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 with traverse of the first species or the embodiment of Figures 1 through 4 and 7 through 9 (readable on claims 1 through 5, 9, and 10) in the reply filed on February 23, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue burden on the examiner to consider all claims in the single application and because at least generic claim 1 is in condition for allowance. This is not found persuasive at least because the applicant’s remarks fail to provide any evidence related to there being no burden on the examiner to consider all of the claims/inventions in a single application and because generic claim 1 has not yet been found to be allowable as evidenced by the various objections and rejections set forth below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 6 through 8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to the nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on February 23, 2026.
Claims 6 through 8 will, however, be rejoined at allowance, as appropriate.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on May 24, 2024. These drawings are acceptable..
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains minor typographical and/or idiomatic and/or grammatical informalities (i.e., “coordinating with”; “50 to 1000 nm” should be replaced with “50 nm to 1000 nm”), and because it contains unclear statements (i.e., the last sentence of the abstract). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 through 5, 9, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities, for example: “wherein size” [claim 1, line 20] should be replaced with “wherein the size”; “50 to 1000 nm” [claim 1, line 21] should be replaced with “50 nm to 1000 nm”; “structure” [claim 5, line 3, all three occurrences] should be replaced with “occurrences”; and, “a temperature” [claim 9, line 2] should be replaced with “the temperature” since temperature is an inherent property of materials
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 through 5, 9, and 10 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and contain numerous grammatical and idiomatic errors. An example of an unclear and/or idiomatically informal term is “coordinating with” (i.e., in the respective preambles of the claims).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a bubble cooling liquid”, and the claim also recites, in the last three lines of the claim, “the bubble cooling liquid is a known material that does not boil in a normal working state and does not generate additional bubbles otherwise typical of boiling” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim and all claims depending therefrom are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
It is not entirely clear which element(s) or structure(s) are intended to be encompassed by the limitation “a driving function” [claim 1, line 10], thus further rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim and by all claims depending therefrom.
The terms “normal” and “typical” in claim 1 and “rough” in claim 5 are relative terms which renders the claims indefinite. The aforementioned terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, as used to qualify various elements in the claims, these claims render the corresponding qualities of the elements indeterminate and the claims indefinite in scope.
Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected at least for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claims 1 through 5, and 9 through 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended without patentably significant broadening to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not show nor reasonably suggest a liquid cooling system having a liquid cooling block and a bubble liquid source which includes, in combination, all of the various elements which are structurally and functionally interrelated as recited by base claim 1 of the instant application and by all claims depending therefrom.
Conclusion
The additional related and/or prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LJILJANA V CIRIC whose telephone number is (571)272-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Saturday, flexible.
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.
/Ljiljana V. Ciric/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
LJILJANA (Lil) V. CIRIC
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights