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 12-15 and 17 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 12 is indefinite for the language of “the stopper is configured to block the cooling liquid crawling along the cable”. It is unclear based upon this language what applicant is specifically claiming to one skilled in the art. It is unclear how the stopper is to prevent any crawling of liquid anywhere on the cable (note applicants’ own figure merely shows the stopper covering part of the cable not the entire cable), only where the stopper is on the cable, or if dependent on the use of the cable and apparatus (which appears to be applicants arguments). As applicants’ arguments appear to make it dependent upon the usage the claim is further indefinite for this limitation as this language makes it impossible to determine if the claimed apparatus is being read on until it is applied to system which makes the claim indefinite as it makes it unclear when infringement occurs (when system is made or when system used) MPEP 2173.05 (p). This makes it dependent on the fluid level and application of the cable/stopper use in the devise and does not appear to provide a clear limitation to one skilled in the art to determine when the structure is read on outside of specific appliciaotn (which is improper). The claim will be examined as preventing crawling where the stopper is located on the cable as it would be the most proper reading of the limitation.
Claims 13-15 and 17 are rejected for dependence on claim 12.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweeny et al. (U.S. PGPub 2022/0361365) in view of Cairns (U.S. PGPub 2014/0270674) and Alawneh (U.S. Patent 10,734,753).
Regarding claim 12, Sweeney teaches an immersion cooling apparatus (Fig. 1), comprising: a cooling tank (element 12) comprising a cooling liquid (element 45) ; a cable (element 38) comprising a first end at element 52) and a second end (at element 20), wherein the first end connects a first connector (element 52), the second end connects a second connector (at element 20, while not shown inherent that it must connect and as this connector is not further defined and connection point would read on a ”connector”), at least one of the first end and the second end is located in the cooling tank (first end per fig. 1).
Sweeny does not teach at least one stopper surrounding and in contact with the cable, wherein the stopper is configured to block the cooling liquid crawling along the cable. Cairns teaches at least one stopper (element 11) surrounding and in contact with the cable (element 2), wherein the stopper is configured to block the cooling liquid from crawling along the cable (per para. 0005 – “seal cable interfaces from the environment exterior to them” such sealing inherently would mean liquid would be prevented from crawling or contacting the cable). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Sweeney connector to include the stopper of Cairns, the motivation would be to protect and seal the connection form interference (para. 0004-0005).
Sweeny and Cairns are silent on the stopper can be shifted on the cable. Alanwneh teaches a stopper (sealing boot – which is what Cairnes element 11 is) can be shifted on the cable (col. 6, ln 16-26; “Slide a first end of a first sealing boot over the first cable, wherein the first end of the first sealing boot forms a seal to the first cable and a portion of the first cable is passed through the first sealing boot”). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing include the movement capabilities of the stopper of Alanwneh, the motivoant would be attach and position the sealing boot properly.
Regarding claim 13, Cairns further teaches the stopper comprises an elastic tube (element 11 as shown in fig. 4 is a tube and per para. 0027 is “elastomeric”), the elastic tube has an inner wall (per fig. 1B there is an inner wall), the inner wall has a first inner diameter (at element 20 it is small) and a second inner diameter (at element 5 it changes), the second inner diameter is greater than the first inner diameter, and the second inner diameter is located at an end of the elastic tube (per fig. 1B).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweeny et al. (U.S. PGPub 2022/0361365) in view of Cairns (U.S. PGPub 2014/0270674) and Alawneh (U.S. Patent 10,734,753), and further view of Shah (U.S. Patent 5,231,248).
Regarding claim 14, Sweeny and Cairns do not teach the elastic tube further comprises a sealant filled in a gap between the elastic tube and the cable.
Shah teaches the tube further comprises a sealant (epoxy element 15) filled in a gap between the elastic tube and the cable (per fig. 3). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Sweeny and Cairns to include this sealant, the motivation would be to have a tough, cut-resistant, steam resistant and sterilizing liquid resistant seal (Col. 2 ln 66-68).
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweeny et al. (U.S. PGPub 2022/0361365) in view of Cairns (U.S. PGPub 2014/0270674) and Alawneh (U.S. Patent 10,734,753), and further view of KIazubowski (U.S. PGPub 2013/0102176).
Regarding claim 15, Sweeny and Cairn do not teach the elastic tube comprises a first component and a second component where the first component has an outer screw thread, the second component has an inner screw thread, the first component is configured to connect the second component detachably.
Kazubowski teaches a first component (element 24) and a second component (element 23) where the first component has an outer screw thread (element 26), the second component has an inner screw thread (element 25), the first component is configured to connect the second component detachably (per fig. 3). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Sweeny and Cairns to include this screw element, the motivation would be further restrain or align elements of the cable passing through the tube.
Regarding claim 17, Sweeny and Cairn do teach the stopper has an outer surface (see figures) but do not teach wherein the stopper a branch extending from the outer surface. Kazubowski teaches the stopper has an outer surface and a branch extending from the outer surface (ridges on element 65). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Sweeny and Cairns to include this ridge/branch element, the motivation would be to allow better gripping of the outer surface.
Response to Arguments
Applicants amendments to drawings have overcome the previous drawing objections.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) amendments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner does note that applicants’ arguemtn regarding the amended language of crawling has created a 112b rejection above, this limitation is based on the application of the structure and not a clear and specific structural limitation.
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 Attey whose telephone number is (571) 272-7936. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 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 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.
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights