DETAILED ACTIONAcknowledgment is made of applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 1/25/24.Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of a computer program for operating a controller and testing a device. The claims describe the concepts of operating and testing which are considered abstract ideas. The claim limitations are similar to those previously found by the courts to be abstract such as collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016). All of these concepts relate to tracking, analyzing or organizing information. The concepts described in the claims are not meaningfully different than concepts of gathering data found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the descriptions in the claims of operating and testing is an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are generic controller elements claimed to perform their basic functions of operating and testing. The recitation of the controller limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea. Taking the elements both individually and as a combination, the components perform purely generic computer functions. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because they would be routine in any computer implementation. With respect to Electric Power Group, the courts found that claims drawn to collecting data, analyzing data, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis was an abstract idea. The present invention relates to operating a controller and testing a device using a computer program. Taking the courts' opinion in Electric Power Group into consideration in view of the claimed subject matter of the instant application, simply outputting the results of an analysis is considered to be abstract. Furthermore, there is no indication that the operating and testing steps are performed by any specific structure. Thus, generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 11 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1 – 11, Stefanoski et al. (11,191,190, hereinafter Stefanoski) in view of Wits et al. (9,534,819, hereinafter Wits) represent the best prior art of record. However, Stefanoski in view of Wits fails to encompass all of the limitations of independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, Stefanoski discloses two-phase cooling systems for autonomous driving super computers comprising a flow channel configured to circulate a flow; an evaporative heat exchanger comprising an inlet for receiving fluid from the flow channel and an outlet for releasing vapor generated from the fluid, the evaporative heat exchanger being configured to collect heat from components of the ADSC and transfer the heat away via the vapor released from the first outlet; a condensing heat exchanger configured to condense the vapor and remove latent heat associated with the vapor, the condensing heat exchanger comprising an inlet to the flow channel for receiving the vapor and an outlet to the flow channel for discharging fluid generated by condensing the vapor; and a pump configured to receive the fluid from the condensing heat exchanger and circulate the fluid to the evaporative heat exchanger. Stefanoski fails to disclose determining whether the monitored first temperature fulfills a predetermined criterion; and determining that the cooling device is overfilled with the cooling medium if the predetermined criterion is fulfilled. Wits discloses a system for fast and accurate filling of a two-phase cooling device, notably a heat pipe, adapted for use in an automated process comprising a binding device intended to be hermetically mounted onto the cooling device, the binding device comprising a through-hole able to be in fluid contact with the cooling device, said through-hole extending between a lower surface adapted to the cooling device's surface, and an essentially plane upper surface, the binding device further comprising a gripping head essentially level with said upper surface, allowing for a filling tool to be put in hermetic contact with said upper surface. However, Stefanoski, Wits, or combinations thereof fails to disclose determining whether the monitored first temperature fulfills a predetermined criterion; and determining that the cooling device is overfilled with the cooling medium if the predetermined criterion is fulfilled. Hence, the best prior art of record fails to teach the invention as set forth in independent claim 1 and the examiner can find no teachings for determining whether the monitored first temperature fulfills a predetermined criterion; and determining that the cooling device is overfilled with the cooling medium if the predetermined criterion is fulfilled, nor reasons within the cited prior art or on her own to combine the elements of these references other than the applicant’s own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims. Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.7. Yin (CN105526710) discloses an internal condenser for a heat pump water heater. Molivadas (6,866,092) discloses two-phase heat transfer systems. Oberholzer et al. (6,119,729) disclose a freeze protection apparatus for fluid transport passages. Reed et al. (5,579,828) disclose a flexible insert for heat pipe freeze protection.8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 5712724107. 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.
/OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 2/6/26
Prosecution Insights