Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/618,571

Modular Containerized Data Center

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Mar 27, 2024
Examiner
PAPE, ZACHARY
Art Unit
2835
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Giga Energy Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
792 granted / 1094 resolved
+4.4% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
1127
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
27.9%
-12.1% vs TC avg
§112
19.7%
-20.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1094 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Email Communication Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502, 502.05. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the: a recessed structural cavity formed in the second end wall at an opposite end of the shipping container, as required by claim 1; the structural cavity in the second end wall includes an access panel, as required by claim 6 See the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below for additional context. must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 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 Objections Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 depends from a claim which is canceled. For the purposes of examination, claim 6 will be considered to depend from claim 1. Claim 6 recites, “an access panel that is configured to be opened to provide access to the switchboard and closed to fully enclose the switchboard from the exterior of the shipping container” which appears to be incorrect. ¶ 0018 of the present application written description recites, “The enclosure 134 may include one or more access panels or doors 135 that can be opened to provide access to the switchboard 132 and closed to fully enclose the switchboard from the exterior of the shipping container 102 so as to prevent unauthorized access and to shield operators from electrical components.” (emphasis added). Accordingly, it appears that claim 6 should be amended to recite, “access panels that are configured to be opened to provide access to the switchboard and closed to fully enclose the switchboard from the exterior of the shipping container”. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-3, 6-11 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, “a recessed structural cavity formed in the second end wall” which is new matter not supported by the originally filed specification. The originally filed drawings and written description fail to detail the now claimed recessed structural cavity. ¶ 0017 of the written description does detail, “According to embodiments of the present disclosure, the switchboard 132 may be built into the structure of the shipping container 102 such that it is integrated with the container. By having a switchboard 132 as an integrated part of the structure of the shipping container 102, it is possible to acquire a CSC certification on the shipping container as a “standard” container so that it may be shipped on any container vessel to any port in the world.”, however there is no detail regarding a recessed structural cavity formed in the second end wall as claimed. Because the recessed structural cavity formed in the second end wall is not supported, the additional limitations to claim 1 that, “wherein the interior access door, the structural cavity for the switchboard, and the first opening are configured such that structural and environmental integrity are maintained for certification of the shipping container” are also necessarily unsupported. Claims 2-3, 6-11 depend from claim 1 are also rejected since they inherit the deficiency therein. 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 1-3, 6-11 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. Claim 1 recites, “a recessed structural cavity formed in the second end wall…wherein the interior access door, the structural cavity for the switchboard, and the first opening are configured such that structural and environmental integrity are maintained for certification of the shipping container” which is unclear since neither the written description nor the drawings detail the recessed structural cavity and the Examiner is unable to infer, based on the originally filed specification, what is meant by these limitations. Claim 6 recites, “the structural cavity in the second end wall includes an access panel” which is unclear since neither the written description nor the drawings detail the recessed structural cavity and the Examiner is unable to infer, based on the originally filed specification, what is meant by these limitations. Claims 2-3, 7-11 depend from claim 1 are also rejected since they inherit the deficiency therein. 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 ZACHARY M PAPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2201. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am - 6pm EST. 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, Jayprakash N Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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. /ZACHARY PAPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 27, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 16, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 27, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594654
COLD PLATE REMOVAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591166
Thermal-Control System for a Security Camera
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588162
ENHANCED FLUID REPLACEMENT STRUCTURES FOR USE IN IMMERSION COOLING TANKS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588166
THERMALIZATION ARRANGEMENT AT CRYOGENIC TEMPERATURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581617
IMMERSION LIQUID-COOLING SYSTEM AND METHOD, AND SERVER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
72%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+19.9%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1094 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