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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-6 are 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 1 recites “…is above the consistent cross sectional-area portion” which renders claim 1 indefinite as it is unclear what the recitation “above” is relative to. Claim 1 is interpreted such that the recitation “above” is in reference to a fluid flow direction. Similarly recitations of “above” are similarly interpreted.
Claims 2-3 are rejected in view of their dependence from claim 1. Claims 4-6 are similarly rejected and interpreted.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jian (US 2024/0015928) in view of Kodama (US 2017/0354066).
Regarding claim 1,
Jian teaches an immersion cooling tank (see abstract), comprising: a casing 31; and a piping assembly 4, comprising: a fluid entrance 16 provided on the casing; an inflow branch pipe 41 in fluid communication with the fluid entrance; and a flow inlet 43 in fluid communication with the inflow branch pipe 41, wherein the flow inlet protrudes from a top surface of the inflow branch pipe or is sunken relative to the top surface of the inflow branch pipe (see Fig. 2).
Jian does not teach wherein the flow inlet includes an inconsistent cross-sectional-area portion and a consistent cross-sectional-area portion, and the inconsistent cross-sectional-area portion is above the consistent cross-sectional-area portion, wherein the inconsistent cross-sectional-area portion comprises a first cross-sectional area and a second cross-sectional area, the first cross-sectional area is above the second cross-sectional area, and the first cross-sectional area is less than the second cross-sectional area.
Referring to Fig. 13, Kodama, directed to a liquid immersion cooling apparatus, teaches wherein a flow inlet includes an inconsistent cross-sectional-area portion 35 and a consistent cross-sectional-area portion (e.g. at 25), and the inconsistent cross-sectional-area portion is above the consistent cross-sectional-area portion (relative to a fluid flow), wherein the inconsistent cross-sectional-area portion comprises a first cross-sectional area (e.g. closer to element 25) and a second cross-sectional area (e.g. further to element 25), the first cross-sectional area is above the second cross-sectional area (relative to a fluid flow), and the first cross-sectional area is less than the second cross-sectional area (see par. 84).
Kodama teaches wherein said configuration increases a flow rate of a fluid (e.g. via a venturi effect, see par. 84) and a cooling efficiency (e.g. of said fluid) is increased (see par. 84).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Jian by Kodama with the motivation of increases a flow rate of the fluid.
Regarding claim 2,
Jian as modified above does not teach wherein a ratio of the first cross-sectional area to the second cross-sectional area is between ½ and 1/3 (e.g. the ratio of the narrowing portion of said venturi effected flow inlet).
However, it has been held that claims directed to (the size of) a specific element were held unpatentable over prior art elements because limitations relating to the size of the elements were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Similarly, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04 IV A).
Alternatively, Jian as modified above does, however, disclose a relative ratio of the narrowing portion of said flow inlet (see Kodama, Fig. 13). Therefore, the ratio of said narrowing portion is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is the increase of fluid flow velocity. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. the relative ratio of the narrowing portion of a flow inlet, was disclosed in the prior art by Jian as modified above, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to provide a ratio of the first cross-sectional area to the second cross-sectional area is between ½ and 1/3.
Regarding claim 3,
The subject matter of claim 2 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claims 4-6,
The subject matter of claims 4-6 are directed towards essentially the same subject matter as claims 1-3 and has been addressed in the rejection of claims 1-3.
Regarding claims 7-3,
Jian teaches a heat exchanger (see pars. 31-32); and a pump (see pars. 20, 31, 58), wherein a fluid entering and exiting the immersion cooling tank is extracted to the heat exchanger by the pump (see pars. 31-32).
The remanning subject matter of claims 7-9 area directed towards essentially the same subject matter as claims 1-3 and has been addressed in the rejection of claims 1-3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kajitani and Liu teach immersion cooling tanks with cooling fluid nozzles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE S TANENBAUM whose telephone number is (313)446-6522. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 AM - 7 PM.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at (571) 272-6681. 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.
/Steve S TANENBAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights