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 claims 1–8 in the reply filed on August 7, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9–18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to an invention nonelected without traverse, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities. In claim 5, the phrase “instructing the an actuator” appears to contain a residual amendment artifact; “an actuator” is believed to be intended. In claim 8, the recitation “the adjustable weir wall” lacks express antecedent basis; claims 1 and 5, from which claim 8 depends, recite “the adjustable weir.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MPEP § 2111.
“Vessel,” “bath area,” “sump area.” Consistent with the specification, the vessel is interpreted as the fluid-containing structure of the system taken as a whole, which may comprise multiple fluidly communicating regions or coupled containers. The specification states that “an immersion cooling system or a vessel can include a bath area, a sump area, an adjustable weir (e.g., in between the bath area and the sump area)” (¶[0027]), and describes vessel 105 as comprising a tank 110 including bath area 111, sump area 112, and associated circulation components (¶[0031]). The bath area and sump area are regions distinguished by their function in the circulation path — the region to which fluid is delivered and in which the computer component is immersed, and the region from which fluid is drawn for recirculation, respectively — rather than by any particular wall geometry.
The “wherein” clauses of the claims are treated as limiting because they give structural meaning to the claimed arrangement. Recitations of the form “configured to” are interpreted as requiring that the structure be capable of performing the recited function. The term “thermally conductive dielectric fluid” is given its plain meaning; compare Amos ¶[0124] (coolant that is “not electrically conductive, but is normally thermally conductive”).
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.
Claims 1–3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd et al. (US 2015/0181762 A1, “Boyd”) in view of Amos et al. (US 2020/0305307 A1, “Amos”).Regarding claim 1, Boyd discloses a system comprising: a vessel configured to hold a thermally conductive dielectric fluid (tank 14 together with the immediately adjacent reservoir 42, provided as a “highly-integrated module,” ¶¶[0032]–[0033], [0048], FIGS. 1 and 5; per the Claim Interpretation above, the vessel is the fluid-containing structure of the system taken as a whole; the tank is adapted to immerse a plurality of appliances in a dielectric fluid, ¶[0032], which carries heat to the heat exchangers, ¶¶[0033]–[0034]); a computer component at least partially submerged in the fluid (appliances 16, e.g., contemporary computer servers, suspended in respective appliance slots 18a, ¶[0032], FIG. 11); a fluid circulation system that draws fluid from a sump area (pumps 48a and 48b recover the dielectric fluid from reservoir 42, positioned vertically beneath the overflow lip of weir 22 and receiving fluid via recovery ports 44a/44b, ¶¶[0033]–[0034], FIGS. 2–4 and 12), through a filter (“Preferably, one or more filters (not shown) are included in the flow path through each of the primary circulation sub-facilities 28a and 28b to remove any particulates or other undesirable foreign matter…,” ¶[0044]), and delivers the fluid to a bath area (the re-pressurized fluid passes through a respective one of the heat exchangers 32a and 32b and returns to the plenum facility 36 via the shared distribution header 38, which dispenses the fluid upwardly into the tank interior in which the appliances are immersed, ¶¶[0033]–[0034], FIG. 12); and a weir between the bath area and the sump area (weir 22, integrated horizontally into a long wall of the tank 14 adjacent all appliance slots, over which the fluid overflows from the tank interior into reservoir 42, ¶¶[0032]–[0033], FIGS. 5 and 6). Boyd does not expressly disclose that the weir is adjustable. Amos, directed to dielectric liquid immersion cooling of computing components, teaches that a retaining wall 7 of such a system “creates a weir effect” (¶[0134]) and that “one or more of the shape and position of lid and whether, how and where the lid joins to the retaining wall 7 may be adjusted to change the flow of liquid coolant and set or adjust where the coolant overspills the retaining wall 7” based on the “desirability and/or requirements of individual heat sinks” (¶[0149]). Amos thereby establishes that the configuration of a weir in a dielectric immersion cooling system is a recognized result-effective variable determining where and how the coolant overspills. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the weir of Boyd adjustable, because providing adjustability for a member whose position or configuration the art recognizes as determining a desired result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197 (CCPA 1954); MPEP § 2144.04(V)(D). The skilled artisan would have been motivated by Amos's express teaching that adjusting the weir configuration sets or adjusts the coolant overspill to meet the requirements of the components being cooled (¶[0149]), consistent with Boyd's own emphasis on adjustment of its flow-control structures “in the field, as a function of the actual number of active appliances” (¶[0041]).Regarding claim 2, Boyd in view of Amos renders obvious the system of claim 1 as set forth above. Amos further teaches the weir removably fixed to a wall between the bath area and the sump area: the retaining walls “can be made from any material (such as metal, plastic or silicone) and can be bonded, adhered, screwed or otherwise fixed or attached” (¶[0172]); a screwed attachment is removable. In the combination, the weir is attached to the wall separating the tank interior (bath area) from the reservoir 42 (sump area) of Boyd (¶¶[0032]–[0033]). It would have been obvious to employ such a known fastening arrangement to permit the weir to be repositioned, serviced, or replaced (Amos ¶¶[0149], [0172]), consistent with Boyd's teaching of field adjustment (¶[0041]).Regarding claim 3, Amos expressly enumerates “screwed” among the disclosed attachment means (¶[0172]), meeting the weir fixed to the wall using screws. Selection among the enumerated, art-recognized fastening means is an obvious matter of design choice.
Claims 4–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd in view of Amos as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Stringam et al. (US 6,427,718 B1, “Stringam”).Regarding claim 4, the combination of Boyd and Amos does not expressly disclose an actuator for moving the adjustable weir. Stringam discloses an automated water-control system comprising a flow measurement weir or flume 21, a water level sensor 12, an adjustable flow control gate 20, a linear actuator 18 for raising and lowering the gate leaf 20b, a position sensor 16, and a controller (CPU 14) that determines the proper gate setting from the sensor inputs (Abstract; col. 2, ll. 35–46; col. 3, ll. 35–43; claim 1). It is noted that in Stringam the actuated element is the flow control gate while the weir or flume serves as the flow measurement structure (col. 2, ll. 10–13); the combination applies Stringam's known automation technique — sensor, controller, and actuator in a closed control loop — to the adjustable weir of the Boyd/Amos combination, whose configuration Amos already teaches adjusting to set the coolant overspill (Amos ¶[0149]). Both references concern controlling liquid flow and level by adjusting a barrier in response to sensed fluid conditions, and Boyd's system already emphasizes automated, programmable-controller-based control of fluid circulation as a function of sensed conditions (Boyd ¶¶[0036]–[0038]) and field adjustment of flow-control structures (Boyd ¶[0041]). It would have been obvious to apply Stringam's automation technique to the adjustable weir of the combination because the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is within ordinary skill, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007), and because Stringam itself states the benefit of such automation: a low-cost, practical way to control outflow under varying liquid levels (Abstract).Regarding claim 5, the claim recites a management system receiving sensor data and instructing an actuator to move the weir (examined as understood per the claim objections above). Stringam discloses a controller (CPU 14) that receives output signals from the water level sensor 12 and the position sensor 16 and controls the actuator 18 to adjust the setting based on those signals (col. 2, ll. 42–46; claim 1), using a closed-loop proportional-integral control routine (col. 3, ll. 44–52). In the combination, Boyd's programmable logic controller 58a — which monitors and controls circulation as a function of sensed fluid conditions (¶[0036]) and provides remote monitoring capability (¶[0038]) — constitutes the management system, and the motivation stated with respect to claim 4 applies equally.Regarding claim 6, which recites that the sensor data is a fluid level in the bath area or the sump area, Boyd discloses low dielectric fluid level sensors 70a and 70b in the tank together with a responsive controller 58 that initiates actions upon the detected condition (¶[0045]), and Stringam's control input is likewise a liquid level signal (col. 2, ll. 42–44). The combination as applied to claim 5 therefore renders the claim obvious.Regarding claim 7, which recites that the sensor data is a temperature of the fluid in the bath area or the sump area, Boyd discloses a temperature probe T installed in the bottom of reservoir 42 (the sump region of the combination), with the primary controller operating as a function of the temperature of the dielectric fluid in the tank (¶[0036]). The combination as applied to claim 5 therefore renders the claim obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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, and amended to resolve the antecedent-basis issue noted in the claim objections above (e.g., by reciting “asymmetrically move the adjustable weir” consistent with claims 1 and 5, or by establishing express antecedent basis for “the adjustable weir wall”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2011/0132579 – liquid submerged, horizontal computer server rack and systems and method of cooling such a server rack.
US 2005/0259402 - power stack for automotive electric rotary machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENGFU J FENG whose telephone number is (571) 272-2949. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10AM - 6PM EST.
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, JAYPRAKASH 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.
/ZHENGFU J FENG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835 August 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights