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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 2026 March 18 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“treatment component” in claims 1 and 6-7. However, the specification fails to provide any disclosure of structural elements which correspond to “treatment components”. Elements such as the strainer block are disclosed as being used in combination with a heat exchanger, but at no point in the specification are those elements disclosed as being “treatment components”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “one or more treatment components configured to receive sewage and remove organic matters and pollutants within the sewage”. The limitation “treatment component” invokes 112(f) because the generic placeholder “component” is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. However, the specification fails to provide any disclosure of structural elements which correspond to “treatment components”. Components such as the strainer block are disclosed as being used in combination with a heat exchanger, but at no point in the specification are those components disclosed as being “treatment components”. Therefore, because the claimed subject matter is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing, claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-7 are rejected for depending upon a previously rejected claim.
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 1-7 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 1, claim limitation “treatment component” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to provide any disclosure of structural elements which correspond to “treatment components”. Components such as the strainer block are disclosed as being used in combination with a heat exchanger, but at no point in the specification are those components disclosed as being “treatment components”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The Examiner is interpreting elements such as the strainer block to be structural examples corresponding to the claimed “treatment component”.
Claims 2-7 are rejected because they depend upon a previously rejected claim.
To overcome the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of claim 1, Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP-2021077357-A (herein “Ono”) (translation provided).
Regarding independent claim 1.
Ono discloses a sewage treatment plant for cooling a coolant that radiates heat from each component within a data center by using treated wastewater as a cooling water ([0027] and [0031]), the sewage treatment plant comprising:
one or more treatment components ([0031] sedimentation tank 30) configured to receive sewage and remove organic matters and pollutants within the sewage,
wherein a cooling pipe (27) into which the coolant that has radiated heat from each component within the data center can flow is disposed within the treatment component (Fig. 4d), and a temperature of the coolant that flows into a cooling pipe is capable of being lowered by inducing an exchange of heat between the cooling water within the sewage treatment plant and the coolant flowing into the cooling pipe.
Regarding claim 2.
Ono discloses the sewage treatment plant of claim 1, capable of using cooling water comprising sewage and wastewater that has been introduced into the sewage treatment plant, or treated water that is being subjected to water treatment in the sewage treatment plant, or on which water treatment has been completed ([0027] and [0031]).
Regarding claim 3.
Ono discloses the sewage treatment plant of claim 1, wherein the sewage treatment plant senses a water temperature of the coolant that flows into the cooling pipe or a water temperature of the cooling water ([0033]).
Regarding claim 4.
Ono discloses the sewage treatment plant of claim 3, wherein the sewage treatment plant determines whether the water temperature of the cooling water is greater than a preset reference value based on a sensed sensing value ([0033]).
Regarding claim 5.
Ono discloses the sewage treatment plant of claim 3, wherein the sewage treatment plant determines whether a difference between the water temperature of the coolant and the water temperature of the cooling water is greater than a preset reference value based on a sensed sensing value ([0033]).
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.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono in view of US 2021/0123669 A1 (herein “Lee”).
Regarding claims 6-7.
Ono does not disclose that the sewage treatment plant controls whether to distribute the coolant to the cooling pipe that has been disposed within the treatment component based on a result of the temperature determination.
Lee discloses a liquid cooling system for a data center ([0017]), the system utilizing heat exchange which an external cooling water supply, wherein filtration ([0022]) and multiple sensors are provided to monitor the external water ([0020]) including a temperature sensor (153), and wherein distribution of the cooling fluid is controlled based on the sensed conditions including the sensed temperature ([0029]), and provides that monitoring the heat transfer fluid allows for a quality of the fluid to be maintained and the heat transfer efficiency can be improved. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Ono with the teachings of Lee to include the determination-based coolant distribution control as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jon T. Schermerhorn Jr. whose telephone number is (571)270-5283. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/JON T. SCHERMERHORN JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights