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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
An information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 03/23/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 03/25/2026, are accepted.
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claims 1, 3, and 8 are amended.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/25/2026 have been reviewed and fully considered.
Objections to Specification
Applicant has amended paragraphs [00067] and [00091] to address inconsistencies in reciting a reference numeral and to correct a typographical error which were noted in previous office action. Based on these amendments, Examiner withdraws objections to specification.
Objections to Drawings
With regard to objections to Fig. 4, specifically inconsistencies in use of element number “122”, Applicant has amended specification to remove errant reference numeral, rendering objections to drawings moot. Examiner withdraws objections to drawings.
Objections to Claims
With respect to objection over minor informalities identified in Claim 3, Applicant has amended limitation to correct antecedent basis issue. Examiner withdraws objection of Claim 3.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1-10 were rejected under 35 USC § 103 over obvious combination of prior art by SAITO (US 20180356866 A1), JANCIC (US 20170292798 A1), MAYER (US 20240019334 A1), DAVIS (US 20230337402 A1), and/or JIN (Jin et al., “Design and geometry optimization of a conductivity probe with a vertical multiple electrode array for measuring volume fraction and axial velocity of two-phase flow” 2008 Meas. Sci. Technol. 19 045403).
Examiner notes previous office action considered claims as originally presented and notes claim limitations as currently amended necessitate further search and evaluation, rendering arguments moot. Detailed response with new grounds of rejection are presented below with attention to Applicant’s arguments (Page 11, Paragraph 2) that combined teachings of cited references “fail to disclose each and every element an limitation recited by amended independent claims 1 and 8”.
Applicant argues (Page 9, Paragraph 6) that prior art cited in rejection was “piecemealed together”. Examiner respectfully disagrees, with attention to reasoning and rationale for establishing a prima facie case for obviousness based on guidance from MPEP 2142, and 707.07(g), along with MPEP 904.03 for guidance with search, so that rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are conveyed such that the combination of references clearly arrive at Applicant’s claimed features.
Applicant further argues the relevance of prior art by JANCIK (Page 8, Paragraph 5 ). Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the reference field of endeavor may be considered as different from the claimed invention and still be considered a proper reference. Applying guidance found in MPEP 2141.01(a) I: “A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).” Examiner has considered the problem faced by the inventor, based on reading and guidance of specification in view of claim limitations and finds that a person of ordinary skill would have reason to consult and apply the teachings found in the disclosures used below, and would understand each reference to be “reasonably pertinent” to the claimed invention.
Detailed response addressing Applicant arguments in determination that the claimed invention, with claims as currently amended, does not distinguish over prior art is presented below with new grounds of rejection as necessitate by amendment.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over SAITO (US 20180356866 A1), in view SMITH (US 20220087049 A1), and in further in view of JANCIC (US 20170292798 A1).
With respect to Claims 1 and 8, SAITO teaches:
An electronic device and cooling monitoring system receiving electric power from a power supply, (SAITO is in same technical field; and [0001]: “invention relates to a cooling system for electronic devices”’; and [0067]: “may include…power unit (AC-DC converter, DC-DC voltage converter).”
a board at least in part immersed in an immersion case containing a first heat-transfer liquid for cooling of the electronic device; ([0014]: “cooling system configured to directly cool an electronic device immersed in a coolant, which includes a cooling tank containing the coolant 11 (i.e., “immersion case”)”; and [0045]: “cooling tank contains the coolant C sufficient to immerse the entire bodies of the electronic devices (not shown) up to the liquid surface N in the normal state…preferable to use a fluorine-based inert liquid”(i.e., “heat transfer liquid”))
the at least in partially immersed board comprising one or more electronic components mounted onto the board, ([0039]: “plurality of electronic devices (i.e., “electronic components”) (not shown) are immersed in the coolant”; FIG. 6, with [0054]: “cooling system 400 according to another embodiment has the cooling tank divided into a plurality of housing parts (for example, 4×4=16), each of which accommodates one or more electronic devices for housing and cooling”; and [0067] “electronic device may include the processor installed on the board.”(i.e., “components mounted to board”))
each of the electronic components being cooled by one or more corresponding liquid cooling units in thermal contact with the one or more electronic components, (As above, [0039] and FIG. 6 with [0054]; and [0014]: “configured to directly cool an electronic device immersed in a coolant” (i.e., “in thermal contact”)
SAITO does not teach:
the one or more liquid cooling units being configured to internally channel a second heat-transfer liquid therethrough to collect thermal energy generated by the one or more electronic components,
the second cooling unit heat-transfer liquid having a higher density than a density of the first heat-transfer liquid;
a leak detection arrangement disposed in a bottom portion of the board and configured to determine a presence of the higher density channelized second heat-transfer liquid in a bottom portion of the immersion case;
a controller communicably connected to the leak detection arrangement, the controller being configured to receive signals from the leak detection arrangement and,
in response to determining that the signals indicate presence of the higher density channelized second heat transfer liquid in the bottom portion of the immersion case, the controller causes a disconnection of the electronic device from the power supply.
SMITH teaches:
the one or more liquid cooling units being configured to internally channel a second heat-transfer liquid therethrough to collect thermal energy generated by the one or more electronic components, (SMITH in same technical field, Abstract: “system and method for cooling electronic devices disposed within the inner volume of an enclosure”; [0015]: “heat exchange mechanism through which is circulated a single phase or multi-phase secondary thermally conductive fluid (“secondary thermally conductive fluid”) (“i.e., second heat-transfer liquid”)…one or more channels that contain a single phase or multi-phase secondary thermally conductive fluid . (i.e., “internally channel”) … the inner volume contains a single phase or multi-phase primary dielectric thermally conductive fluid in which electronic devices to be cooled are immersed and/or surrounded as well as an optional heat exchange mechanism through which is circulated a single phase or multi-phase secondary thermally conductive fluid. (i.e., “collect thermal energy”))
the second cooling unit heat-transfer liquid having a higher density than a density of the first heat-transfer liquid; ([0186]: “portion of the multi-phase primary dielectric thermally conductive fluid 106 that is converted to the gaseous phase 108 will have a lower density than the surrounding fluid (i.e. “second cooling unit heat transfer liquid”))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SAITO to include the one or more liquid cooling units being configured to internally channel a second heat-transfer liquid therethrough to collect thermal energy generated by the one or more electronic components, and the second cooling unit heat-transfer liquid having a higher density than a density of the first heat-transfer liquid, such as that of SMITH because the use of two heat transfer fluids with differing densities for electronic cooling is an effective and efficient thermal management strategy otherwise known as hybrid or stratified liquid cooling. One of ordinary skill would see the advantage of exploiting gravity and phase changes to maximize efficiency and improve the method and system disclosed by SAITO.
SAITO, as modified by SMITH as taught above, does not teach:
a leak detection arrangement disposed in a bottom portion of the board and configured to determine a presence of the higher density channelized second heat-transfer liquid in a bottom portion of the immersion case;
a controller communicably connected to the leak detection arrangement, the controller being configured to receive signals from the leak detection arrangement and,
in response to determining that the signals indicate presence of the higher density channelized second heat transfer liquid in the bottom portion of the immersion case, the controller causes a disconnection of the electronic device from the power supply.
JANCIC teaches:
a leak detection arrangement disposed in a bottom portion of the board and configured to determine a presence of the higher density channelized second heat-transfer liquid in a bottom portion of the immersion case; (JANCIC is pertinent prior art, as discussed above, in a related technical field of bi-liquid based cooling and heat exchange methods and systems, [0022]: “system and methods for detecting a leak within a heat exchanger that is exchanging heat between two heat exchange fluids that are at least partially immiscible”; [0022]: “in addition to being at least partially immiscible, the two heat exchange fluids may generally have a difference in density such that the fluid leaking into the other heat exchange fluid can separate from the fluid due to the density differences.”; and [0025]: “heaver fluid (e.g., a dense liquid) is used with a lighter fluid (e.g., a less dense liquid), the collection vessel (i.e., leak detection arrangement”) can be placed on a lower surface… level sensor can then be configured to detect a liquid level of the denser liquid, and the presence of the denser liquid in the less dense liquid collection vessel may indicate a leak in the heat exchanger”.)
a controller communicably connected to the leak detection arrangement, the controller being configured to receive signals from the leak detection arrangement, ([0032]: “controller 170 can be coupled to the level sensor 154 to process the level signal and generate various actions such as an alarm.”; and [0040]: “controller 170 can be in signal communication with the level sensor 154, the valve 156, and/or the analyzer 158…controller 170 can generally be configured to receive the various signals such as the level sensor signal and provide processing and output of the signal for further use”)
in response to determining that the signals indicate presence of the higher density channelized second heat transfer liquid in the bottom portion of the immersion case, the controller causes a disconnection of the electronic device from the power supply. ([0025] : “level sensor can then be configured to detect a liquid level of the denser liquid, and the presence of the denser liquid in the less dense liquid collection vessel may indicate a leak in the heat exchanger..relatively fast leak indication to allow the heat exchanger to be shut down (i.e., “causes a disconnection of the electronic device from power supply”)”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify SAITO, as modified by SMITH and taught above, to combine a leak detection arrangement disposed in a bottom portion of the board and configured to determine a presence of the higher density channelized second heat-transfer liquid in a bottom portion of the immersion case, with a controller communicably connected to the leak detection arrangement, the controller being configured to receive signals from the leak detection arrangement and configuring a controller to, in response to determining that the signals indicate presence of the higher density channelized second heat transfer liquid in the bottom portion of the immersion case, cause a disconnection of the electronic device from the power supply, as taught by JANCIC because the technique would be an efficient and effective way to quickly and reliably determine the presence of a higher density fluid leak. This would make the method and system of SAITO as modified by SMITH achieve the goal of avoiding expensive equipment damage by providing fast leak detection, with an auto shut down feature. One of ordinary skill would find the JANCIC’s gravitational effect-based detection scheme, with sensor in position in the bottom part of a case relying on density stratification a relatively simple and logical way to provide reliable and quick lead detection to improve the system and method of SAITO, as modified previously with the two-liquid scheme of SMITH.
With respect to Claim 2 and 9, SAITO, as modified by SMITH and JANCIC as taught above, teaches the limitations of Claims 1 and 8.
JANCIC further teaches:
the leak detection arrangement is configured to transmit a fault signal to the controller in response to detecting presence of the second heat-transfer liquid in the bottom portion of the immersion case; (As above, [0025], and [0032]: “controller 170 can be coupled to the level sensor 154 to process the level signal and generate various actions such as an alarm (i.e., “fault signal”).”; and [0040]: “controller 170 can be in signal communication with the level sensor 154, the valve 156, and/or the analyzer 158…controller 170 can generally be configured to receive the various signals (i.e., “transmit a fault signal”) such as the level sensor signal and provide processing and output of the signal for further use”)
the controller is configured to cause to disconnect the electronic device from the power supply in response to receiving the fault signal. (As above, [0025] : “level sensor can then be configured to detect a liquid level of the denser liquid, and the presence of the denser liquid in the less dense liquid collection vessel may indicate a leak in the heat exchanger..relatively fast leak indication to allow the heat exchanger to be shut down (i.e., “cause disconnection of the electronic device from power supply”)”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify SAITO, as modified by SMITH and JANCIC as taught above, to include the leak detection arrangement is configured to transmit a fault signal to the controller in response to detecting presence of the second heat-transfer liquid in the bottom portion of the immersion case and a controller configured to cause to disconnect the electronic device from the power supply in response to receiving the fault signal, such as that further disclosed by JANCIC because it would be understood as a logical use of a leak detection unit. One of ordinary skill would understand the advantage of ensuring that the lead detection unit was connected in a way that the leak detection could be transmitted or output to be used in a decision making process to control or adjust a cooling system. It would be an obvious improvement to the method and system of SAITO as modified by SMITH and JANCIC to prevent additional damage that may be caused by the presence of a cooling fluid in a location where it could do harm to components or system infrastructure.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over SAITO, in view of SMITH and JANCIC, and further in view of MAYER (US 20240019334 A1),.
With respect to Claims 3 and 10, SAITO, as modified by SMITH and JANCIC as taught above, teaches the limitations of Claims 1 and 8.
JANCIC further teaches:
the leak detection arrangement is configured to transmit measurement signals of the first heat-transfer liquid to the controller; (As above, [0022] and [0032])
and determining, by the controller, that the signals indicate presence of the second heat-transfer liquid in the bottom portion of the immersion case comprises comparing, by the controller, measurement values carried in the measurement signals with a threshold. ([0040]: “controller 170 can be in signal communication with the level sensor…generally be configured to receive the various signals such as the level sensor signal and provide processing and output of the signal for further use…coupled to various output devices such as alarms, control screens, or the like to provide an indication of the potential for the leak…controller 170 can compare the output of the analyzer 158 with an expected composition (i.e., “comparing measurement values… with threshold”) of the leaking fluid to automatically determine if the fluid is leaking within the heat exchanger 100.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify SAITO, as modified by SMITH and JANCIC as taught above, to include the leak detection arrangement is configured to transmit measurement signals of the first heat-transfer liquid to the controller, and determining, by the controller, that the signals indicate presence of the second heat-transfer liquid in the bottom portion of the immersion case comprises comparing, by the controller, measurement values carried in the measurement signals with a threshold, such as that further disclosed by JANCIC because it would be understood as a way to improve the overall understanding and insight regarding function and effectiveness of an immersion cooling system and its integrity with regard to leakage. One of ordinary skill would be motivated by the potential improvement in reliability that could be reasonably expected by incorporating the evaluation techniques of JANCIC with the method and system of SAITO as modified above.
SAITO, as modified by SMITH and JANCIC as taught above, does not teach:
the leak detection arrangement is configured to transmit measurement signals for an operating parameter of the first heat-transfer liquid to the controller;
MAYER teaches:
the leak detection arrangement is configured to transmit measurement signals for an operating parameter of the first heat-transfer liquid to the controller; (Examiner notes that JANCIC teaches sending signal regarding presence of first or second heat-exchange fluid, but does not explicitly teach transmission of “operating parameter” information, as interpreted above. MAYER teaches [0024]: “leak detection system can communicate with the row manager 106 to provide information regarding the presence, size, severity, movement, or type of fluid leak (i.e., “operating parameter”)”; Examiner relies on guidance from specification in at least [0024] for interpretation of “operating parameter”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify SAITO, as modified by SMITH and JANCIC as taught above, to the leak detection arrangement is configured to transmit measurement signals for an operating parameter of the first heat-transfer liquid to the controller, such as that of MAYER because allows broadened use of the sensor-based system of SAITO as modified by SMITH and JANCIC to use data for a more accurate and reliable understanding of the status of a coolant. Combining the reliable techniques of MAYER to improve and make the method and system of SAITO as modified by SMITH and JANCIC would allow for more efficient monitoring and control of an immersion cooling system.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over SAITO, as modified by SMITH and JANCIC, as applied to Claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of DAVIS (US 20230337402 A1).
With respect to Claim 4, SAITO, as modified by SMITH and JANCIC as taught above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
JANCIC further teaches:
wherein: the second heat-transfer liquid comprises water; ( [0042]: “first heat exchange fluid can comprise a fluid (e.g., a gas such as air, etc.) having a lower density than the second heat exchange fluid (e.g., a liquid such as water, etc.)”.)
the leak detection arrangement is configured to indicate presence of the second heat transfer liquid in the bottom portion of the immersion case (As above, [0025]: “heaver fluid (e.g., a dense liquid) is used with a lighter fluid (e.g., a less dense liquid), the collection vessel (i.e., leak detection arrangement”) can be placed on a lower surface… level sensor can then be configured to detect a liquid level of the denser liquid, and the presence of the denser liquid in the less dense liquid collection vessel may indicate a leak in the heat exchanger”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify SAITO, as modified by JANCIC and MAYER as taught above, to include the second heat-transfer liquid comprises water; and the leak detection arrangement is configured to indicate presence of the second heat transfer liquid in the bottom portion of the immersion case, such as that further disclosed by JANCIC because it would be understood as an important addition for understanding the behavior of heat exchange fluids in a hybrid immersion cooling system. One of ordinary skill would understand the advantage of incorporating the reliable fluid measurement techniques taught by JANCIC with the immersion cooling method and system of SAITO would result in a reasonable expectation of improving the immersion cooling system with a second heat-exchange fluid.
SAITO, as modified by SMITH, JANCIC as taught above, does not teach:
the leak detection arrangement comprises a conductivity sensor
the leak detection arrangement is configured to indicate presence of the second heat transfer liquid in response to detecting the conductivity being above a pre-determined conductivity threshold.
DAVIS teaches:
the leak detection arrangement comprises a conductivity sensor (DAVIS is in same technical field, [0001]: “cooling system can be utilized in a datacenter containing one or more racks or computing servers”); [0052]: “real time reading for characteristics like pH, conductivity, turbidity, infra-red (IR) absorption spectrum, and a general health of a coolant using appropriate state sensors” and [0057]: “at least one embodiment… second coolant”)
the leak detection arrangement is configured to indicate presence of the second heat transfer liquid in the bottom portion of the immersion case in response to detecting the conductivity being above a pre-determined conductivity threshold. ([0110]: “verification may be confirmed by an act of comparing a received input with a threshold”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further SAITO, as modified by JANCIC and MAYER as taught above, to include the leak detection arrangement comprises a conductivity sensor; and the leak detection arrangement is configured to indicate in response to detecting the conductivity being above a pre-determined conductivity threshold, such as DAVIS because it would be a reliable and accurate way to determine the presence of a specific coolant fluid in an immersion system. One of ordinary skill would know that conductivity sensor technology is well-developed and would provide consistent measurements that could be well calibrated and reliable.
With respect to Claim 7, SAITO, as modified by SMITH and JANCIC as taught above, teaches the limitation of Claim 1.
SAITO, as modified by SMITH, JANCIC as taught above, does not teach:
the second heat-transfer liquid has a pH that is different from a pH of the first heat-transfer liquid; and the leak detection arrangement comprises a pH sensor.
DAVIS teaches:
the second heat-transfer liquid has a pH that is different from a pH of the first heat-transfer liquid; and the leak detection arrangement comprises a pH sensor. ([0052]: “real time reading for characteristics like pH…using appropriate state sensors”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify SAITO, as modified by SMITH, JANCIC as taught above, to include wherein: the second heat-transfer liquid has a pH that is different from a pH of the first heat-transfer liquid; and the leak detection arrangement comprises a pH sensor, such as that of DAVIS because this is a reliable and accurate way to characterize a specific coolant fluid type present in a specific location within an immersion system. One of ordinary skill would know that pH sensor technology is well-developed and would provide consistent measurements that could be well calibrated and reliable for fluid characterization.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over SAITO, in view of SMITH JANCIC, and DAVIS, and further in view of JIN (Jin et al., “Design and geometry optimization of a conductivity probe with a vertical multiple electrode array for measuring volume fraction and axial velocity of two-phase flow” 2008 Meas. Sci. Technol. 19 045403).
With respect to Claim 5, SAITO, as modified by SMITH and JANCIC, and further modified by DAVIS as taught above, teaches the limitation of Claim 4
JANCIC teaches as above, second heat-transfer liquid (As above, [0022])
DAVIS teaches as above, heat-transfer liquid within the immersion case and fault signals transmitted by two or more of the conductivity sensors. ([0052]: “real time reading for characteristics like pH, conductivity, turbidity, infra-red (IR) absorption spectrum, and a general health of a coolant using appropriate state sensors”)
SAITO, as modified by SMITH and JANCIC and further modified by DAVIS as taught above, does not teach:
conductivity sensor comprises a plurality of conductivity sensors disposed one above another along a gravity axis;
controller is configured to determine a fill rate based on fault signals transmitted by two or more of the conductivity sensors.
JIN teaches:
conductivity sensor comprises a plurality of conductivity sensors disposed one above another along a gravity axis; (JIN is in related technical field and considered pertinent to instant application, as discussed above; One of ordinary skill in the art would have reason to consult and apply the teachings of JIN involving known techniques for using conductivity sensors to measure volume and fill-rate properties of a conductive fluid.; Abstract: “paper presents the design and geometry optimization of a conductivity probe with a vertical multiple electrode array (VMEA), which can be used to measure the volume fraction and axial velocity of two-phase flow”; and Pg. 2, “Figure 1. The geometry and parameter definition of the VMEA conductivity probe.(i.e. “one above another along a gravity axis”)”; Examiner interprets “gravity axis” as vertical axis as taught in reference Figure 1.)
the controller is configured to determine a fill rate based on signals transmitted by two or more of the conductivity sensors. (Pg. 3, Col1(top): “Based on the cross-correlation technique, we can extract the axial velocity of two-phase flow from fluctuating signals of sensors A and B”; and Pg. 11, section 5: “VMEA system has been designed to measure both the volume fraction and axial velocity”; Examiner interprets “fill rate” as analogous to reference of “axial velocity” to mean the rate at which a fluid is changing in a vertical direction.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify SAITO, as modified by SMITH and JANCIC and further modified by DAVIS as taught above, to include wherein: the conductivity sensor comprises a plurality of conductivity sensors disposed one above another along a gravity axis; and the controller is configured to determine a fill rate based on fault signals transmitted by two or more of the conductivity sensors, such as that of because it would be understood as a reliable and well-proven technique for accurately and reliably determining presence of a conductive fluid in a contained volume. One of ordinary skill would understand the value of using a relatively simple conductivity measurement to ascertain a precise fill level and fill rate within an immersion cooling case to avoid costly incidents of overheating.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art suggesting or teaching “controller is further configured to, in response to determining the fill rate: trigger a counter indicative of an amount of time that has passed since the fill rate has been determined; and in response to the counter reaching a first pre-determined count value, cause to disconnect the electronic device from the power supply, the first pre-determined count value being based on the determined fill rate.” was not discovered.
Examiner notes that JIN et al., does teach timed measurements and evaluation of sampling rate to determine a fluidic flow, but does not teach or suggest using a counter to monitor time passage between determinations of fill-rate. Examiner asserts, as in previous office action, interpretation of “fill-rate” as analogous to JIN teaching “axial velocity”. Further search and evaluation of other pertinent prior art did not reveal references, which individually or in obvious combination, would teach or suggest this limitation.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is included in previous office action.
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 TONI D SAUNCY whose telephone number is (703)756-4589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. 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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/TONI D SAUNCY/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights