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 .
Status of the Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the reply dated 3/11/2026 are as follows:
Claims 1-16 are current pending.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a coolant distribution unit” (i.e. a unit for coolant distribution) (claim 1, line 3) as disclosed in paragraph 64 of the specification.
“a coolant distribution unit” (i.e. a unit for coolant distribution) (claim 9, line 2) as disclosed in paragraph 64 of the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Broussard et al. (US 2015/0049437, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Broussard et al. discloses a system for providing parallel flow paths for a high density liquid cooling system, the system comprising:
A coolant distribution unit including primary loop piping (Figure 5 and Annotated Figure 5: Piping not including 120, 122, 124, 126) and secondary loop piping (Figure 5 and Annotated Figure 5: Piping including 120, 122, 124, 126), the secondary loop piping including:
A first flow path including a first pump (i.e. a first of 120), a first filter (i.e. a first of 122), and a first shutoff valve (i.e. a first of 124) (Annotated Figure 5 and Paragraph 42),
A second flow path including a second pump (i.e. a second of 120), a second filter (i.e. a second of 122), and a second shutoff valve (i.e. a second of 124) (Annotated Figure 5 and Paragraph 42),
An inlet y-pipe upstream of both of the first flow path and the second flow path (Annotated Figure 5), and
An outlet y-pipe downstream of both of the first flow path and the second flow path (Annotated Figure 5),
Where each of the first and second shutoff valves being alternatable between an open position and a closed position (Figure 5 and Paragraph 42: Valves 124 are configured to be shutoff valves), and when the shutoff valve of one of the first flow path and the second flow path is in the closed position flow is not allowed through the one of the first flow path and the second flow path (Figure 5 and Paragraph 42: Valves 124 are configured to be shutoff valves that are configured to be either open or closed).
PNG
media_image1.png
235
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Broussard et al. discloses a system as discussed above, where the inlet y-pipe includes a trunk, a first branch, and a second branch (Annotated Figure 5), the first branch being in fluid communication with the first flow path and the second branch being in fluid communication with the second flow path (Annotated Figure 5).
Regarding claim 3, Broussard et al. discloses a system as discussed above, where an angle between the first branch and the second branch is configured to evenly distribute flow to the first flow path and the second flow path when both of the first shutoff valve and the second shutoff valve are in the open position (Figure 5 and Paragraph 42: The first and second flow paths are substantially identical).
Regarding claim 5, Broussard et al. discloses a system as discussed above, where the coolant distribution unit continues to operate when at least one of the first shutoff valve and the second shutoff valve is open (Figure 5 and Paragraph 42).
Regarding claim 6, Broussard et al. discloses a system as discussed above, where the outlet y-pipe includes a first branch, a second branch, and a trunk (Annotated Figure 5), the first branch being in fluid communication with the first flow path and the second branch being in fluid communication with the second flow path (Annotated Figure 5), where the outlet y-pipe combines flow from the first flow path and the second flow path (Annotated Figure 5).
Regarding claim 7, Broussard et al. discloses a system as discussed above, where the first filter is positioned vertically above the first pump (i.e. dependent upon orientation) (Figure 5) and the second filter is positioned vertically above the second pump (i.e. dependent upon orientation) (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 9, Broussard et al. discloses a system for providing redundant flow paths for flow through a secondary coolant loop of a coolant distribution unit, the system including:
A first flow path (Annotated Figure 5), a second flow path (Annotated Figure 5), a first pump (i.e. a first of 120) configured to induce flow through the first flow path (Annotated Figure 5), a second pump (i.e. a second of 120) configured to induce flow through the second flow path (Annotated Figure 5), a first filter (i.e. a first of 122) downstream of the first pump (Annotated Figure 5), a second filter (i.e. a second of 122) downstream of the second pump (Annotated Figure 5), and
An outlet y-pipe configured to combine flow from the first flow path and the second flow path (Annotated Figure 5), the outlet y-pipe having a first branch in fluid communication with the first flow path and a second branch in fluid communication with the second flow (Annotated Figure 5).
Regarding claim 9, Broussard et al. discloses a system as discussed above, where the first flow path includes a first shutoff valve (i.e. a first of 124), where the first shutoff valve is configured to be switched between an open position and a closed position (Figure 5 and Paragraph 42: Valves 124 are configured to be shutoff valves), where, when the first shutoff valve is in the closed position, coolant does not flow through the first flow path (Figure 5 and Paragraph 42: Valves 124 are configured to be shutoff valves that are configured to be either open or closed).
Regarding claim 10, Broussard et al. discloses a system as discussed above, where the first flow path includes a first shutoff valve (i.e. a first of 124), where the first shutoff valve is configured to be switched between an open position and a closed position (Figure 5 and Paragraph 42: Valves 124 are configured to be shutoff valves), where, when the first shutoff valve is in the closed position, coolant does not flow through the first flow path (Figure 5 and Paragraph 42: Valves 124 are configured to be shutoff valves that are configured to be either open or closed).
Regarding claim 13, Broussard et al. discloses a system as discussed above, where, the first filter is positioned vertically higher than the first pump and the outlet y-pipe (i.e. dependent upon orientation) (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 14, Broussard et al. discloses a system as discussed above, where, where the first flow path includes: a first valve upstream of the pump (Annotated Figure 5), a second valve downstream of the first pump and upstream of the first filter (Annotated Figure 5), and a third valve downstream of the first filter (Annotated Figure 5), where each of the first valve, the second valve, and the third valve are switchable between an open position and a closed position (Annotated and Paragraph 42: The valves are configured to be shutoff valves, check valves, or combinations thereof), and where, when any of the first valve, the second valve, and the third valve are in the closed position, flow through the first flow path is stopped (Annotated Figure 5 and Paragraph 42: The valves are configured to be shutoff valves that are configured to be either and open or closed).
Regarding claim 16, Broussard et al. discloses a system as discussed above, where, when the first shutoff valve is in the closed position, the second pump operates to induce fluid flow through the second flow path (Figure 5 and Paragraph 42: Valves 124 are configured to be shutoff valves that are configured to be either open or closed).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broussard et al. (US 2015/0049437), and further in view of Geiger (US 2012/0292263, previously cited).
Regarding claim 4, Broussard et al. discloses a system as discussed above. However, Broussard et al. does not teach or disclose the filter as comprising a canister filter.
Geiger teaches a fluid system, comprising at least: a filter (112), where the first filter is a canister filter (Paragraph 23). As a result it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the filter as disclosed by Broussard et al. in the form of a canister filter as taught by Geiger to facilitate maintenance of a fluid system by configuring a filter in the form of an easily removable or serviceable form.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broussard et al. (US 2015/0049437, previously cited), and further in view of Omote (US 2021/0243921, previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, Broussard et al. discloses a system as discussed above. However, Broussard et al. does not teach or disclose air-bleed valves.
Omote teaches a fluid system, comprising at least: a first flow path (110) and a second flow path (120), where a first air-bleed valve (15a) is along the first flow path (Figure 1 and Paragraph 55) and a second air-bleed valve (25a) is along the second flow path (Figure 1 and Paragraph 55), where the first air-bleed valve and the second air-bleed valve are positioned at a highest vertical point along piping of the respective flow path (Figure 1). As a result it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the flow paths as disclosed by Broussard et al. with respective air-bleed valves as taught by Omote to improve system heat transfer efficiency by removing air from a flow of heat transfer fluid (Paragraph 55 of Omote).
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broussard et al. (US 2015/0049437), and further in view of Shedd et al. (US 2017/0105313).
Regarding claims 11 and 15, Broussard et al. discloses a system as discussed above. However, Broussard et al. does not teach or disclose the shut off valves as manually operable.
Shedd et al. teaches a fluid system, comprising at least: a plurality of valves (60), where each of the plurality of valves are either manually or automatically operable (Paragraph 697). As a result it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the shut off valves as disclosed by Broussard et al. in the form of manually operable valves as taught by Shedd et al. to improve system safety and reliability by enabling control over the system in the event of a failure of automatic controls.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broussard et al. (US 2015/0049437), and further in view of Geiger (US 2012/0292263, previously cited) and Martin et al. (US 2018/0017298, previously cited).
Regarding claim 12, Broussard et al. discloses a system as discussed above. However, Broussard et al. does not teach or disclose the first filter as comprising a canister filter.
Geiger teaches a fluid system, comprising at least: a filter (112), where the first filter is a canister filter (Paragraph 23). As a result it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the filter as disclosed by Broussard et al. in the form of a canister filter as taught by Geiger to facilitate maintenance of a fluid system by configuring a filter in the form of an easily removable or serviceable form.
Further, while Broussard et al. discloses a first filter having an inlet and an outlet (Figure 5), Broussard et al. does not teach or disclose that the inlet is arranged at about a 90 degree angle relative the outlet.
Martin et al. (Figure 9) teaches a filter, comprising at least: an inlet (124) and an outlet (126), where that the inlet is arranged at about a 90 degree angle relative the outlet (Figure 9). Martin et al. also acknowledges various configurations of inlets relative outlets (Figures 1-19). As a result it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the first filter as disclosed by Broussard et al. with an inlet that is perpendicular to an outlet as taught by Martin et al. to improve system versatility by enabling usage of a variety of filters configured to interface with a corresponding variety of system configurations. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pages 5-6) that Broussard fails to disclose the inlet and outlet y-pipes as claimed in claims 1 and 9. The Examiner respectfully disagrees; as stated in the arguments claim 1 recites "an inlet y-pipe upstream of both of the first flow path and the second flow path" and "an outlet y-pipe downstream of both of the first flow path and the second flow path." Claim 9 similarly recites "an outlet y-pipe configured to combine flow from the first flow path and the second flow path, the outlet y-pipe having a first branch in fluid communication with the first flow path and a second branch in fluid communication with the second flow." These limitations are met by Broussard as can be seen in annotated fig 5 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
235
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HARRY E ARANT whose telephone number is (571)272-1105. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6 ET.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at (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 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.
/HARRY E ARANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights