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:
“refrigerant pumping unit” in claim 1.
“heat exchanging unit” in claim 1.
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
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)(1) as being anticipated by Jia et al. (US 20240324146), hereinafter referred to as Jia
Re claim 1, Jia teaches an immersion cooling device that cools a heating element (121) provided on a board (12), the immersion cooling device comprising:
a casing group including inclined casings (see Fig 8, inclined casings 1), each of which has a box shape extending downward toward a first side in a horizontal direction and each of which is configured to accommodate the heating element (see Fig 8), and configured by arranging the inclined casings in an up-down direction (see Fig 8);
a supply-side header (51) extending in the up-down direction on a second side in the horizontal direction of the casing group and configured to introduce a first refrigerant into each of the inclined casings (see Fig 8);
a discharge-side header (52) extending in the up-down direction on the first side in the horizontal direction of the casing group and configured to receive introduction of the first refrigerant from each of the inclined casings (see Fig 8);
a refrigerant pumping unit (313) configured to pump the first refrigerant from the discharge-side header to the supply-side header; and
a heat exchange unit (321) configured to cool the first refrigerant by exchanging heat between a second refrigerant supplied from an outside and the first refrigerant (e.g. ¶ 62, “The heat exchanger 321 is connected to an external cooling water source. The external cooling water source flows through the heat exchanger 321, exchanges heat with the coolant in the heat exchanger 321, and takes away heat of the coolant to cool the coolant”).
Re claim 7, Jia teaches the immersion cooling device according to Claim 1, further comprising: a nozzle (c) provided in each of the inclined casings and configured to jet the first refrigerant supplied from the supply-side header (see e.g. Fig 3c).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia, in view of Lin et al. (US 20220272873), hereinafter referred to as Lin.
Re claim 2, Jia teaches the immersion cooling device according to Claim 1, further comprising:
a plurality of supply-side connection lines (see line connected to a) configured to connect the supply-side header and each of the inclined casings to each other in a state in which the supply-side header and each of the inclined casings communicate with each other; and
Jia does not teach the limitation of a valve provided for each of the inclined casings and configured to open and close the supply- side connection lines.
However, Lin teaches teaches a server cooling system comprising a valve (4) provided for each of casings (101) and configured to open and close a supply- side connection lines (see where 4 is).
Therefore at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jia and integrated a valve provided for each of the inclined casings and configured to open and close the supply- side connection lines, as taught by Lin, in order to achieve beneficial effects of uniform flows, heat dissipation, and cooling (see Lin ¶ 8).
Claim(s) 6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia.
Re claim 6, Jia teaches the immersion cooling device according to Claim 1. Jia does not teach the limitation of wherein the heat exchange unit is provided below the casing group. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to arrange the heat exchange unit below the casing group, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art MPEP 2144.04 VI. (C)
Re claim 8, Jia teaches the immersion cooling device according to Claim 1. Jia does not explicitly teach the limitation of further comprising: seal portions provided in end portions of each of the inclined casings on the first side in the horizontal direction and on the second side in the horizontal direction and configured to suppress leakage of the first refrigerant. However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that seal portions provided in end portions of each of the inclined casings on the first side in the horizontal direction and on the second side in the horizontal direction and configured to suppress leakage of the first refrigerant, falls within the realm of common knowledge as obvious mechanical expedient. Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jia and integrated seal portions provided in end portions of each of the inclined casings on the first side in the horizontal direction and on the second side in the horizontal direction and configured to suppress leakage of the first refrigerant, as taught by Lin, in order to prevent leak.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 are 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 (see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON NIEVES whose telephone number is (571)270-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 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, 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.
/NELSON J NIEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 8/7/2026
Prosecution Insights