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 of Species A, Figures 6 and 20, readable on claims 1-7, 9, 13-24, and 29-30 in the reply filed on 06 July 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 8, 10-12, and 25-28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 06 July 2026.
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) 1-5, 14, 15, and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Havey et al. (US 5,943,211).
Re. claim 1: Havey discloses a cooling system (10), configured to perform a cooling operation, the cooling system comprising:
a coolant chamber (20); (see fig. 6-8; col. 4-5)
wherein liquid coolant and coolant vapor (40) are in the coolant chamber during the cooling operation of the cooling system; (see col. 3)
wherein circuit boards (31) are disposed within the coolant chamber, and the cooling operation is performed via contact of the liquid coolant with the circuit boards; (see fig. 6-8; col. 3)
wherein the cooling system performs a power down sequence before the coolant chamber is unsealed; (the system is a closed system and inherently would be powered down before the chamber is unsealed because Harvey does not teach hot-swapping)
wherein the power down sequence is configured to remove (toward reservoir 60) the liquid coolant remained (the coolant is vaporized or drips off the circuit boards by gravity) on the circuit boards after the cooling operation before the coolant chamber is opened. (see fig. 2, 3, 6; col. 4-5)
Re. claim 2: Havey discloses wherein the power down sequence comprises a vaporization process (vaporized coolant). (col. 3-4)
Re. claim 3: Havey discloses wherein the vaporization process or the drying process comprises activating a heating element (30) such that a temperature within the coolant chamber is higher than a boiling point of the liquid coolant in the coolant chamber. (inherent in a vaporization phase change process as described) (col. 3-4)
Re. claim 4: Havey discloses wherein the power down sequence comprises a de-vaporization (condensing) process. (see fig. 2, 3; col. 4)
Re. claim 5: Havey discloses wherein the de-vaporization (condensing) process comprises setting a temperature within the coolant chamber (using cooler 1000) that is lower than a boiling point of the coolant vapor in the coolant chamber. (see fig. 6; col. 4)
Re. claim 14: Havey discloses a heating element (30), disposed within the coolant chamber (20);
wherein the heating element is configured to generate heat to vaporize residual
liquid coolant. (see fig. 6-8; col. 4-5)
Re. claim 15: Havey discloses wherein the heating element comprises a heat generating component (30) on a circuit board (31) disposed within the coolant chamber (20). (see fig. 6-8; col. 4-5)
Re. claim 18: Havey discloses A post-cooling method applied for a cooling system (10), wherein the cooling system is configured to perform a cooling operation, the post-cooling method comprising: (see fig. 6-8; col. 4-5)
performing a power down sequence before a coolant chamber (20) of the cooling
system is opened; (the system is a closed system and inherently would be powered down before the chamber is unsealed because Harvey does not teach hot-swapping)
wherein circuit boards (31) are disposed within the coolant chamber, and the cooling operation is performed via contact of liquid coolant (40) with the circuit boards; (see fig. 6-8; col. 3-4)
wherein the power down sequence is configured to remove (toward reservoir 60) the liquid coolant (the coolant is vaporized or drips off the circuit boards by gravity) remained on the circuit boards after the cooling operation; (see fig. 2, 3, 6; col. 4-5)
wherein the coolant chamber is sealed (closed system) during the cooling operation; (see col. 5)
wherein the cooling system comprises (10) the coolant chamber (20). (see fig. 6-8)
Re. claim 19: Havey discloses wherein during the cooling operation, the liquid coolant (40) is injected into the coolant chamber and vaporized as coolant vapor. (see fig. 6-8; col. 2-3)
Re. claim 20: Havey discloses wherein the power down sequence comprises a vaporization process or a drying process comprising:
vaporizing the liquid coolant remained in the coolant chamber (vaporized coolant). (col. 3-4)
Re. claim 21: Havey discloses wherein the step of vaporizing the remained liquid coolant comprises:
activating a heat generating element (30) within the coolant chamber. (inherent in a vaporization phase change process as described) (col. 3-4)
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.
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) 6, 9, 17, 22, 24, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Havey et al. as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Cader et al. (US 6,889,509 B1).
Re. claim 6: Havey fails to disclose:
wherein the power down sequence comprises producing an airflow carrying the coolant vapor from the coolant chamber to a condenser.
However, Cader discloses:
a cooling system (10), configured to perform a cooling operation wherein the power down sequence comprises producing an airflow (compressed air supply) carrying the coolant vapor from the coolant chamber to a condenser. (see fig. 2; col. 7-8)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a compressed air supply taught by Cader to the cooling system of Havey. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to force the vapor down to the condensing area for recovery. (Cader col. 8)
Re. claim 9: Havey fails to disclose:
wherein the power down sequence comprises maintaining a flow rate of facility fluid into a condenser at a certain speed.
However, Cader discloses:
wherein the power down sequence comprises maintaining a flow rate of facility fluid (40) into a condenser (30) at a certain speed. (see fig. 2-3; col. 5)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a flow rate of facility fluid into the condenser of Havey at a certain speed as taught by Cader. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to reduce the temperature of the collected fluid to a desired temperature. (Cader col. 5)
Re. claim 17: Havey fails to disclose:
wherein the cooling system is applied for a chassis in a server rack of a server system.
However, Cader discloses:
wherein the cooling system is applied for a chassis in a server rack of a server system. (see fig. 1-2, col. 1-2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the cooling system of Havey in a server rack of a server system such as the one taught by Cader. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to remove server racks for maintenance. (Cader col. 1-2)
Re. claim 22: Havey fails to disclose:
producing an airflow to drain coolant vapor vaporized during the vaporization process from the coolant chamber to a condenser;
wherein the cooling system comprises the condenser connected to the coolant chamber.
However, Cader discloses:
a cooling system (10), configured to perform a cooling operation wherein the power down sequence comprises producing an airflow (compressed air supply) carrying the coolant vapor from the coolant chamber to a condenser. (see fig. 2; col. 7-8)
wherein the cooling system comprises the condenser connected to the coolant chamber. (see fig. 2; col. 7-8)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a compressed air supply taught by Cader to the cooling system of Havey. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to force the vapor down to the condensing area for recovery. (Cader col. 8)
Re. claim 24: Havey fails to disclose:
maintaining a flow rate of a facility fluid received by the condenser at a certain speed;
wherein the cooling system comprises the condenser connected to the coolant chamber.
However, Cader discloses:
wherein the power down sequence comprises maintaining a flow rate of facility fluid (40) into a condenser (30) at a certain speed. (see fig. 2-3; col. 5)
wherein the cooling system comprises the condenser connected to the coolant chamber.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a flow rate of facility fluid into the condenser of Havey at a certain speed as taught by Cader. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to reduce the temperature of the collected fluid to a desired temperature. (Cader col. 5)
Re. claim 30: Havey fails to disclose:
wherein the cooling system is applied for a chassis in a server rack of a server system.
However, Cader discloses:
wherein the cooling system is applied for a chassis in a server rack of a server system. (see fig. 1-2, col. 1-2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the cooling system of Havey in a server rack of a server system such as the one taught by Cader. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to remove server racks for maintenance. (Cader col. 1-2)
Claim(s) 7, 13, 16, and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Havey et al. as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Goth et al. (US 6,446,447 B1).
Re. claims 7 and 13: Havey fails to disclose:
wherein the airflow is produced by a blower.
a blower, configured to generate an airflow to drain the coolant vapor out of the coolant chamber during the power down sequence.
However, Goth discloses:
wherein the airflow is produced by a blower (72), (see fig. 1, 2, 11; col. 3-4)
a blower (72), configured to generate an airflow to drain the coolant vapor out of the coolant chamber during the power down sequence. (see fig. 1, 2, 11; col. 3-4)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a fan or blower to the cooling system of Havey as taught by Goth. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to control temperature of the apparatus. (Goto col. 3, 10)
Re. claim 16: Goth discloses wherein the heating element comprises a resistive layer (44) printed on a circuit board disposed within the coolant chamber. (see fig. 1; col. 3, 4)
Re. claims 22-23: Havey fails to disclose wherein the step of the producing the airflow to drain the coolant vapor comprises:
producing the airflow, by a blower, to drain the coolant vapor vaporized during the vaporization process from the coolant chamber to the condenser;
wherein the cooling system comprises the blower connected between the coolant chamber and the condenser.
However, Goth discloses:
wherein the airflow is produced by a blower (72), (see fig. 1, 2, 11; col. 3-4)
a blower (72), configured to generate an airflow to drain the coolant vapor out of the coolant chamber during the power down sequence. (see fig. 1, 2, 11; col. 3-4)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a fan or blower to the cooling system of Havey as taught by Goth. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to control temperature of the apparatus. (Goto col. 3, 10)
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Havey as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Enright et al. (US 2020/0093037 A1).
Re. claim 29: Havey fails to disclose:
wherein a circuit board is removed horizontally out of the coolant chamber for maintenance.
However, Enright discloses:
wherein a circuit board is removed horizontally out of the coolant chamber for maintenance. (see fig. 15A-D; para. 0237, 0238)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove the circuit board horizontally out of the coolant chamber for maintenance as taught by Enright. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to slide the servers out horizontally onto a cart for transportation. (Enright para. 0237)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wyatt et al. (US 2004/0231351 A1) discloses a method and apparatus for extracting gas in a cooling system. DuBose (US 6,436,562 B1) discloses a method of condensing a cooling fluid.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM B DRAVININKAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9a-6p MT.
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 (JP) N 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.
August 6, 2026
/ADAM B DRAVININKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights