DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 15-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘525 in view of CN 120558602 (‘602).
Regarding claim 15, ‘525 teaches a method of testing a liquid cooling system (1) comprising: providing a liquid cooled load bank (elements inside 2) located within an mounting structure (2) defining a base (see Fig. 1; bottom surface of 2), the load bank including: a heating reservoir (7) with an inlet (bottom from 6) and outlet (top to 8) and at least one heating element (9-19) adapted for heating liquid within the heating reservoir with the inlet comprising an opening at the bottom of the reservoir (Fig. 1); the reservoir inlet comprises a first opening in a bottom of the heating reservoir (see piping connecting to 6) with the bottom of the heating reservoir and the first opening disposed above the base of the enclosure (Fig. 1) by a height defining a space between the bottom of the heating reservoir and the base of the mounting structure (Fig. 1); connecting the outlet of the liquid cooling system to an inlet of the liquid cooled load bank reservoir (at the bottom of Fig. 1; from 1 to 5 to 6 to 7) and the inlet of the liquid cooling system to an outlet of the liquid cooled load bank reservoir (via 8; Fig. 1); setting the liquid cooled load bank to a target heating load (“the utility model can simulate the hot load”); operating the liquid-cooled load bank and the liquid cooling system and determining whether the liquid cooling system provides enough cooling to dissipate the target heating load (“to test and correct the working performance of the cold water machine”).
‘525 specifies that the mounting structure is merely a plate within the bounds of are located the various other elements.
‘602 teaches that it is old and well-known to fully enclose such testing apparati within a full box body (1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to fully enclose the mounting structure of ‘525 as a box body, as taught by ‘602, in order to protect the equipment from environmental damage.
Regarding claim 21, ‘602 teaches that inlets and outlets to the device are accommodated through the relevant surface of the enclosure (see Fig. 8). In the combined teachings above, this is the bottom of the enclosure.
Regarding claim 22, the reservoir inlet at the bottom of the heating reservoir allows the inlet to be used for complete draining of the heating reservoir after use (i.e. it is gravitationally at the bottom of the reservoir; as no other structure aside from the mere existence of a clearance between the reservoir and enclosure bottom is required by the specification for this functionality, ‘525 meets the functionality).
Regarding claim 23, all the elements of the liquid-cooled load bank (the recited reservoir 7, heating element 9-19, reservoir inlet and reservoir outlet, which are the inlet/outlet holes in 7) are located within the bounds of the mounting structure (2; see Fig. 1) except for the load bank inlet and outlet.
Regarding claim 24, the load bank is in fluid communication with the reservoir inlet and outlet (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 25, the reservoir outlet (connected to 8) comprises a second opening in a different side of the reservoir than the first opening (see Fig. 1), per claim 25.
Regarding claim 16, ‘525 does not specify the measurement of the clearance between the reservoir (7) and the bottom of the device (e.g. bottom of 2). However, as the applicant has given no criticality to this particular measurement (see Para. [0042] of the present application as published) it would have been obvious to provide any offset distance required to fit the necessary equipment in the device, including the value of 6 inches as recited, as mere changes in size are within the ordinary skill.
Regarding claims 17-18, ‘525 teaches that the heating tank has an inlet and outlet (connected to 6 and 8 respectively) with the inlet comprising an opening in the bottom of the tank (see Fig. 1).
‘525 does not specify multiple tanks.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide multiple tanks in the device of ‘525 in order to increase the capacity of the device as mere duplication of parts is within the ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 19, ‘525 specifies that the device “tests the working performance” of the cold water machine and only measures temperatures of water within the load bank (at 6 and 8) but does not specify that the testing entails comparing the load bank temperature to a target.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to select a predetermined target temperature for comparison to the load bank temperatures in order to enable the goal of testing whether the device under test has functioned sufficiently. Absent such a comparison, it is unclear what might be “tested” or what the meaning of the word test in the context of ‘525 might be.
Regarding claim 20, ‘525 teaches that the control system is designed to derate a heating capacity of the liquid-cooled load bank upon detection of a derating trigger (see the description of element 16 and its function in conjunction with the temperature readings of 6 and 8) but does not teach the presence of a flow meter.
‘602 teaches that such systems commonly include flow meters (“flow sensor”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of ‘525 with the flow meter/sensor of ‘602 in order to provide feedback to the system when adjusting the flow rate of ‘525 with the valve and pump (‘525: elements 20 and 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first asserts that the previous action admits that ‘525 does not teach a clearance between the reservoir bottom and the base of the mounting structure. This is not correct. The previous action indicates that the amount of the clearance is never specified, hence the discussion of the “measurement” rather than the existence at all of such a clearance. In fact, ‘525 clearly illustrates such a clearance in Figure 1 between 7 and the base of 2 and even includes installation of equipment elements in said clearance space.
The amendments to specify an “enclosure” and thus define around ‘525 are addressed above with the new grounds of rejection.
Next the applicant goes on to discuss the usefulness of the clearance itself as if it established criticality for the specific measurement of 6 inches recited in claim 16. The presence or absence of a technical reason for the existence of a clearance in the first place (drainage access) does not establish criticality for one specific measurement presented in a list of undifferentiated exemplary measurements (see Para. [0042] of the present application as published). As ‘525 already includes a clearance, the question of claim 16 is merely what precise dimensions it may have. No criticality could be located for the specific claimed dimension of 6 inches.
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 Devon Lane whose telephone number is (571)270-1858. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9-4.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571.270.5054. 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.
/DEVON LANE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights