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 § 112
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 42 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.
As to claim 42, the recited limitation “a hot fluid holding tank at least partially positioned within a region previously configured to hold at least a portion of [[the]] a tube condenser; wherein the immersive cooling system does not comprise the tube condenser.” is indefinite. It is unclear whether or not a tube condenser is required to anticipate the claim as a portion of a tube condenser is included under components that the immersive cooling system comprises. Also, the region previously configured to hold a tube condenser is indefinite if the immersive cooling system does not comprise the tube condenser.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 42-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Campbell (US2013/0105122).
Regarding claim 42, in light of the 112b rejection above, the examiner is taking the broadest reasonable interpretation that Campbell teaches an immersive cooling system (700, Fig. 7A, [0055], [0056]) comprising:
a reservoir (701, Fig. 7A, [0056]);
a hot fluid holding tank at least partially positioned within a region previously configured to hold at least a portion of the tube condenser (reservoir 701 of another immersive cooling system 700; the region described is the shared area containing reservoir 701 of one immersive cooling system and reservoir 701 of another immersive cooling system when there are multiple immersive cooling systems, [0055]).
Regarding claim 43, Campbell teaches a wall of the hot fluid holding tank at least partially separates the reservoir from a lumen of the hot fluid holding tank (each immersive cooling system 700 has a separate reservoir 701, [0055]).
Regarding claim 44, Campbell teaches a heat exchanger (the other immersive cooling system 700 has another tube condenser 720, which is a heat exchanger, [0055]).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (US 2013/0105122), in view of Kılıç (Plate Heat Exchangers: Artificial Neural Networks for Their Design, 2021) and Sung (KR 100739483).
Regarding claim 45, Campbell does not teach the heat exchanger comprises a brazed plate heat exchanger.
However, Kılıç teaches plate heat exchangers with the benefits of increasing the amount of heat transfer, preventing formation of residue that accumulate over time, and protecting the system against excessive pressure during installation (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the condenser (Campbell, 720, Fig. 7A, [0056]) to use a plate heat exchanger structure for the benefits of increasing the amount of heat transfer, preventing formation of residue that accumulate over time, and protecting the system against excessive pressure during installation (Kılıç, Abstract). This aligns with Campbell’s objective of enhancing heat transfer ([0004]).
Modified Campbell does not teach the plate heat exchanger is brazed.
However, Sung teaches a plate-type heat exchanger with the multiple heat exchange plates (10, paragraph 65, “heat exchange plates”) brazed to each other to increase bond strength (paragraph 65, “to further increase the bond strength, so that even if there is any impact load, breakage and deformation of the heat exchange plate 10 may be prevented”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plate type heat exchanger of modified Campbell to braze the heat exchange plates to each other to increase bond strength to prevent breakage and deformation of the heat exchange plate in cases of impact load (Sung: paragraph 65, “to further increase the bond strength, so that even if there is any impact load, breakage and deformation of the heat exchange plate 10 may be prevented”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 42 and 45 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 An Bach Phan whose telephone number is (571)272-7244. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3 ET.
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.
/A.B.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights