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 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:
“a heat generating component” in claim 12.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “component” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “heat generating”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
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. A review of the specification and drawing found “CPU, GPU, NPU, TPU or XPU, where C/G/N/T refers to Central/Graphics/Neural-network/Tensor, and PU refers to Processing Unit. XPU may refer to Extension Processing Unit or any other kind of Processing Unit. Component 112 may also refer to DRAM, PMIC, network interface IC, etc.” in paragraph 0058 are the corresponding structure thus these structures and equivalents will be considered to read on the limitation.
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 1-4 and 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 is rejected for being indefinite for the limitation of “wherein liquid coolant is injected into the coolant chamber during the power-up sequence; wherein the liquid coolant is vaporized as coolant vapor, and the coolant vapor exists between the plurality of circuit boards”. This language makes it impossible to determine if the claimed apparatus is being read on until it is applied to system which makes the claim indefinite as it makes it unclear when infringement occurs (when system is made or when system used) MPEP 2173.05 (p). It is unclear if applicant is claiming a use of the cooling system or trying to affirmatively claim additional structure. The claim will be examined as reading “wherein the coolant system is configured to have a liquid coolant is injected into the coolant chamber during the power-up sequence; wherein the liquid coolant is configured to vaporized as coolant vapor, and the coolant vapor exists between the plurality of circuit boards.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein liquid coolant is injected". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim will be examined as reading “wherein a liquid coolant is injected”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " liquid coolant is vaporized as coolant vapor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim will be examined as reading “liquid coolant is vaporized as a coolant vapor”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation " the heating element vaporizes the liquid coolant into coolant vapor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim will be examined as reading “the heating element vaporizes the liquid coolant into the coolant vapor” (note this would match “coolant vapor” as used in claim 1).
Claims 2-4 and 6 are rejected for dependence on one or more of the above rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Enright et al. (U.S. PGPub 2021/0120705).
Regarding claim 1, Enright teaches a cooling system (element 110), comprising: a coolant chamber (element 142), wherein a plurality of circuit boards is disposed within the coolant chamber (elements 170, para. 0035); and a condenser (element 130), wherein the condenser comprises a condensing channel (para. 0059 – “condensing coils” inherently results in a condensing channel); wherein the cooling system is configured to perform a power-up sequence before a cooling operation (para. 0292 – “startup operation”; wherein the power-up sequence is configured to remove an air from at least the coolant chamber (para. 0292 “during the startup operation, the vessel can purge the air introduced inside the tank”), wherein liquid coolant is in the coolant chamber during the power-up sequence (per para. 0274 and 0280); wherein the liquid coolant is vaporized as coolant vapor (per para. 0274 and 0280), and the coolant vapor exists between the plurality of circuit boards (inherent as they are the heat source and vapor will be created at the heat source), Enright further teaches a liquid coolant is injected into the coolant chamber during the power-up sequence (per para. 0312 the pump pumps in liquid so the computing device remains immersed, thus reading on the injected).
Regarding claim 2, Enright teaches a heating element (para. 0279 – “heating element”), disposed within the coolant chamber (para. 0274-“mounted in the bath of the tank and fully immersed in the dielectric fluid”); wherein the heating element is activated during the power-up sequence, such that a heat generated by the heating element vaporizes the liquid coolant into coolant vapor (para. 0280 and 0274).
Regarding claim 4, Enright teaches a coolant tank (element 517); and a valve, connected to an empty space of the coolant tank ((para. 0286 – “a valve connecting the bellows to the tank”, note that the term “empty” is considered broadly and treated as a vapor space); wherein the valve is opened during the power-up sequence (para. 0286) and is closed during the cooling operation (0273 – note as written the limitation does not require always being closed during cooling merely at any time during cooling).
Regarding claim 6, Enright teaches the cooling system is configured to be applied for a chassis in a server rack of a server system (para. 0035; note that the term “server system does not fall under 112f as it is a well-known term in the art).
Claims 12-14, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wong et al. (U.S. PGPub 2021/0307210).
Regarding claim 12, Wong teaches a cooling system (Fig. 1), comprising: a coolant chamber (element 120), wherein a liquid coolant is showered into the coolant chamber (via elements 150a); and a recycle-and-condense unit (element 130, 140, 182, and 181), comprising a condenser (element 130) and a coolant reservoir (element 140), disposed out of the coolant chamber (per fig. 1), configured to recycle the liquid coolant (per fig. 1); wherein both a liquid coolant circulation and a coolant vapor circulation are established between the coolant chamber and the recycle-and-condense unit (per fig. 12); wherein both the liquid coolant circulation and the coolant vapor circulation flow through a heating surface of a heat generating component (element 12, per fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Wong teaches the recycle-and-condense unit comprises: a pump (element 181), connected to the coolant chamber (per fig. 1), configured to facilitate the liquid coolant circulation between the coolant chamber and the recycle-and-condense unit (per fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Wong teaches the pump is connected to a top of the coolant chamber (per Fig. 1, note that connected to is met by the line running to the top of the chamber, note claim does not require a mounting location) and configured to provide the liquid coolant injected or to be injected into the coolant chamber (per Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Wong teaches the coolant reservoir is configured to store the liquid coolant for the liquid coolant circulation between the coolant chamber and the recycle-and-condense unit (per fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Wong teaches the coolant vapor circulation involves vaporization of the liquid coolant in the coolant chamber (per element 162), transfer to the recycle-and-condense unit external to the coolant chamber for condensation (at element 130), and storage in the coolant reservoir before recirculation to the coolant chamber (element 140, pre fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Wong teaches wherein the coolant chamber is configured to be disposed within a chassis in a server rack (element 110).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cheng et al. (U.S. PGPub 2023/0320033).
