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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I and species A-I, B-IV, C-IV (and indicating species Dand E are not relevant and are withdrawn due to other elections) in the reply filed on 12/29/25 is acknowledged. Applicant indicated claims 2, 7, 9-11, 16, and 18-30 were withdrawn.
Applicant indicated that claims 1, 3-6, 8 read on the elected species. The claim includes a “protection tube wrapping the cable, but the elected species 5B includes “elastic tube” NOT a “protection tube” (note that para 0033 indicates these are different elements) and para. 0043 indicates that such is a different embodiment as it reads an alternative to that shown “(or the protection tube 300)”. Thus, these claims are withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the “first connector” and “second connector” are not identified in fig. 1, the drawings should identify the elements for this embodiment. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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).
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. 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 (per para. 0005 – “seal cable interfaces from the environment exterior to them”). 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)
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 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 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL M ATTEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8-5 and Friday 8-10 and 2-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763