Apparatus and methods for cooling a cpu using a liquid bath

The latest Office Action

Mailed Feb 23, 2024 · Final Office Action

This is a reissue application. The examiner has rejected all pending claims on two grounds: first, that they impermissibly recapture subject matter the applicant surrendered during prosecution of the original patent; and second, that the claims lack written description support in the original disclosure.

A response is typically due within three months (extendable to six). Because this is a Final Office Action, the applicant's options are more constrained: argue that the claims don't recapture surrendered matter and do have written description support, amend within a narrow scope, or file a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Open 17/541,072 as a matter in your AI.

Connect PatentReply to Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, or another supported AI workspace and it compiles this application: the 3 Office Actions on file, every claim version, the responses, and the cited references, with each answer pointing back to the filed passage.

One new public application a month is free. The first compile takes a few minutes.

Strategy and filing changes require your approval.

All actions (2)

Final Office ActionLatest

Feb 23, 2024 · §112, §251

Final Office Action — claims 20-34 rejected under §251 (impermissible recapture) and §112(a) (written description)

Rejection groups (2)

§ 251Otherclaims 20-34
Claims 20-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an impermissible recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based.
Final Office Action mailed Feb 23, 2024
Examiner theory
See Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The reissue application contains claim(s) that are broader than the issued patent claims. The record of the application for the patent shows that the broadening aspect (in the re
§ 112(a)Written descriptionclaims 20-34
Claims 20-34 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.
Final Office Action mailed Feb 23, 2024
Examiner theory
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. Specifically, amended independent claim 20 and new claim 28 recite the phrase the cover being configured to be releasably mountable to the tank to seal the tank and place the CPU surface in direct contact with the coolant. However, the ‘279 specification does not appear to disclose HOW the cover is actually “configured to” be releasably mountable to the tank as claimed. Further, Fig. 4, which is described as disclosing an enlarged view of the lid of

Procedural framework (8)

MPEP§ 1412.01·§ 1412.02·§ 1414

Case lawBall Corp. v. United States·In Re Clement·In Re Constant·In Re Shahram Mostafazadeh·Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc.

Non-Final Office Action

Jun 7, 2023 · §103, §112

Non-Final Office Action — claims 20-29 rejected under §103 (obviousness) and §112(a) (written description)

The applicant has three months from June 7, 2023 to respond, extendable to six months with fees. A response typically involves amending claims to distinguish them from the cited prior art, arguing that the specification does support the claims as written, or both. The examiner may also be open to an interview to narrow the issues. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Rejection groups (3)

pre-AIA § 103(a)Obviousnessclaims 20-21
Claims 20-21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2011/0075353 to Attlesey el al (Attlesey) alone or in the alternative in view of US 2011/0075373 Al to Campbell (Campbell).
Non-Final Office Action mailed Jun 7, 2023
Examiner theory
Attlesey discloses the claimed features as follows:
pre-AIA § 103(a)Obviousnessclaims 22-26
Claims 22-26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable in further view of JP H11239971A or WO 2014045714 A1.
Non-Final Office Action mailed Jun 7, 2023

Identifier	Type	Name or author	Link
US20110075353	patent publication	—	View ↗
US20110075373	patent publication	—	View ↗
WO2014045714A1	foreign patent	—	View ↗

The latest Office Action

Claim status

Open 17/541,072 as a matter in your AI.

Prosecution history

All actions (2)

Final Office ActionLatest

Rejection groups (2)

Non-Final Office Action

Rejection groups (3)

Prior art consulted (3)

Objections (1)