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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Tank Species T3 (Figure 14; Tank with a recovery device), Door Piping Species D1 (exterior piping), and Condensing Device Species C6 (Figures 11-12, drawn to a condensing device that spans from exterior to interior) in the reply filed on 5/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/14/2026.
Claim 5 recites “the door panel type condensing device comprises: a door panel, arranged at the top plane of the tank body; an inlet, arranged on an outer side of the door panel; a reflux port, arranged on the outer side of the door panel; and a condensing device, arranged on an inner side of the door panel, and connected to the inlet and the reflux port”. Thus, claim 5 requires that the condensing device be on the inner side of the door panel and connected to the two ports. However, the applicant has elected condensing device species C6 which has a condensing device that spans from the exterior to the interior. Thus, the elected condensing device is not arranged on an inner side of the door panel. Therefore, claim 5 and its dependents are directed towards a non-elected species. Accordingly, claims 5-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 5/14/2026 are as follows:
Claims 1-14 are pending;
Claims 5-10 are withdrawn from consideration;
Claims 1-4 and 11-14 are being examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“chamber sealing device” in claim 2, interpreted as a moveable plate and equivalent structures (Paragraph 38).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites “the baffle comprises a non-heat conducting baffle”. However, all objects have some degree of heat conduction, thus it would not seem possible to have no heat conduction at all. Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the claim is indefinite.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keehn (US2020/0375059A1).
Re Claim 1. Keehn teaches a tank structure for an immersion cooling system (Figures 1 and 3), comprising:
at least one tank (104), wherein the at least one tank comprising: a tank body (104), having a liquid space (122a) and a vapor space (122b), wherein the liquid space is arranged to house a heater device (105) and a coolant (120), the vapor space is arranged to accommodate electric vapor generated from the coolant, and the vapor space is positioned above the liquid space and adjacent to a top plane of the tank body (Figure 1; Paragraphs 27-34);
a door panel type condensing device (110), arranged at the top plane of the tank body, adaptable for sealing the tank body and cooling the electric vapor flowing through the top plane of the tank body (Figure 1; 110 is a condenser mounted onto the lid 108. Thus the condenser is a door panel type condensing device; Paragraphs 27-34); and
a baffle (140), comprising one end positioned at the top plane of the tank body (top of 140 contacts 108), and another end (bottom of 140) directed towards liquid surfaces (150c) of the coolant, segmenting the vapor space into a first vapor space (to the right of 140 in Figure 3) near the door panel type condensing device and a second vapor space (left side of 140 in Figure 3) distal to the door panel type condensing device (Figures 1 and 3; Paragraphs 27-34 and 40-42); and
a vapor chamber (to the left of 110’ in Figure 3), connected to the tank body, adaptable for cooling the electric vapor flowing to the vapor chamber through the second vapor space (Figure 3; Paragraphs 40-42).
Re Claim 11. Keehn teaches the baffle comprises a non-heat conducting baffle (Figures 1 and 3; Paragraphs 27-34 and 40-42; The filter is considered non-heat conducting).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keehn (US2020/0375059A1) in view of Lin (US2023/0026658A1).
Re Claims 2 & 3. Keehn teaches tank and vapor chamber (Figures 1 and 3) but fails to specifically teach the at least one tank comprises a chamber sealing device located between the tank body and the vapor chamber, connected to the tank body, adaptable for selectively allowing partial airflow connectivity between the tank body and the vapor chamber, wherein the chamber sealing device is a movable structure.
However, Lin teaches one tank (110) comprises a chamber sealing device (180) located between the tank body and the vapor chamber (130), connected to the tank body, adaptable for selectively allowing partial airflow connectivity between the tank body and the vapor chamber, wherein the chamber sealing device is a movable structure (Figures 1 and 5; Paragraphs 31, 32, 42).
Therefore, in view of Lin's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form a chamber sealing device between the tank body and the vapor chamber of Keehn in order to better regulate the pressure in the tank body by only selectively allowing excess pressure from the tank body to pass through to the vapor chamber, thereby improving operating efficiencies.
Re Claim 4. Keehn teaches the vapor chamber (Figures 1 and 3) but fails to specifically teach the vapor chamber comprises a reflux pipeline connected to the tank body, allowing the coolant in the vapor chamber to flow back to the tank body after cooling.
However, Lin teaches the vapor chamber comprises a reflux pipeline (150) connected to the tank body, allowing the coolant in the vapor chamber to flow back to the tank body after cooling (Figure 1; Paragraph 32).
Therefore, in view of Lin's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add reflux pipeline to Keehn in order to maintain an adequate supply of liquid coolant for the tank.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keehn (US2020/0375059A1) in view of Oseen-Senda (US2024/0198252A1).
Re Claim 12. Keen teaches the top plane of the tank body is arranged with respect to the tank body (Figures 1 and 3), but fails to specifically teach the top plane of the tank body is arranged to be inclined with respect to the tank body.
However, Oseen-Senda teaches the top plane of the tank body is arranged to be inclined (103) with respect to the tank body (lower part of 104) (Figure 1; Paragraphs 43-44).
Therefore, in view of Oseen-Senda's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incline the top plane of the tank body of Keen in order to direct the coolant from the edges of the tank, thereby better directing the vapor to the condenser, thus improving the overall operation efficiency of the system.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keehn (US2020/0375059A1) in view of Lin (US2024/0057290A1).
Re Claim 13. Keehn teaches an immersion cooling system, comprising: at least one tank comprising the tank structure of claim 1 (see above) but fails to specifically teach a coolant distribution device, comprising: a liquid-gas storage tank, connected to the at least one tank through piping, adaptable for receiving electric vapor from the vapor chamber, and transmitting the coolant to the tank structure of the at least one tank after the coolant is condensed.
However, Lin teaches a coolant distribution device, comprising: a liquid-gas storage tank (21), connected to the at least one tank (10) through piping (31), adaptable for receiving electric vapor from the vapor chamber, and transmitting the coolant to the tank structure (via 32, 33) of the at least one tank after the coolant is condensed (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 34-41).
Therefore, in view of Lin's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a coolant distribution device to the tank of Keehn in order to maintain an adequate supply of liquid coolant for the tank for cooling. Additionally, in view of Lin's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a coolant distribution device to the tank of Keehn in order to increase the operational efficiency of the system by maintaining an optimal operational pressure, thereby reducing the loading and power consumption of the condenser (Lin Paragraph 68).
Re Claim 14. Keehn as modified by Lin teach a coolant recovery device (72 of Lin), selectively connected to the liquid-gas storage tank through piping, adaptable for receiving non-condensed gases from the liquid-gas storage tank, and transmitting the coolant to the liquid-gas storage tank after the coolant is condensed (Keehn Figures 1 and 3; Lin Figures 1-2, Paragraphs 34-41, 67-68).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 for other relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights