Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/519,495

LOW-PRESSURE BOILING COOLING SYSTEM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 27, 2023
Examiner
VAZQUEZ, ANA M
Art Unit
3763
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Agency For Defense Development
OA Round
2 (Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
686 granted / 857 resolved
+10.0% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
897
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
46.5%
+6.5% vs TC avg
§102
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
§112
25.2%
-14.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 857 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 103 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. 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. Claim(s) 1-2 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herzog (US 10,422,554) in view of Peng (CN 211823947 U, refer to attached translation). Regarding claim 1, Herzog discloses a low-pressure boiling cooling system comprising: a sealed chamber (pressure container 7) containing a refrigerant (bath 8) and configured to convert the refrigerant into vapor by boiling the refrigerant therein; a high-temperature portion (9) located inside the sealed chamber (7) and configured to boil the refrigerant (refer to col. 6, lines 10-14, wherein during proper use of the device as in fig. 1, an upper region of sealed chamber 7 is filled with gaseous coolant, there opens a gas removal line 15 into which a vacuum pump 16 is optionally integrated); a heating portion (including return-flow line 4 and pump 5) located outside the sealed chamber (7) and configured to generate heat (coolant heated by heat contact with the consumer, and/or with pipe sections leading to or from the consumer as in col. 6, lines 27-31); a vacuum pump (16) connected to the sealed chamber (7) and configured to lower pressure inside the sealed chamber by discharging the vapor into an atmosphere (through a gas removal line 15); a refrigerant tank (11) containing a supplementary refrigerant (refer to col. 6, lines 1-5); and a refrigerant transfer portion (supply line 12) configured to supply the supplementary refrigerant from the refrigerant tank (11) into the sealed chamber (7), wherein the high-temperature portion (9) is configured to receive heat generated from the heating portion (including return-flow line 4 and pump 5) and directly transfer heat to the refrigerant in the sealed chamber (7). While Herzog discloses the high-temperature portion, Herzog fails to explicitly disclose wherein a surface of high-temperature portion has a roughness to increase bubble formation. However, Peng teaches that it is known in the art of refrigeration, to provide a surface of a pipe having a roughness (refer to outer wall of the pipe as can be seen from figs. 1-2, including grooves 2 and 3) to increase bubble formation (refer to the Abstract, and Background of the invention, wherein the pipe is provided with multiple groove types to generate and gather bubbles in order to improve the heat transfer pipe comprehensive heat transfer performance). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Herzog such that a surface of the high-temperature portion has a roughness to increase bubble formation in view of the teachings by Peng, in order to improve the high-temperature portion comprehensive heat transfer performance. Regarding claim 2, Herzog as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Herzog as modified discloses wherein the high-temperature portion (9) is formed by connecting a tube-shaped heat transfer duct (refer to cooling coil 9), and the heating portion is disposed between both end portions (end portions of the cooling coil 9 include forward-flow line 3, and return-flow line 4) of the high-temperature portion (refer to fig. 1). Regarding claim 16, Herzog as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Herzog as modified discloses wherein a surface area of the high-temperature portion (including grooves 2 and 3 as taught by Peng) is such that temperature inside of the sealed chamber is lower than the temperature of the high-temperature portion (refer to col. 6, lines 42-50, wherein in the instant case the coolant in the sealed chamber is brought to a lower pressure than the coolant in the heating portion that will be flowing through the high-temperature portion, such that the boiling temperature at the pressure prevailing in the sealed chamber is below a predefined temperature; the required pressure is set at an expansion valve 14, and if necessary, the pressure can also be reduced to a pressure of below 1 bar by using the vacuum pump 16, therefore, a surface area of the high-temperature portion has the capability such that temperature inside of the sealed chamber is lower than the temperature of the high-temperature portion). Regarding claim 17, Herzog as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Herzog as modified discloses wherein the sealed chamber is pre-conditioned such that a first temperature inside of the sealed chamber is lower than or equal to a second temperature of the high-temperature portion (refer to col. 6, lines 42-50, wherein in the instant case the coolant in the sealed chamber is brought to a lower pressure than the coolant in the heating portion, such that the boiling temperature at the pressure prevailing in the sealed chamber is below a predefined temperature; the required pressure is set at an expansion valve 14, and if necessary, the pressure can also be reduced to a pressure of below 1 bar by using the vacuum pump 16, therefore, the sealed chamber having the capability of being pre-conditioned such that a first temperature inside of the sealed chamber is lower than or equal to a second temperature of the high-temperature portion by means of expansion valve 14, and if necessary with vacuum pump 16). Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herzog (US 10,422,554), Peng (CN 211823947), and further in view of Thornton-Wood (US 2013/0263608). Regarding claim 7, Herzog as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Herzog discloses the refrigerant inside the sealed chamber, but fails to explicitly disclose a water level measurement sensor configured to measure a water level of the refrigerant inside the sealed chamber, wherein the refrigerant transfer portion is configured to control an amount of the supplementary refrigerant supplied from the refrigerant tank when the water level of the refrigerant measured by the water level measurement sensor is out of a predetermined reference value. However, Thornton-Wood teaches that it is known in the art of refrigeration, to provide a storage device (refer to fig. 1), including a fluid level measurement sensor (25, 26) configured to measure a level of the fluid inside a sealed chamber (10), wherein a fluid transfer portion (27) is configured to control an amount of supplementary fluid supplied when the fluid level of the fluid measured by the fluid level measurement sensor is out of a predetermined reference value (refer to par. 71, wherein a flow control means is primarily actuated whenever the fluid level in the chamber is below a predetermined amount as detected by the level sensor 26, and is shut off when the level in the chamber is returned to the required level as detected by level sensor 25, thus, by selectively actuating and shutting off the flow control means and permitting the fluid to flow from a storage unit (not shown) and to the chamber via fluid transfer portion 27, the level of fluid in the chamber is maintained between predetermined maximum and minimum amounts). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Herzog by providing a water level measurement sensor configured to measure a water level of the refrigerant inside the sealed chamber, wherein the refrigerant transfer portion is configured to control an amount of the supplementary refrigerant supplied from the refrigerant tank when the water level of the refrigerant measured by the water level measurement sensor is out of a predetermined reference value in view of the teachings by Thornton-Wood, in order to maintain a level of refrigerant inside the sealed chamber between predetermined maximum and minimum amounts. Regarding claim 9, Herzog as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 7. Further, Herzog as modified discloses wherein the refrigerant transfer portion is a valve (14) capable of adjusting a flow rate and is individually configured to control the water level of the refrigerant in the sealed chamber. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pp.8-10, filed on 12/05/2025, with respect to claims 1-2, 7, 9 and 16-17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-2, 7 and 9 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly amended claims. 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 ANA M VAZQUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4. 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. /ANA M VAZQUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 27, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 05, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 09, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601529
METHOD TO CHARGE MULTIPLE REFRIGERANTS WITH DESIRED CONCENTRATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595946
THERMAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND CONTROL METHOD FOR THERMAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595978
DRAIN SYSTEM FOR ECS WATER COLLECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590759
REMOVING HEAVY HYDROCARBONS TO PREVENT DEFROST SHUTDOWNS IN LNG PLANTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590738
HEAT PUMP SYSTEMS WITH PRESSURE EXCHANGERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+17.3%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 857 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month