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: “support member”: in claim 8.
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) 1-6, 8-13 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and/or 102a2 as being anticipated by Staples (US 1,336,490), which discloses:
1. A baffle assembly for use in an immersion cooling system (preamble given limited patentable weight because it’s not necessary to understand the body of the claim), the baffle assembly comprising:
a plate (D) comprising one or more slots (Y);
one or more posts (A) extending from the plate and configured to attach to a substrate of an electronic device (the posts A are capable of attaching to a substrate of an electronic device), the one or more posts serving to space apart the plate from the substrate by a distance (such as from a bottom shelf to near the top of the post, if the substrate were attached near the top of the post) when the one or more posts are attached to the substrate (they are capable of creating such a spacing apart); and
a baffle (K) removably attached to the one or more slots (via J, J’, K’).
2. The baffle assembly of claim 1, wherein the baffle can be moved from a first position on the plate to a second position on the plate (it is so capable, due to the plurality of disclosed slots; see FIG 1).
3. The baffle assembly of claim 1, wherein a width of the baffle is less than the distance (due to the distance being read as the spacing from the bottom shelf to the top of the post and/or due to a width of the baffle being read as the thickness of the material or as the depts from front to back of the shelf, as proportioned in FIG 1).
4. The baffle assembly of claim 1, wherein a shape of the baffle is selected from a group consisting of angled, planar, and curved (the baffle K is generally planar, see FIG 1).
5. The baffle assembly of claim 1, wherein the baffle comprises one or more protrusions (J, J’, K’).
6. The baffle assembly of claim 1, wherein the baffle comprises an internal fluid passageway having an inlet and an outlet (see the holes through J, K’, FIG 8, which are capable of flowing a fluid into one side and out of the other).
8. A baffle assembly for use in an immersion cooling system, the baffle assembly comprising:
a support member (shelf D) comprising a plurality of attachment features (Y);
a plurality of spacers (A, which space the shelves D from one another and from the floor) removably attachable to the support member (via B’) and configured to attach to a substrate of an electronic device (they are so capable, for example using B’), the plurality of spacers serving to space apart the support member from the substrate by a distance when the spacers are attached to the substrate (for example, a distance from a bottom shelf D to the top of the spacer A, where a substrate could be attached at the top of the spacer A); and
a baffle removably (K) attachable to one or more of the plurality of attachment features (via J, J’, K’).
9. The baffle assembly of claim 8, wherein the baffle can be moved from a first position on the support member to a second position on the support member (due to multiple slots Y).
10. The baffle assembly of claim 8, wherein a width of the baffle is less than the distance (due to the distance being read as the spacing from the bottom shelf to the top of the post and/or due to a width of the baffle being read as the thickness of the material or as the depts from front to back of the shelf, as proportioned in FIG 1).
11. The baffle assembly of claim 8, wherein a shape of the baffle is selected from a group consisting of angled, planar, and curved (the baffle K is generally planar, see FIG 1).
12. The baffle assembly of claim 8, wherein the plurality of spacers have adjustable lengths (for purposes of this claim, the “spacer” is read as the portion of member A which is between the top shelf and the floor, thus the length of the spacer is adjustable by virtue of B’).
13. The baffle assembly of claim 8, wherein the baffle comprises an internal fluid passageway having an inlet and an outlet (see the holes through J, K’, FIG 8, which are capable of flowing a fluid into one side and out of the other).
15. A method of adjusting a baffle assembly for an immersion cooling system, the method comprising:
providing a baffle assembly comprising:
a support member (shelf D) comprising a first plurality of attachment features (Y);
a plurality of spacers (A) attached to the support member and configured to attach to a substrate of an electronic device (they are so capable), the plurality of spacers serving to space apart the support member from the substrate by a distance when the spacers are attached to the substrate (such as a distance from the bottom shelf D to the top of the spacer); and
a baffle (K) removably attached to one or more of the first plurality of attachment features by a second plurality of attachment features (J, J’, K’), the baffle being located at a first position on the support member (such as an original position of K);
removing the baffle from the first position (as members K are disclosed to be “adjustable or removeable”, page 2 lines 118-123); and
reattaching the baffle to the support member at a second location on the support member by inserting the one or more attachment features of the baffle into one or more corresponding attachment features of the support member (as members K are disclosed to be “adjustable or removeable”, page 2 lines 118-123).
16. The method of claim 15, wherein the first plurality of attachment features comprises a plurality of slots (see slots Y, see FIG 1).
17. The method of claim 15, wherein the second plurality of attachment features comprises a plurality of tabs (see tabs J, J’, K’; FIG 8).
18. The method of claim 15, wherein the plurality of spacers comprises a plurality of posts (members A are posts).
19. The method of claim 15, wherein the baffle comprises an internal fluid passageway having an inlet and an outlet (see the holes through J, K’, FIG 8, which are capable of flowing a fluid into one side and out of the other).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staples alone.
Staples discloses the invention as claimed with exception to a one-way valve proximate to the inlet. However, it was well-known in the art before the effective filing date to display one-way valves by placing them on shelving (official notice). In order to adjustably display and sell one-way valves, it would have been obvious to place one-way valves on Staples’ shelving units proximate the inlet (i.e., proximate the bottom of dividers K).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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. US 2010/0290190 discloses an immersion cooling system for electronic components which has an adjustable baffle (94, FIG 7B) which is loosened (via locking screw 95) to rotate about its axis and then retightened (para. 0140).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM M MCCALISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 7am to 6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CRAIG SCHNEIDER, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/WILLIAM M MCCALISTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
3/30/26