Regarding claim 21, Cheng teaches a cooling system (element 1H), comprising: a coolant chamber (element 12); and a condenser (element 11); wherein the condenser comprises a condensing channel (space between elements plates of element 115); wherein coolant vapor flows through the condensing channel of the condenser and condenses into liquid coolant on an interior surface of the condensing channel (per fig. 8 and para. 0048 “condensed into a condensate L”).
Regarding claim 22, Cheng teaches wherein the condenser comprises a heat exchanger (element 11) comprising the condensing channel (space between elements plates of element 115).
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.
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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enright et al. (U.S. PGPub 2021/0120705) in view of Kohl (U.S. Patent 4,412,429).
Regarding claim 3, Enright does not teach a flow of facility fluid provided for the condenser is turned off or kept below a threshold, such that the condensing channel reaches a vapor pressure of the coolant chamber during the power-up sequence.
Kohl teaches equalization of system during start-up (col. 6, ln 32-40). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Enright such that the system is operated during start-up to equalize the pressure in the coolant chamber and condenser, the motivation would be that the pumping/flow of fluid is easier to start.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (U.S. PGPub 2023/0320033) in view of Kasuya et al. (U.S. PGPub 2010/0294217).
Regarding claim 23, Cheng teaches the condenser comprises a plate heat exchanger (the plates of element 11 shown in fig. 8); wherein the plate heat exchanger comprises a plurality of plates (the plates of element 11 shown in fig. 8); wherein a plurality of first channels (channels between the plates 1 in fig. 8) and a plurality of second channels are formed between the plurality of plates (the channels with the corrugated fins of element 11); wherein the plurality of first channels accommodates the coolant vapor (per fig. 8) and the plurality of second channels accommodates a facility fluid (para. 0039 -“water-cooled” which reads on the broad term “facility fluid”).
Cheng does not teach the coolant vapor and the facility fluid flow through the condenser in opposite directions. Kasuya teaches the coolant vapor and the cooling fluid flow through the condenser in opposite directions (para. 0069). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Cheng such that the flow is directed opposite as taught by Kasuya, the motivation would be the improved refrigerant condensing performance of the condensers (para. 0069).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (U.S. PGPub 2023/0320033) in view of Campbell et al. (U.S. PGPub 2011/0315353).
Regarding claim 24, Cheng teaches a plurality of openings are formed on a bottom of the condenser (bottom spaces/openings between the plates of element 11 in Fig. 8).
Cheng does not teach the condenser is open over a coolant tank. Campbell teaches the condenser is over a coolant tank (element 461 in fig. 5A). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Cheng to include the coolant tank under the condenser as taught by Campbell, the motivation would be to fully collect and direct the condensation.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendments have overcome prior objections and 112b rejections, but it is notes that the amendments have resulted in new 112b rejections above.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specific arguments are responded to below.
Regarding applicants’ argument that Enright does not teach the Liquid injection, while this argument was anticipatory, examiner notes that the pumping is taught to occur at start-up thus reasonably reading that the liquid is “injected into” the chamber.
Regarding applicants’ argument that due to immersion no vapor exists between the computer components the examiner respectfully disagrees. Enright fully teaches that the fluid evaporates due to the heat transfer, it is inherent that the evaporation occur where heat is added (similar to how boiling water in a pot has bubble formation on the bottom of a pot). As such it is inherent that the bubbles form where the heat is added (the electronic) and flow up through the fluid.
With regards to applicants argument that Enright teaches away, the examiner respectfully disagrees. While Enright may want to minimize vapor generation, this is NOT elimination, in fact as applicant points out Enright explicitly teaches that vapor is generated in paragraph 0280, thus defeating applicants’ own argument that such neither occurs or is taught away from (as it clearly does occur). Thus there is no teaching away (nor hindsight).
Applicant arguments’ with regards to claim 21 and the cooling channel is a misinterpretation of the applied art. The interior of the cooing pipes is the channel for the fluid used to create condensation, the exterior of the pipes (where the working fluid flows is the condensing channel for the coolant. Thus the coolant condenses on the interior of its channel (it is a matter of perspective). Thus there is no teaching away (nor hindsight).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JOEL M ATTEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8-5 and Friday 8-10 and 2-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson be reached on (571) 270-7740. 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.
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights