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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 12 both require “the refrigerant circulation loop is fluidly separate from the refrigerant supply line and the refrigerant return line”. Such a feature appears to require that the refrigerant within the refrigerant circulation loop would never flow into the return line nor that any refrigerant from the supply line would flow into the refrigerant circulation loop. However, there is no disclosure in Applicant’s originally filed disclosure which supports such a limitation. In fact, Applicant’s specification specifically discloses:
[00101] the cooling system may further feature a refrigerant mixing tank 24 in fluid communication with the refrigerant supply line 4, the refrigerant return line 5, an inlet of the refrigerant circulation loop 50, and an outlet of refrigerant circulation loop 50. The refrigerant mixing tank 24 may be configured to extract heat from the refrigerant coming out of the first heat exchanger 1 by mixing thereof with the refrigerant coming from the refrigerant supply line 4. More specifically, mixing of the refrigerant coming in from both the refrigerant supply line 4 and from the refrigerant circulation loop 50 together with the refrigerant coming out of the refrigerant mixing tank 24 toward the return line 5 and to the refrigerant circulation loop 50 (as urged by the circulation pump 23) may be useful to cool the refrigerant in the mixing tank 24 to cool, thereby extracting heat from the first heat exchanger 1.
Disclosure of the refrigerants mixing in the tank and then flows to the return line appears to specifically contradict the claimed limitations of having the refrigerant circulation loop fluidly separate from the refrigerant supply line and the refrigerant return line as claimed. On page 12-13, applicant states that the refrigerant in the circulation loop never directly enters the refrigerant return line. Applicant’s specification does disclose:
[00100] the first heat exchanger 1 does not receive the refrigerant directly from the refrigerant supply line 4. Also, the refrigerant does not proceed to the refrigerant return line 5 after passing through the first heat exchanger 1. Instead, a refrigerant circulation loop 50 is provided to feed the cooler refrigerant into the first refrigerant inlet of the first heat exchanger 1 and to remove the refrigerant from the first refrigerant outlet thereof.
However, this appears to be referring to the heat exchanger not directly receiving and supplying refrigerant to the supply and return lines and not that the refrigerant from the supply line never enters the heat exchanger 1 nor that refrigerant from heat exchanger 1 never enters the return line. How could a system both mix refrigerants from two circuits and keep them fluidly separate? The disclosure of mixing the refrigerants in the mixing tank and then circulating to the return line appears to support that the loops are not fluidly separate as claimed and as such, the claimed feature is considered new matter as being directed towards subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-16 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 1 and 12 both require the refrigerant mixing tank serves to mix refrigerant from the first heat exchanger with the refrigerant from the refrigerant supply line to extract heat from the first heat exchanger into the refrigerant directed to the refrigerant return line as well as the refrigerant circulation loop is fluidly separate from the refrigerant supply line and the refrigerant return line. These limitations appear to both require mixing the refrigerant from the supply to the return lines and the refrigerant in the refrigerant circulation loop as well as keep these refrigerants fluidly separate. It is impossible to make a system that fulfills both of the requirements simultaneously. Since it appears impossible to provide a system that simultaneously mixes two refrigerants and keep the same two refrigerant circuits separate, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 2-11 and 13-16 are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 from which claim 7 depends from requires the refrigerant circulating in the refrigerant circulation loop remains in liquid phase throughout the refrigerant circulation loop without undergoing a phase change. Such a limitation requires a one-phase refrigerant. Claim 7 provides for an embodiment where the liquid passing through the first heat exchanger and used for active cooling of the equipment is a two-phase refrigerant. Note that the refrigerant which passes through the first heat exchanger and used for active cooling of the equipment is part of the refrigerant circulation loop. Accordingly, claim 7 encompasses an embodiment that does not include the refrigerant circulating in the refrigerant circulation loop remains in liquid phase throughout the refrigerant circulation loop without undergoing a phase change which is required by claim 1. As such, claim 7 is in improper dependent form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 1, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments beginning on page 9 of the response that Applicant’s disclosure for the no-phase change limitations has been considered. Applicant argues that paragraphs [0060-0084] describing chilled water operating between 7°C and 35°C and water-glycol mixtures supports the no-phase change limitation. However, this part of the specification is describing the prior art apparatus and not the inventor’s invention. Accordingly, this portion of the disclosure is not considered to provide the support needed for one-phase operation of the disclosed invention.
Applicant argues on page 9 of the response that the pump in the recirculation loop is evidence that the refrigerant does not undergo phase change as a compressor would require phase change. This is not found persuasive as a pump can be provided in a loop which undergoes phase change as long as the pump is located in the liquid portion of the loop. This is evidenced by the fact that Zhang’s refrigerant circuit includes a pump (20) which is distinguished from a compressor (10) and the refrigerant in the refrigerant circulation loop of Zhang definitely undergoes phase change. Such a system is referred to as a thermosiphon. Accordingly, this portion of the disclosure is not considered to provide the support needed for one-phase operation.
Applicant further argues on page 9 of the response that the disclosure of an open-volume mixing vessel without a pressure vessel and a liquid separator is not a mixing tank, is not found persuasive. Absence of an explicit disclosure of the vessel being a pressure vessel and not a separator is not support for a positively recited feature of no phase change. Accordingly, this portion of the disclosure is not considered to provide the support needed for one-phase operation.
Applicant argues on page 9 of the response that claim 7 included an embodiment where the liquid passing through the heat exchanger is a one-phase refrigerant is persuasive of support for the amendment to claims 1 and 12 requiring the no-phase change limitations.
Applicant argues on page 10 of the response that the amendment to claim 7 limits the refrigerant to the fluid in the equipment side fluid in the heat exchanger and does not encompass the circulation-loop refrigerant. This is respectfully found unpersuasive and the refrigerant in the fluid in the equipment side fluid in the heat exchanger and is the same refrigerant in the circulation-loop refrigerant, note the language of claims 1 and 12 a refrigerant circulation loop comprising an at least one first heat exchanger configured to use the refrigerant circulating therethrough through the refrigerant circulation loop to cool air or liquid which passes through the first heat exchanger and is used for active cooling of the equipment in the facility. Accordingly, claim 7 encompasses an embodiment where the refrigerant in the which passes through the first heat exchanger and is used for active cooling of the equipment in the facility is a two phase refrigerant and not the refrigerant circulating in the refrigerant circulation loop remains in liquid phase throughout the refrigerant circulation loop without undergoing a phase change. Thus, claim 7 fails to comply with 35 USC 112(d) as failing to include all of the limitations of the claim from which it depends.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims complies with all of the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(b) from the non-final Office action mailed February 2, 2026 and have therefore been withdrawn.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSEY D BAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 10AM-8PM (ET).
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.
/CASSEY D BAUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights