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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perfor m the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“fluid circulation system” in claim 1.
“computer component” in claim 1.
“management system” in claim 5-23.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 5-9, 14-16, 19-23 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.
Re claims, 5-9, 14-16, 19-23 the claim limitation “management system” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "second mode". This limitation is unclear and confusing because is unclear if a first mode is inherently required. For purpose of examination claim 9 is read as if depended from claim 5 that introduces a “first mode”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "draw fluid". This limitation is unclear and confusing because is unclear if applicant is referring to the previous mentioned dielectric fluid.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3, 11-12, 18, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Enright (US 20200089293), hereinafter referred to as Enright.
Re claim 1, Enright teaches a system comprising:
a vessel (e.g. 100/500) configured to hold thermally conductive, condensable dielectric fluid (e.g. 113/e.g. ¶ 155, “a level of liquid dielectric fluid may be maintained at a fluid level 524 above the height of the rack 310 and/or the computing components therein”);
a pressure controller (e.g. ¶ 36, “Pressure relief valves, expanding enclosures, and/or other techniques may be used to limit the increasing pressure and/or maintain the pressure within the housing at or only slightly above atmospheric pressure”) to reduce or increase an interior pressure of the vessel;
a computer component (e.g. 170/310) configured to be at least partially submerged within the dielectric fluid; and
a fluid circulation system (e.g. 520-522) configured to draw the dielectric fluid from a sump area (e.g. 523) of the vessel, pass the dielectric fluid through a filter (520) and deliver the dielectric fluid to a bath area (e.g. see bath area in Fig 10D) of the vessel.
Re claim 2, Enright teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising an inlet (see inlet in Fig 11 from 614 and 615) for receiving the dielectric fluid from a source outside of the vessel (intended use; further ¶ 154, “the dielectric fluid can be added to the vessel” inherently suggest that the inlet allows for adding the fluid; further ¶ 58, “The tanks 614 and 615 can provide dielectric fluid or vapor when needed, e.g., during star-up and/or shut-down of the system”).
Re claim 3, Enright teaches the system of claim 2, further comprising a valve system (see valve system in Fig 11) for connecting or disconnecting the fluid circulation system to the inlet (intended use; further Fig 11), and wherein the fluid circulation system includes a pump (520).
Re claim 11, Enright teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the pressure controller includes a heat exchanger (132) comprising a plurality of pipes (see plural pipes in Fig 10c) and at least one box (see header box in Fig 10c).
Re claim 12, Enright teaches the system of claim 11, wherein at least one of the plurality of pipes include a vibration damper (e.g. ¶ 52, “radiator fins”), and wherein the vibration damper is a metallic weight (the radiator fins are metallic elements that carry weight).
Re claim 18, Enright teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the pressure controller includes a bellows (517) configured to receive dielectric vapor (see header box in Fig 10c).
Re claim 26, Enright teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the vessel is protected by a secondary layer that is parallel to an internal layer (inner and outer surface).
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) 19-20, 24, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enright.
Re claim 19-20, Enright teaches the system of claim 18. Enright does not teach the limitation of wherein the bellows include a sensor for determining a volume of the bellows and a management system is configured to receive data from the sensor; wherein the management system is further configured to receive temperature data and to determine a state of operation of vessel. However, the examiner takes official notice that the fact of having a volume and temperature sensors inside a bellow tank to determine volume and temperature and control the system based on those measurements, falls within the realm of common knowledge as obvious mechanical expedient. Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Enright and integrated wherein the bellows include a sensor for determining a volume of the bellows and a management system is configured to receive data from the sensor; wherein the management system is further configured to receive temperature data and to determine a state of operation of vessel, in order to determine volume and temperature and control the system based on those measurements.
Re claim 23, Enright teaches the system of claim 20. Enright does not teach the limitation of wherein the management system is further configured to determine the state of operation of vessel using a machine learning model based on data received from the sensor and the temperature data. However, the examiner takes official notice that the fact of using a machine learning model to optimized a system based on sensor data, falls within the realm of common knowledge as obvious mechanical expedient. Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Enright and integrated wherein the management system is further configured to determine the state of operation of vessel using a machine learning model based on data received from the sensor and the temperature data, in order to optimized the system.
Re claim 24, Enright teaches the system of claim 1. Enright does not teach the limitation of wherein the computer component includes a two-phase heat sink, and wherein the two-phase heat sink includes a hollow box with a liquid medium and two elongated metallic surfaces. However, the examiner takes official notice that the fact of having a two-phase heat sink, and wherein the two-phase heat sink includes a hollow box with a liquid medium and two elongated metallic surfaces, for the purpose of increasing heat transfer, falls within the realm of common knowledge as obvious mechanical expedient. Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Enright and integrated wherein the computer component includes a two-phase heat sink, and wherein the two-phase heat sink includes a hollow box with a liquid medium and two elongated metallic surfaces, for the purpose of increasing heat transfer.
Re claim 28, Enright teaches the system of claim 26. Enright teaches a fluid sensor (¶ 105, “fluid level sensors”) but does not teach the limitation of the sensor provided between the secondary layer and the internal layer. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to arrange the sensor between the two layers, for the purpose of securing the sensor, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art MPEP 2144.04 VI. (C)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9, 14-16, 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (see PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON NIEVES whose telephone number is (571)270-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/NELSON J NIEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 3/27/2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763