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 .
This office action is responsive to amendment after non-final filed on 05/19/2026. Claim 1 has been canceled, accordingly claims 2-21 are currently pending in this application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine
grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or
improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent
possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is
appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined
application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined
application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference
claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman,
11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed.
Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d
438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be
used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting
provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the
examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within
the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to
examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to
file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP § § 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto- processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer
Claims 2 and 4-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable overclaims 1, 8, 9 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,940,227, herein '227. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of claims 2 and 4-6 are claimed in claims 1, 8, 9 and 12 of '227.
In regards to claim 2, claim 1 of '227 discloses
A cooling system comprising: a first heat exchanger closely coupled to an information technology (IT) rack (col.10 lines 34-35), wherein the IT rack is disposed indoors (lines 34-35 disclose a hot aisle formed by the plurality of IT racks, and the hot aisle is understood to be indoors); a fan disposed in air communication with the first heat exchanger and configured to move air from the IT rack through the first heat exchanger (col.10 lines 40-43); a single-phase fluid circuit in fluid communication with the first heat exchanger, the single-phase fluid circuit circulating a single-phase fluid through the first heat exchanger, (col.10 lines 44-48); a second heat exchanger coupled to, and in fluid communication with, the single-phase fluid circuit (col.10 lines 50-51); and a water circuit coupled to, and in fluid communication with, the second heat exchanger (col.10 lines 49-51).
Claim 1 of '227 does not disclose an outdoor fluid cooler wherein the single-phase fluid circuit is thermally coupled to the outdoor fluid cooler. However, claim 12 discloses an outdoor fluid cooler wherein the single-phase fluid circuit is thermally coupled to the outdoor fluid cooler (the two circuits are thermally coupled via their connection to the water circuit). As claim 12 is dependent upon claim 1 of '227 without any intervening claims, the combination of claims 1 and 12 is obvious
In regards to claim 4, claim 1 of '227 discloses that the first heat exchanger includes: a first row including first flat tubes; and a second row including second flat tubes, wherein the second flat tubes are in fluid communication with the first row (col.10 lines 35-39).
In regards to claim 5, claim 8 of '227 discloses that the first heat exchanger further includes: a third row including third flat tubes, wherein the third flat tubes are in fluid communication with the second row; and a fourth row including fourth flat tubes, wherein the fourth flat tubes are in fluid communication with the third row, wherein the fan moves hot air from the IT rack through the first heat exchanger in a direction from the fourth row towards the first row, and wherein the single-phase fluid circuit circulates the single-phase fluid through the first heat exchanger in a direction from the first row towards the fourth row.
In regards to claim 6, claim 9 of '227 discloses that the first row and the second row are coupled to each other using an O-ring and one or more fasteners.
Claims 3 and 7-11 are rejected for the incorporation of the above due to their dependency on claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-21 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12-16 have been considered but are moot because the claims have been indicated as allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5426. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-4:30pm, Monday-Thursday.
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.
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.
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights