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 Claims
Claims 1-13 are currently pendingClaims 1-13 are currently rejected
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 13 line 20 states “This reservoir 310” and instead should state “This reservoir 300” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 5 states “comprising” and instead should include a colon to further recite “comprising:”. FURTHERMORE, line 6 states “an entry port, fluidly” and instead should remove the comma to further recite “an entry port fluidly”. ADDITIONALLY, lines 19 and 24 each state “liquid cooling fluid” and instead should each state “liquid coolant fluid” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “and any liquid coolant fluid” and instead should state “and any of the liquid coolant fluid” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “as a result of liquid coolant flowing” and instead should state “as a result of the liquid coolant fluid flowing” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, lines 4 and 5 each state “channels” and instead should state “channel” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “the vanes” and instead should state “the set of vanes” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 4 and 6 each state “the inner walls” and instead should state “the set of inner walls” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 4 states “the inner walls” and instead should state “the set of inner walls” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 9 states “liquid coolant fluid” and instead should state “the liquid coolant fluid” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, line 13 states “the liquid cooling fluid” and instead should state “the liquid coolant fluid” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
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: “the entry port is configured to receive” on line 16 of claim 1, “the active to passive flow communication channel on the upper portion is configured to cause” on lines 18-19 of claim 1, “the passive to active flow communication channel on the lower portion is configured to cause” on lines 23-24 of claim 1, “a standoff pin on the upper portion configured to engage” on lines 1-2 of claim 5, “the second entry port is configured to receive” on line 9 of claim 13, and “the second active to passive flow communication channel on the second upper portion is configured to cause” on lines 12-13 of claim 13.
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 § 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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the inlet on the reservoir,” on line 6, and “the outlet on the reservoir,” on line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claims 2-13 are also rejected since these claims depend on claim 1.
References Considered
JETCOOL TECH INC (DE 202024100524 U1) (hereinafter “Jetcool”) teaches a reservoir for AIO cooling systems.
Barmore (U.S. 2024/0263804 A1) (hereinafter “Barmore”) teaches a system and method for radiative heating/cooling in cooling systems.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and to follow Examiner’s suggestion below, as set forth in this Office action.
Examiner’s note: Examiner suggests to amend independent claim 1 to include limitations of dependent claims 5 and 7, and to further cancel dependent claims 5 and 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH K. VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 pm.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571)-272-0475. 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.
/AKASH K VARMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights