgement on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure (i.e., as in the instant case), such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392; 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In view of the above 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
1 Examiner's Note: Since Applicant has failed to seasonably traverse the aforementioned well-known
statement (see the footnote on p. 9 of the final Office action of 10/06/2022 in parent application No. 17/226,103), the object of said well-known statement is taken to be admitted prior art. See In re Chevenard, 139 F. 2d71, 60 USPQ 239 (CCPA 1943), ("If Applicant does not seasonably traverse the well-known statement during examination, then the object of the well-known statement is taken to be admitted prior art"). MPEP 2144.03 (C).
Prosecution Insights