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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
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: an opening control device in claim 7.
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.
To clarify, “opening control device” has been interpreted according to corresponding structure of reference number 51 of the drawings as described in the specification, and equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 and 3-11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “an aperture…, wherien the aperture is in contact with the liquid surface”. There does not appear to be support in the originally filed disclosure for an aperture being in contact with the liquid surface. Figure 2 appears to show the liquid surface in contact with the inner wall and level with the bottom of the access opening but not in contact with the access opening. If the liquid surface were contact with the access opneing, then there would be a flow of the first liquid out of the access opneing. However, Figure 2 shows the second liquid flowing out of the access opening into tank 50 not the first liquid.
Claims 3-11 are rejected to as being dependent from a rejected claim.
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(s) 1 and 3-11 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the access opening has an aperture”. An “opening” is an absence of structure”. It is unclear how an opening can have an aperture.
Claims 3-11 are rejected to as being dependent from a rejected claim.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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) 1, 3-8, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US 20130139998) in view of Kozak (US 20040035784).
Per claim 1, Hayashi teaches an immersion cooling system comprising:
a tank (11) having a space (space above 14);
a first dielectric liquid (14) accommodated below the space and the first dielectric liquid having a liquid surface(surface of 14); and
an access opening (see annotated figure below) in communication with a portion of the space (space near the access opening) (further, all elements of an assembly are considered in “communication” with one another either thermally or structurally) and disposed adjacent to the liquid surface (see figure 2), and the portion of the space (space near access opening above 14) is above the liquid surface (surface of 14),
wherein the access opening has an an aperature (opening for conduit passing through tank 11) on an inner surface of a tank wall (surface of wall of 11 that the conduit passes through as shown in figure 2),
wherein the aperature on the inner surface of the tank wall and the liquid surface define an angle which is greater than zero (the aperature is at a 90 degree angle with the liquid surface, thus the angle between the opening surface and the liquid surface is greater than zero),
a second dielectric liquid (13) transported into and discharged out of the space through aperature of the access opening (see figure 2),
wherein when the second dielectric liquid (13) is accommodated within the space (space above 14),
the second dielectric liquid (13) covers the first dielectric liquid (14)
but fails to explicitly teach wherein the aperture is in contact with the liquid surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
446
949
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Kozak teaches an immersion cooling system wherien an aperature (31) is in contact with a liquid surface (18) for separating fluids of different densistes (para. 0017). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have an aperature be in contact with a liquid surface, as taught by Kozak in the invention of Hayahsi, in order to advantageously separate fluids of different densistes (para. 0017).
Per claim 3, Hayashi, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Hayashi, as modified, teaches wherein the first dielectric liquid (14) is immiscible with the second dielectric liquid (13) (“a dielectric coolant 14 and a water-based coolant 13, which separate from each other into two layers in a casing 11, are employed”, para. 0040).
Per claim 4, Hayashi, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Hayashi, as modified, teaches wherein the density of the second dielectric liquid is less than the density of the first dielectric liquid (see figure 2; “The specific gravity or the relative density of the dielectric coolant 14 is greater than that of the water-based coolant 13”, para. 0041).
Per claim 5, Hayashi, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Hayashi, as modified, teaches wherein the vapor pressure of the second dielectric liquid (water) is less than the vapor pressure of the first dielectric liquid (“oil”, para. 0040).
Per claim 6, Hayashi, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Hayashi, as modified, teaches a liquid storage tank (see annotated figure below) in fluid communication with the space through the access opening, wherein the liquid storage tank (see annotated figure below) is configured to store the second dielectric liquid (“The heated water-based coolant 13 is drained out of the casing 11 by the pump 18a, and cooled through heat exchange at external cooling means such as radiator 16 and a fan 17”, para. 0042) (to clarify, the second dielectric liquid is “stored” in the annotated structure during the cooling of the second dielectric liquid by the radiator 16, thus the annotated structure is considered a “liquid storage tank”).
PNG
media_image2.png
428
664
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Per claim 7, Hayashi, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 6. Hayashi, as modified, teaches an opening control device (18a) to control the liquid storage tank and the space to be in fluid communication or not in fluid communication (to clarify, as 18a is operated or not operated the space and the liquid storage tank will be in or not be in fluid communication which is considered equivalent to the structure described in the figures).
Per claim 8, Hayashi, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 6. Hayashi, as modified, teaches a pump (18a) to control the second dielectric liquid (13) to be transported into and discharged out of the liquid storage tank or the space (see figure 2).
Per claim 10, Hayashi, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Hayashi, as modified, teaches a working object (20) immersed in the first dielectric liquid (14).
Per claim 11, Hayashi, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Hayashi, as modified, teaches wherein the opening surface (see annotated figure above) and the liquid surface (surface of 14) is equal to 90° (see figure 2).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US 20130139998) in view of Kozak (US 20040035784) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Horng et al. (US 20220264768).
Per claim 9, Hayashi, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Hayashi, as modified, fails to explicitly teach a condenser arranged in the space above the liquid surface. However, Horng teaches an immersion cooler including a condensing unit (41b) arranged in a spade above a liquid surface (5) for increased cooling efficiency (para. 0008). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a condensing unit arranged in the space above a liquid surface, as taught by Horng in the invention of Hayashi, as modified, in order to advantageously provide increased cooling efficiency (para. 0008).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DAVID J TEITELBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5142. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571) 272-66816681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID J TEITELBAUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights