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 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 following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “foaming device” and “circulation device” in claim 1.
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. The phrase “foaming device” has been examined as -- an air pump for providing non-condensable gas and a bubble generator connected to the air pump--. The phrase “circulation device” has been examined as -- a steam outlet with one end introduced into the cooling cavity, a gas-liquid separator and a backflow inlet--.
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
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 6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the cooling water". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency from a claim that has been rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1,9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith US 11,744,041 B2.
Re claim 1, Smith teach a cooling device for cooling a heat generating object (104), comprising: a tank (1501) comprising a sealable cooling cavity (col 7) for containing a cooling liquid inside the tank, wherein the heat generating object is capable of being arranged in the cooling cavity for cooling by the cooling liquid (col 11 lines 40-67, cols 16, 25, 34); a foaming device (508, 506, 502), wherein a partial structure of the foaming device is immersed in the cooling liquid and is capable of generating bubbles inside the cooling liquid (fig 5), and the bubbles are capable of rising inside the cooling liquid until fitting a surface to be cooled of the heat generating object (it is noted that the italicized limitation is a functional limitation which the reference is capable of performing; cols 25, 34); and a circulation device (130, 132, 134, 120, 135 and directly connecting conduits, fig 5) connected to the tank and configured to collect and condense vaporized cooling liquid and redeliver the vaporized cooling liquid into the cooling cavity (fig 5).
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “and the bubbles are capable of rising inside the cooling liquid until fitting a surface to be cooled of the heat generating object” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 9, Smith teach wherein the cooling liquid is selected from water, an organic solvent or a mixed liquid according to a working temperature of the heat generating object (since no new structure is required).
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “wherein the cooling liquid is selected from water, an organic solvent or a mixed liquid according to a working temperature of the heat generating object” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith.
Re claim 2, Smith teach wherein the foaming device comprises an air pump for providing non-condensable gas and a bubble generator connected to the air pump (see the rejection of claim 1).
Another embodiment teach and the bubble generator (2409, 506) is arranged in the cooling cavity and below a position of the heat generating object when the heat generating object is being cooled, so that the gas generated by the air pump is capable of rising and impacting the heat generating object after discharged through the bubble generator to cool the electronics device (fig 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include location details (“Electronic devices 104 may be disposed within the inner
volume 150 of the sealed enclosure in a variety of configurations to facilitate thermal transfer and best practice process efficiency” col 11) as taught by combining embodiments in order to advantageously allow for facilitate thermal transfer and best practice process efficiency.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to try to provide the bubble generator (2409, 506) is arranged in the cooling cavity and below a position of the heat generating object when the heat generating object is being cooled, so that the gas generated by the air pump is capable of rising and impacting the heat generating object after discharged through the bubble generator in order to advantageously allow for facilitate thermal transfer and best practice process efficiency, since it has been held that a mere reversal or rearrangement of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.04, section VI, part C.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to provide and the bubble generator is arranged in the cooling cavity and below a position of the heat generating object when the heat generating object is being cooled, so that the gas generated by the air pump is capable of rising and impacting the heat generating object after discharged through the bubble generator, since it has been held that a mere reversal or rearrangement of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.04, section VI, part C.
Re claim 3, Smith teach wherein the bubble generator comprises sintered metal or ceramic-based bubble stone, or a sprayer having a plurality of holes (figs), and the bubble generator is capable of generating more than five bubbles per cubic millimeter (noting any amount of bubbles may pass through an area given a certain amount of time; it is noted that the italicized limitation is a functional limitation which the reference is capable of performing).
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “and the bubble generator is capable of generating more than five bubbles per cubic millimeter” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of EISENHOUR US 20120003510 A1.
Re claim 4, Smith fail to teach controls.
EISENHOUR teach a detection feedback device, wherein the detection feedback device comprises a temperature detector for detecting a surface temperature of the heat generating object and a feedback controller in signal connection with the temperature detector, and the feedback controller is in signal connection with the foaming device and is capable of controlling a foaming amount of the foaming device according to the temperature detected by the temperature detector (para 35 noting an increase of temperature of the fluid removing heat from the heat source in indicative of and/or directly related to the temperature of the surface of the heat source, noting in the instant combination the teachings of the secondary reference is used to increase the fan/pump of the foaming device since one of ordinary skill in the art would understand increase the power to the device which provides cooling in the primary reference would achieve the controlling effects) to provide automation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include controls as taught by EISENHOUR in the Smith invention in order to advantageously allow for controls to automatically cool the device dependent on set temperature thresholds.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of LAN US 20200328137 A1.
Re claim 5, Smith teach wherein the circulation device comprises a steam outlet, a gas-liquid separator (noting 132, are capable of performing a separation of phases by condensation on the interior of the piping ) and a backflow inlet, one end of the steam outlet and one end of the backflow inlet are introduced into the cooling cavity, the steam outlet and the backflow inlet are both communicated with the gas-liquid separator through pipelines, the backflow inlet is provided above or below a liquid level of the cooling liquid in the cooling cavity (see the rejection of claim 1, fig 5).
Smith fail to explicitly teach a first one-way valve.
LAN teach and a first one-way valve (343) is provided between the gas-liquid separator and the backflow inlet (para 29 ) to prevent counter flow .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a first one-way valve as taught by LAN in the Smith invention in order to advantageously allow for more efficient and ideal heat exchange via improved reduction of flow resistance.
Re claim 6, Smith teach wherein a condenser (130) in which the cooling water is communicated is further provided on a pipeline (end portions of 132 or 134) of the steam outlet for communicating with the gas-liquid separator, and the condenser is configured to cool and liquefy the vaporized cooling liquid (figs).
Re claim 7, Smith teach wherein the gas-liquid separator is further provided with a pressure regulating device (304) for regulating an internal pressure of the gas-liquid separator.
Re claim 8, Smith teach wherein the pressure regulating device comprises a second one-way valve connected to the gas-liquid separator and a pressure regulator connected to the second one-way valve (col 21).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of CHEHADE US 20220322561 A1.
Re claim 10, Smith fail to explicitly teach an observation plate.
CHEHADE teach a side wall of the tank is provided with an observation plate for observing an internal condition of the tank to provide a window and sensor to determine that a sufficient part of the dielectric immersion cooling liquid has been removed (para 87).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include an observation plate as taught by CHEHADE in the Smith invention in order to advantageously allow for reducing spillage and improved maintenance operations.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form and the observation plate is made of transparent quartz, acrylic or PC material for strength and visibility, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/GORDON A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights