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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/11/24 and 3/5/25 are being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statements filed includes items that fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance or an English translation, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. These are marked on each of the submitted IDS documents, and are the actions by foreign offices. These either require the explanation as sated above OR the translation.
All other references were reviewed as indicated.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/11/25.
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:
“cooling system” in claim 1.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “system ” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “cooling”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim. Note this is has the “cooling device” which falls under 112(f) thus cascading to still falling under 112(f)
“cooling device” in claim 1.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device ” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “cooling” & “for cooling the data center”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“control system” in claim 1.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “system ” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “control” “for cooling the data center”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim. Note this is has the “control devices” which falls under 112(f) thus cascading to still falling under 112(f)
“control device” in claim 1.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device ” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “control” “configured to control”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“first control device” in claim 1.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “control” “configured to control”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“second control device” in claim 1.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “control” “configured to control”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“first group of cooling devices” in claim 1.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “devices” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “cooling”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“second group of cooling devices” in claim 1.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “devices” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “cooling”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“one control device” in claim 4.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “control”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim. Note this is has the “cooling control unit” and “switching unit” which both fall under 112(f) thus cascading to still falling under 112(f)
“human-machine interaction device” in claim 4.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “human-machine interaction”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“cooling control unit” in claim 4.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “unit” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “cooling control”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“switching unit” in claim 4.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “unit ” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “switching” & “configured to control switching”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“primary power distribution device” in claim 5.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device ” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “configured to connect” & “distribution”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“high voltage direct current device” in claim 5.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device ” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “direct current” & “configured to convert”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“secondary power distribution device” in claim 5.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device ” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “distribution” & “configured to provide”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“coolant distribution unit” in claim 6.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “unit” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “coolant distribution” & “configured to form a coolant circulation pipeline for “, and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“evaporative condensation assembly” in claim 7.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “assembly” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “evaporative condensation” & “configured to dissipate”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“power assembly” in claim 7.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “assembly” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “power” & “configured to provide refrigerant power”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“spraying device in claim 8.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device ” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “spraying” & “configured to spray”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“ventilation device” in claim 8.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device ” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “ventilation” & “configured to provide heat dissipation airflow”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“heating device” in claim 8.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device ” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “heating” & “to start heating when”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“immersion liquid circulation device” in claim 9.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device ” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “circulation” & “enable…circulation”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“purification device” in claim 10.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device ” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “purification” & “purify the immersion liquid”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“replenishment device” in claim 10.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device ” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “replenishment” & “replenish an amount”), 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.
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.
Review of the specification found the following structure for each of the above identified limitations:
Cooling system (claims 1,4) – multiple heat exchangers (para. 0036 and below)
Cooling device (claims 1,4,6) – a heat exchanger (para. 0036)
Control system (claims 1,10) – no specific structure was found see control device below as at best it is a plurality of these additional 112(f) structure, thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Control device (claims 1,4)– no specific structure was found, at best this merely referenced other 112(f) structure (human-machine interaction device/cooling control unit/switching unit), thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
first control device (claims 1) - no specific structure was found, at best this merely referenced other 112(f) structure (human-machine interaction device/cooling control unit/switching unit), thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Second control device (claims 1) - no specific structure was found, at best this merely referenced other 112(f) structure (human-machine interaction device/cooling control unit/switching unit), thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
First group of cooling devices (claim 1)– heat exchangers per para. 0021 and 0036.
Second group of cooling devices (claim 1) – heat exchangers per para. 0021 and 0036.
One control device (claim 4)- no specific structure was found, at best this merely referenced other 112(f) structure (human-machine interaction device/cooling control unit/switching unit), thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Human-machine interaction device (claim 4) – no specific structured was found, thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Cooling control unit (claim 4) - no specific structured was found, thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Switching Unit (claim 4) - no specific structured was found, thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Primary power distribution device (claim 5)- no specific structured was found, thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
High voltage direct current device (claim 5) - no specific structured was found, thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Secondary power distribution device (claim 5) - no specific structured was found, thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Coolant distribution Unit (claim 6 ) - no specific structured was found, thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Evaporative condensation assembly (claim 7) – this was defined as “a condenser, a spraying device, a ventilation device” in paragraph 0037. Note that both spraying device and ventilation device are evaluated below (neither with anything found). As such two of the three elements cited are undefined thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Power assembly (claims 7-8) – a compressor or pump per paragraph 0038.
Spraying device (claim 8) - no specific structured was found, thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Ventilation device (claim 8) - no specific structured was found, thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Heating device (claim 8) - no specific structured was found, thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Immersion liquid circulation device (claim 9) – a pump per paragraph 0040.
Purification device (claim 10) - no specific structured was found, thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Replenishment device (claim 10) - no specific structured was found, thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 related to 112 (f) above
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.
Claims 1 and 4-10 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1 and 4-10 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed function of the following limitations:
Control system (claims 1,10)
Control device (claims 1,4)
first control device (claims 1)
Second control device (claims 1)
One control device (claim 4)
Human-machine interaction device (claim 4)
Cooling control unit (claim 4)
Switching Unit (claim 4)
Primary power distribution device (claim 5)
High voltage direct current device (claim 5)
Secondary power distribution device (claim 5)
Coolant distribution Unit (claim 6 )
Spraying device (claim 8)
Ventilation device (claim 8)
Heating device (claim 8)
Purification device (claim 10)
Replenishment device (claim 10)
The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function as claimed with a complete written description required because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the broad terms listed above, are not defined nor specifically shown with sufficient structure in applicant’s claims or specification written description. The lack of definition of the terms within the specification and the specification does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed functions in all possible claimed structures creates a lack of written description rejection. A review of the specification and drawing found no specific description or detailed drawing of the claimed structure, and as no physical description of the element is provided and no detail is shown, described, or provided thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the terms, thus there is insufficient written description of “a control unit”.
Claims 4-10 are rejected for dependence from one or more of the above claims.
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 and 4-10 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.
Claims includes the following limitations:
Control system (claims 1,10)
Control device (claims 1,4)
first control device (claims 1)
Second control device (claims 1)
One control device (claim 4)
Human-machine interaction device (claim 4)
Cooling control unit (claim 4)
Switching Unit (claim 4)
Primary power distribution device (claim 5)
High voltage direct current device (claim 5)
Secondary power distribution device (claim 5)
Coolant distribution Unit (claim 6 )
Spraying device (claim 8)
Ventilation device (claim 8)
Heating device (claim 8)
Purification device (claim 10)
Replenishment device (claim 10)
which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function for all claimed structures and various claimed structures are indefinite and unclear. The specification is devoid of adequate structure description to perform the claimed function of all claimed possible structures. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to achieve/interpret the above limitations. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. A review of the specification and drawing found no specific description or detailed drawing of the claimed structure, and as no physical description of the element is provided and no detail is shown, described, or provided thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the terms above. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35
U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1 and 4-10 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.
The term “abnormally” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “abnormally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One skilled in the art is given no guidance for what counts as “abnormally”, complete failure, partial failure, degraded performance, unexpected performance, minor changes in performance, etc.
The term “high voltage” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high voltage” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One skilled in thee art is given no definition or point of reference to know what would fall under the term “high voltage” for the claimed structures.
Claims 4-10 are rejected for dependence from one or more of the above rejected claims.
Prior art rejections
It is noted that no prior art was found to read on amended claim 1, specifically the combined structure and controls of claims including “when a detection response fed back from the first control device is not received within the preset duration, the first control device is determined as working abnormally and the work mode of the second control device is adjusted to the independent mode”. The claims are currently under 112 rejections and allowability will be dependent on resolution/overcoming those rejections (note that amendments to that end will require further search and consideration)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive specific arguments are responded to below.
Applicants’ arguments regarding the 112f resulting in the 112a/b rejections of those elements are responded to below:
Control system (claims 1,10) - applicants arguments fail to identify specific clear structure (merely pointing to the below rejected 112f subsystems and merely functional language not actual structure), and includes no evidence of well-known meaning. Further it is noted that a showing of connected structure does not identify the structure itself merely describes its environment. It is noted that applicants argument references a “controller takeover”, but applicants’ specification and claims NEVER mentions a controller)
Control device (claims 1,4) - applicants arguments fail to identify specific clear structure (merely functional language not actual structure), and includes no evidence of well-known meaning. Further it is noted that a showing of connected structure does not identify the structure itself merely describes its environment.
first control device (claims 1) - applicants arguments fail to identify specific clear structure (merely functional language not actual structure), and includes no evidence of well-known meaning. Further it is noted that a showing of connected structure does not identify the structure itself merely describes its environment.
