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 perform 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: “control unit” in claims 10-11. The phrase has been examined as --controller --.
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 § 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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by IDE et al. US 2024/0251525 Al.
Re claim 1, IDE et al. teach a heat exchanger for a cooling system, the heat exchanger comprising: a first part (3, 2, 11, annotated fig) having a first surface for connecting to a component to be cooled and a second opposing surface (fig 7), the first part having a fluid flow channel (22a to 22b channel fig 7) extending from a fluid inlet through the first part between the first and second surfaces;
and a second part , (annotated fig) extending from (three dimensional parts extend in all directions) the second surface to an external third surface, the second part having an open-cell porous structure in fluid communication with the fluid flow channel such that fluid flowing through the fluid flow channel passes into the second part and exits the heat exchanger at the external third surface (fig 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
770
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, IDE et al. teach wherein the fluid flow channel extends from the fluid inlet in a direction parallel to the first and second surfaces (fig 7).
Re claim 3, IDE et al. teach comprising a plurality of fluid passages (30) connecting the fluid flow channel to the second part .
Re claim 4, IDE et al. teach wherein each of the plurality of fluid passages is fluidly connected to a branching diffusion channel (40) extending into the second part, with the branching diffusion channel having an increased surface area (annotated fig) compared to the fluid passage (noting the surface area in contact with 3 is only in the up and down direction with no contact with 3 relative to the left and right direction, and thus 40 increases surface area with another portion 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
617
920
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 5, IDE et al. teach wherein a diameter of each of the fluid passages is smaller than a diameter of the fluid flow channel (fig 7).
Re claim 6, IDE et al. teach wherein each of the fluid passages comprises a nozzle (fig 7, noting the smaller diameter is considered a nozzle in and of itself) configured to cause an isenthalpic pressure drop in liquid refrigerant passing through the nozzle (noting pressure drop is capable depending on direction and intended use).
Re claim 7, IDE et al. teach wherein the nozzle is in the form of a convergent-divergent nozzle (fig 7).
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) 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IDE et al. in view of Malouin et al. US 12,289,861 B2.
Re claim 8, IDE et al. teach a cooling system comprising: a tank (7) for containing a refrigerant liquid; a heat exchanger according to claim 1 disposed in the tank (fig 2, see the rejection of claim 1); and a component to be cooled connected to the first surface of the heat exchanger.
IDE et al. fail to explicitly teach fluid circuit details.
Malouin et al. teach a refrigerant pump (424) having an outlet connected to the fluid inlet of the heat exchanger and an inlet connected to a liquid outlet of the tank to receive liquid refrigerant from the tank (col 11, claim 9, “one or more pumps” col 12) to employ dielectric cooling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include fluid circuit details as taught by Malouin et al. in the IDE et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for improved vessel heat removal.
Re claim 10, Malouin et al. teach a control unit configured to control operation of the pump (col 11, claim 9) to employ dielectric cooling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include fluid circuit details as taught by Malouin et al. in the IDE et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for improved vessel heat removal.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IDE et al. in view of Malouin et al. US 12,289,861 B2 and CAMPBELL US 20110317367 A1 and Bouras US 20180020573 A1 and Shelnutt US 20150062806 A1.
Re claim 9, IDE et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach sensor details.
CAMPBELL teach a pressure sensor connected to measure pressure of liquid in an outlet line connecting the pump to the heat exchanger (para 60) to provide feedback to pump controller.
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 CAMPBELL in the IDE et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for enhanced pump control with feedback from dielectric characteristics.
Re claim 9, IDE et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach sensor details.
Bouras teach comprising a temperature sensor (205) connected to measure temperature of liquid in an outlet line connecting the pump to the heat exchanger (para 24 noting one of ordinary skill in the art would understand compressor speed for controlling flow rate would be similar to controlling pump speed for controlling flow rate, see Shelnutt para 181, 186-200) to provide feedback to pump controller.
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 Bouras in the IDE et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for enhanced pump control with feedback from dielectric characteristics.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IDE et al. in view of Malouin et al. US 12,289,861 B2 and Shelnutt US 20150062806 A1.
Re claim 11, IDE et al. teach comprising a condenser (12, 8) disposed in the tank and connected to a cooler arranged to extract heat from the tank via the condenser.
IDE et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach control details.
Shelnutt teach and a control unit configured to control operation of the condenser to control a rate of heat transfer between the liquid refrigerant and the condenser to activate pumps for cooling (para 181, 186-200).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include control details as taught by Shelnutt in the IDE et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for cooling control based on dielectric flow.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Ide fail to teach the porous metal plate is an open cell structure. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. The term “open cell structure” is very broad. Noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘cell’ is small compartment, cavity, or bounded space, and the cell is considered to be open, as applicant points out, because the structure of the prior art is porous. Furthermore, the prior art meets the limitation after the claim requires an open cell structure “such that fluid flowing through the fluid flow channel passes into the second part and exits the heat exchanger at the external third surface”; applicant has not given any explanation as to why the structure of the prior art does not meet the claim limitations “such that fluid flowing through the fluid flow channel passes into the second part and exits the heat exchanger at the external third surface”. Examiner notes that no requirement in the claims defining an open cell structure define what directions the openness, holes, or pores of a cell must go to be considered an open cell.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention (claim 4), it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “branching diffusion channels”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A new rejection is provided above in view of the change in scope to claim 4.
The applicant argues that Ide fail to teach claim 5 scope since 30/40 are larger diameter than 22. The examiner respectfully disagrees. 40 is not cited in claim 5 from which the claim depends. A diameter (see below dotted line) is clearly larger than nay diameter of 30.
PNG
media_image3.png
977
598
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The applicant argues that Ide fail to teach nozzles in claim 7. The examiner respectfully disagrees. A passage is defined by open space, and the surrounding wall define a nozzle that compress the fluid from a larger area travelling via 22b, 22a into a smaller area in 3 which converges into a smaller area, and then diverges out into a larger area again by leaving 3.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Malouin et al. teach adding pumping to employ dielectric cooling and/or increase circulation within an immersed cooling chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include fluid circuit details as taught by Malouin et al. in the IDE et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for improved heat removal from a container.
The applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Malouin et al. to modify Ide due to added complexity. The examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no teaching away from complexity and one or ordinary skill in the art would see appropriate to add complexity if cooling is enhanced, which would include adding a pump to a system which has passive pumping capability to achieve a multiplied pumping result such as increased circulation within a cavity (additionally noting that passive systems combined with non passive systems are known in the art).
The applicant argues that Malouin fail to teach “a refrigerant pump having an outlet connected to the fluid inlet of the heat exchanger”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “where the refrigerant pump is connected to both the liquid outlet of the tank and pumps that liquid refrigerant to an inlet of the heat exchanger”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As required by claim 8 “a refrigerant pump having an outlet connected to the fluid inlet” is taught since the 424 is submerged within the container, and therefore 424 pump naturally having a pump outlet is causing circulation of the fluid in the instant combination, and thus is in fluid communication with an inlet of the submerged device which has the “an inlet”. Furthermore , the inlet of the pump fluidly pumps liquid that is in direct contact with “a liquid outlet of the tank” in addition to being connected by the same wall that 207b exits though forming “a liquid outlet of the tank”. Therefore, teach “an inlet connected to a liquid outlet of the tank” via a fluid communication in heat exchange, and a connection via intermediate parts and the connecting sidewall. It is noted claim 8 recites “a refrigerant liquid” and ” to receive liquid refrigerant”, which one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret to be two separate fluids due interpretation regarding antecedent basis.
Applicant argues the claims dependent on the independent claim(s) are allowable based upon their dependence from an independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8 have been addressed above. Thus, the rejections are proper and remain.
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights