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
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/15/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged.
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 comprises a branching diffusion channel extending into the second part (noting the plurality of fluid passages are considered a branching diffusion channel since the branch from main channel from 22b to 22a).
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 7568519 B2, US 20190029105 A1, US 10306802 B1, US 12100643 B2, US 11608217 B1.
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