Second control device (claims 1) - applicants arguments fail to identify specific clear structure (merely functional language not actual structure), and includes no evidence of well-known meaning. Further it is noted that a showing of connected structure does not identify the structure itself merely describes its environment.
One control device (claim 4) - applicants arguments fail to identify specific clear structure (merely functional language not actual structure), and includes no evidence of well-known meaning.
Human-machine interaction device (claim 4) – applicants argues that this has a well-known structure (listing such structure), but applicant provides no evidence of this beyond mere assertion.
Cooling control unit (claim 4) - applicants arguments fail to identify specific clear structure (merely functional language not actual structure), and includes no evidence of well-known meaning. Further it is noted that a showing of connected structure does not identify the structure itself merely describes its environment.
Switching Unit (claim 4) - applicants arguments fail to identify specific clear structure for the claimed function, applicant cites the “rese4rved interface” but this is not structure clearly related to the function of switching, other that that applicant merely cites functional language not actual structure, and includes no evidence of well-known meaning. Further it is noted that a showing of connected structure does not identify the structure itself merely describes its environment.
Primary power distribution device (claim 5) - applicants arguments fail to identify specific clear structure (merely functional language not actual structure), and includes no evidence of well-known meaning. Further it is noted that a showing of connected structure does not identify the structure itself merely describes its environment.
High voltage direct current device (claim 5) - applicants arguments fail to identify specific clear structure (merely functional language not actual structure), and includes no evidence of well-known meaning. Further it is noted that a showing of connected structure does not identify the structure itself merely describes its environment.
Secondary power distribution device (claim 5) - applicants arguments fail to identify specific clear structure (merely functional language not actual structure), and includes no evidence of well-known meaning. Further it is noted that a showing of connected structure does not identify the structure itself merely describes its environment.
Coolant distribution Unit (claim 6 ) - applicants arguments fail to identify specific clear structure (merely functional language not actual structure), and includes no evidence of well-known meaning. Further it is noted that a showing of connected structure does not identify the structure itself merely describes its environment.
Spraying device (claim 8) - applicants arguments fail to identify specific clear structure (merely functional language not actual structure), and includes no evidence of well-known meaning. Further it is noted that a showing of connected structure does not identify the structure itself merely describes its environment.
Ventilation device (claim 8) - applicants arguments fail to identify specific clear structure (merely functional language not actual structure), and includes no evidence of well-known meaning. Further it is noted that a showing of connected structure does not identify the structure itself merely describes its environment.
Heating device (claim 8) - applicants arguments fail to identify specific clear structure (merely functional language not actual structure), and includes no evidence of well-known meaning. Further it is noted that a showing of connected structure does not identify the structure itself merely describes its environment.
Purification device (claim 10) - applicants arguments fail to identify specific clear structure (merely functional language not actual structure), and includes no evidence of well-known meaning. Further it is noted that a showing of connected structure does not identify the structure itself merely describes its environment.
Replenishment device (claim 10) - applicants arguments fail to identify specific clear structure (merely functional language not actual structure), and includes no evidence of well-known meaning. Further it is noted that a showing of connected structure does not identify the structure itself merely describes its environment. Applicant argues that the replenishment device is with the replenishment pump, but this is misleading as applicants’ specification and drawing clearly show that the m pump is a separate structure not part of but merely connected to the replenishment device.
Applicants’ arguments regarding the term “abnormally” do not overcome the rejection. Applicant claims to have amended the term but it remains in claim 1 (the term “inoperative” is not located in the amended claims). Examiner further notes that to correct a translation error requires it may be corrected as noted in see MPEP 608.01 (I) – please note the statement requirement. Thus the rejection remains.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the term “high voltage” do not overcome the rejection as they merely present an assertion of being well-known in the art. Applicant provided no evidence of such (for example to technical papers or a cite that clearly defines such). Examiner notes this argument would be persuasive with such evidence.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the amendment to “electrically insulating “ in claim 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112b of insulating in claim 9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the amendment to “cleanliness“ in claim 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112b of “cleanliness“ in claim 10 has been withdrawn.
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