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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15, 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. Regarding Claim(s) 1 and 15; in respective lines 8-9 and 10-11, asserts “a testing assembly…to determine a presence of the channelized cooling liquid…that indicates a leak” is asserted without presenting any particular structural manner deemed as accomplishing “to determine a presence of the channelized cooling liquid…that indicates a leak” and thus it appears communication between: at least one sensor, and a controller/processor/CPU to required to actually determine and indicate, as asserted in instance of a testing assembly comprising at least one sensor and/or otherwise in an instance that the testing assembly comprises a sample valve then the construction shall be further asserted with structural limitations as configured for manual analysis or manual testing etc; whereas an unknown sensor type alone does not necessitate testing, determining and indication of any particular liquid characteristic, indicia or density etc, of which the claim appears to require sensing and determining of a particular liquid density of the channelized cooling liquid or otherwise in the instance of the sample valve, only argues as disclosed by para.’s 0014-0018 which does not specify a sample valve as sensing, determining and indicating. However, para. 0082 appears to disclose that the valve permits an operator to sample liquid from the bottom portion 1004, which may be manually tested to determine whether channelized cooling liquid 1008 is present, indicating that a leak has occurred. The office hereby notes that the limitation reads on more than one plausible claim construction which constitutes a different inventive structures; whereas a testing assembly…comprising atleast one sensor or a sample valve when considered alone cannot test, determine and indicate a leak, as asserted. Going further, determining requires the controller/CPU and/or switching to communicate an electrical signal or sensed value for processing or determining the presence of the channelized liquid relative to the immersion liquid and to then subsequently communicate a leak indication thereof; and the sample valve otherwise requires manual analysis by an operator without any actual structural means which necessitates a testing assembly accomplishes sensing, determining and indication. Regarding Claims 4-7 and 17-19; the claim(s) assert one or more of the following: the testing assembly comprises a conductivity sensor or a pH sensor, a float arrangement, circuitry including first and second conducting strips without reference to at least one sensor which is already asserted in claim(s) 1 or 15, and thus it cannot be readily ascertained if these sensor(s) are deemed to further limit at least one sensor or otherwise assert additional sensors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 is hereby deemed as allowed, assuming 112(b) rejections are overcome.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The office hereby notes that the applicant has failed to present or argue sufficient structure to test, determine and indicate, as above-mentioned. Going forward, any assertion and OR-condition thereof that is presented to overcome the 112(b) shall present claim construction(s) that are each structurally operable to sense, determine and indicate to be allowed. The OR-condition shall be removed; whereas atleast one sensor is herein deemed as constructively elected and fixed. Otherwise the limitation shall positively present a combination of each structure including i.e. sensor and sample valve along with determination and indication means; whereas each or-condition of the assertion must be separately deemed as allowed. As such, if i.e. a sample valve is presented alone and/or without actual structure that senses, determines and indicates then the sample valve will be deemed as non-elected; whereas the features defines a non-examined claim construction that does not necessitate a testing assembly that will sense, determine and indicate in a structural manner, and otherwise requires i.e. a visual indication and a manual analysis by an operator.
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 COURTNEY SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-9094. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5p.
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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/COURTNEY L SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835
Prosecution Insights