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 Group I in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged.
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)(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) 1, 5-6, 10, 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by SHENG et al. US 2025/0261335 Al.
Re claim 1, SHENG et al. teach a system comprising: one or more coolant distribution units (110, 111) having one or more swappable filters (114) coupled to one or more isolation valves (112, 115) that control one or more coolant flows through the one or more swappable filters (para 59).
Re claim 5, SHENG et al. teach wherein the one or more swappable filters are placed to filter the one or more coolant flows before the one or more coolant flows enter one or more pumps (103; noting a loop and “before “ being met in a loop process) that pump the one or more coolant flows out of the one or more coolant distribution units.
Re claim 6, SHENG et al. teach wherein the one or more swappable filters are placed to filter the one or more coolant flows after the one or more coolant flows are pumped out from one or more pumps (103; noting a loop and “after“ being met in a loop process) at one or more coolant return sides of the one or more coolant distribution units.
Re claim 10, SHENG et al. teach a coolant distribution apparatus comprising one or more swappable filters (114) coupled to one or more isolation valves (112, 115) that control one or more coolant flows through the one or more swappable filters (para 59).
Re claim 21, SHENG et al. teach wherein the one or more swappable filters are placed to filter the one or more coolant flows before the one or more coolant flows enter one or more pumps (103; noting a loop and “before “ being met in a loop) that pump the one or more coolant flows out of the one or more coolant distribution units.
Re claim 22, SHENG et al. teach wherein the one or more swappable filters are placed to filter the one or more coolant flows after the one or more coolant flows are pumped out from one or more pumps (103; noting a loop and “after“ being met in a loop process) at one or more coolant return sides of the one or more coolant distribution units.
Re claim 23, SHENG et al. teach further comprising one or more bypass coolant lines that conduct the one or more coolant flows when the one or more detachable coolant health monitor sensors are detached (noting the lines in between structure on either parallel unit is considered a bypass line relative to the other unit, figs).
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHENG et al. in view of Lin US 20230022650 A1.
Re claim 2, SHENG et al. fail to explicitly teach filter details.
Lin teach wherein the one or more swappable filters are removable, by disconnecting one or more disconnectable connectors from the one more coolant distribution units when the one or more isolation valves turn off any coolant flow to the removed one or more swappable filters to provide connectors on swappable filters (para 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include filter details as taught by Lin in the SHENG et al. invention in order to advantageously allow to facilitate the replacement of the filters.
For clarity, the recitation “…when the one or more isolation valves turn off any coolant flow to the removed one or more swappable filters …” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above.
It is also unclear whether or not the limitations after the phrase “when” actually occur/are required since the term “when” is a conditional phrase.
Re claim 3, the instant combination teach wherein one or more replacement filters are coupled to the one or more coolant distribution units through the one or more disconnectable connectors in place of the removed one or more swappable filters (see the rejections of claims 1-2 noting any filter whether it is original or replaced meet the limitation of a filter coupled to fluid circuit).
For clarity, the recitation “…in place of the removed one or more swappable filters …” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above.
The recitation of “in place of the removed one or more swappable filters” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation. In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” A process may entail using multiple replaced and different filters but in the apparatus claim any filter whether it is original or replaced meet the limitation of a filter coupled to fluid circuit.
Re claim 4, SHENG et al. teach wherein the one or more swappable filters are placed in parallel, and wherein a first filter of the one or more swappable filters is configured to filter a coolant flow within at least one of the one more coolant distribution units when a second filter in parallel is removed (fig 2, noting the prior art meets the configuration and is capable of performing the functional limitation).
It is also unclear whether or not the limitations after the phrase “when” actually occur/are required since the term “when” is a conditional phrase.
Re claim 11, see the rejection of claim 2.
Re claim 12, see the rejection of claim 3.
Re claim 13, see the rejection of claim 4.
Claim(s) 7, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHENG et al. in view of HAMANO US 20240334664 A1.
Re claim 7, SHENG et al. fail to explicitly teach panel details.
HAMANO teach wherein the one or more coolant distribution units contain one or more rotatable user interface panels (21, figs) that are configured to rotate to a user-desired orientation to incorporate specific electronic devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include panel details as taught by HAMANO in the SHENG et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for a conductive panel including a first opening, a display to display an image, and an electrically insulating spacer fixed to the panel.
Re claim 15, see the rejection of claim 7.
Claim(s) 8, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHENG et al. in view of Gupta US 20230363117 A1.
Re claim 8, SHENG et al. teach wherein the one or more coolant distribution units contain one or more coolant health monitor sensors (106-110) that are configured to collect one or more coolant health measurements and one or more bypass coolant lines that conduct the one or more coolant flows when the one or more detachable coolant health monitor sensors are detached (noting the lines in between structure on either parallel unit is considered a bypass line relative to the other unit).
SHENG et al. fail to explicitly teach sensor details.
Gupta teach one or more detachable coolant health monitor sensors to provide quick disconnect fittings to sensors (para 85).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include sensor details as taught by Gupta in the SHENG et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for facilitating a servicing and replacement of a pressure sensor.
It is also unclear whether or not the limitations after the phrase “when” actually occur/are required since the term “when” is a conditional phrase.
Re claim 16, SHENG et al. teach one or more coolant health monitor sensors that are configured to collect one or more coolant health measurements (106-110; noting the lines in between structure on either parallel unit is considered a bypass line relative to the other unit).
SHENG et al. fail to explicitly teach sensor details.
Gupta teach one or more detachable coolant health monitor sensors to provide quick disconnect fittings to sensors (para 85).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include sensor details as taught by Gupta in the SHENG et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for facilitating a servicing and replacement of a pressure sensor.
Claim(s) 9, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHENG et al. in view of BEAN US 20240251531 A1.
Re claim 9, SHENG et al. fail to explicitly teach PID.
BEAN teach the one or more coolant distribution units contain one or more Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) control circuits that receive one or more real-time measurements of one or more computing hardware and/or the one or more coolant flows, and generate, by one or more neural network models, one or more control signals indicating one or more cooling settings based at least in part on the one or more real-time measurements (para 46) to create a feedback loop.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include PID as taught by BEAN in the SHENG et al. invention in order to advantageously allow to adjust coolant exit flow rates.
Re claim 17, SHENG et al. fail to explicitly teach PID.
BEAN teach one or more Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) control circuits that receive one or more real-time heat load measurements of one or more computing hardware, and generate one or more control signals indicating one or more cooling settings based at least in part on the one or more real-time heat load measurements (para 46) to create a feedback loop.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include PID as taught by BEAN in the SHENG et al. invention in order to advantageously allow to adjust coolant exit flow rates.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHENG et al. in view of Enright US 20220400584 A1.
Re claim 14, SHENG et al. fail to explicitly teach pump details.
Enright teach comprising one or more bi-directional pumps configured to fill or drain a coolant from the coolant distribution apparatus (it is noted that the italicized limitation is a functional limitation which the reference is capable of performing) to allow connections to different reservoir types (para 58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include pump details as taught by Enright in the SHENG et al. invention in order to advantageously allow so that the pump can draw the fluid and transfer it to the tank .
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20160128238 A1, US 20150013960 A1, US 20130174421 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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.
/GORDON A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3763