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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I and Species H1 in the reply filed on 4/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/16/2026.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 4/16/2026 are as follows:
Claims 1-20 are pending;
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from consideration;
Claims 1-7 are being examined.
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 three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Currently, no claim limitations invoke 112(f).
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it refers to the purported merits of the of the invention (second sentence) and fails to adequately describe the main structural features of the invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US2022/0377937A1).
Re Claim 1. Chen teaches a heat removal device (100) for enhancing external hose routing, the heat removal device comprising (Figures 2A-2D; Paragraphs 33-44):
a body (110, 112 form the body) comprising: a first wall (top surface of 112), wherein the first wall defines a first fluid aperture (162) and a second fluid aperture (166) (Figures 2A-2D; Paragraphs 33-44);
a second wall (110) opposing the first wall (Figures 2A-2D; Paragraphs 33-44), wherein:
the first wall at least partially defines a first lateral axis (see annotated Figure 2A below) and a second lateral axis (see annotated Figure 2A below) perpendicular to the first lateral axis (See annotated Figure 2A below; Paragraphs 33-44) and a
first fluid riser (120) in flow communication with the first fluid aperture (162), wherein the first fluid riser is positionally fixed, the first fluid riser is oriented to channel fluid into the body in a first direction at a first angle with respect to the first lateral axis (See annotated Figure 2A below which illustrates the risers are angled with respect to the first lateral axis; Paragraphs 33-44);
a first fluid conduit (hose connected to 120) in flow communication with the first fluid riser (Figures 2A-2D; Paragraph 43-44 teaches external hoses connected to the risers; Paragraphs 33-44);
a second fluid riser (122) in flow communication with the second fluid aperture (166), wherein the second fluid riser is positionally fixed (Figures 2A-2D; Paragraphs 33-44); and
a second fluid conduit (hose connected to 122) in flow communication with the second fluid riser (Figures 2A-2D; Paragraph 43-44 teaches external hoses connected to the risers), the second fluid riser is oriented to channel the fluid from the body in a second direction at a second angle with respect to the first lateral axis (See annotated Figure 2A below which illustrates the risers are angled with respect to the first lateral axis).
PNG
media_image1.png
356
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 4. Chen teaches the first fluid riser and the second fluid riser are oriented to facilitate access to a heat generating device positioned under the body (Figures 2A-2D; Paragraphs 33-44; The risers do not interfere with the heat generating device, thus they are oriented to facilitate access to a heat generating device positioned under the body).
Re Claim 5. Chen teaches mechanical mounting hardware (at 134) for coupling the body to a heat generating device, wherein the first fluid riser, the first fluid conduit, the second fluid riser, and the second fluid conduit are oriented to not interfere with access to the mechanical mounting hardware (Figures 2A-2D; Paragraphs 33-44; The first fluid riser, the first fluid conduit, the second fluid riser, and the second fluid conduit do not overlap the mounting holes 134, and thus do not interfere with access to the mechanical mounting hardware).
Re Claim 6. Chen teaches the heat removal device has: a length defined along the first lateral axis, wherein the length has a length value; a width defined along the second lateral axis, wherein the width has a width value; and a height defined along an axis orthogonal to the first lateral axis and the second lateral axis, wherein the height has a height value that is less than the length value and the width value (Figures 2A-2D; Paragraphs 33-44; the height is less than the width and length dimensions).
Re Claim 7. Chen teaches the first fluid riser and the second fluid riser are oriented to receive the respective first fluid conduit and the second fluid conduit from a same side of the heat removal device (Figures 2A-2D; Paragraphs 33-44).
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US2022/0377937A1).
Re Claim 2. Chen teaches the first fluid riser and the second fluid riser are positioned in opposition with respect to the first lateral axis and coincident with the second lateral axis (Figure 2A illustrates the opposition and alignment with the first and second axis; Paragraphs 33-44). Chen appears to teach an absolute value of the second angle is similar to an absolute value of the first angle (Figure 2A illustrates a similar absolute angle for each) but fails to specifically teach the two angles are equal.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the two angles equal in order to simplify manufacturing of the assembly by using the same angle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the two angles equal by rotating the two risers to the same angle, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI, C). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine the optimal angle, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value (i.e. angle) of a result effective variable (fluid flow or hose routing efficiency) involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Re Claim 3. Chen appears to illustrate the first fluid riser and the second fluid riser are oriented symmetrically with respect to one of the first lateral axis and the second lateral axis (Figure 2A). In the event it is determined that Chen fails to teach absolute symmetry, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was field to have the first fluid riser and the second fluid riser be oriented symmetrically with respect to one of the first lateral axis and the second lateral axis in order to achieve a desired mounting configuration of the assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the first fluid riser and the second fluid riser be oriented symmetrically with respect to one of the first lateral axis and the second lateral axis, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI, C).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 for other relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights