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 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 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.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pal (US20160201558) in view of Bell (US 20090007572A1).
Pal discloses a system for cooling electronic components (20), the system (20) comprising:
an apparatus including a chassis (22) having
a first side compartment (top side of 28) having one or more first electrical components (40, 30, 48 and related components) and
a second side compartment (bottom side of 28) having one or more second electrical components (42 and related components), and
a coolant channel (30) positioned between the first side compartment (top side of 28)) and second side compartment (bottom side of 28), and
wherein at least one of the first electrical components (40, 30, 48 and related components) and the second electrical components (42 and related components) are temperature sensitive electrical components (See fig. 1; [0017-0018] and [0022]); and
with a hot plate (44H) being directly coupled to at least the first side compartment (top side of 28)| ([0024]: 44H directly mounted to 28)
a cold plate (44C) being coupled to the temperature sensitive electrical components (40, 30, 48 and related components)|([0014], [0017], and [0022]: the electronic components mounted to the cold plate 44C)
a processor (control unit C) in communication with the apparatus (See [0025]), the processor (C) configured to:
identify the amount of heat to be removed from the temperature sensitive electronic components ([0025]: information is provided to the control unit C indicative of the temperature of 40 and 42, respectively. The control unit C then provides an appropriate level of current to the TEC to adjust the cooling).
However, Pal does not explicitly teach, “determine at least one TEC peak performance (PKP) according to the formula PKP = Delta T * N, where Delta T is the temperature difference between the hot plate and cold plate of the TEC, and N = HR / IP, where HR is the identified heat to be removed, and IP is the input power supplied to the TEC; and at least one TEC meeting the peak performance for an identified heat removal.”
On the other hand, Bell teaches
at least one TEC (700) meeting the peak performance for an identified heat removal ([0069]);
and
determine TEC peak performance (PKP) according to the formula PKP = Delta T*N,
where Delta T is the temperature difference between the hot plate and cold plate of the TEC ([0022]: The temperature difference across the TE is ΔT and [0037]: The first and second sides exhibit a temperature gradient between them during operation where and [0089]: it is preferable for efficiency gains that there is no temperature difference, i.e., the delta is maintained to improve system efficiency), and
N = HR/IP,
where HR the identified heat to be removed (See [0023] and [0098]: efficiency is based on heat transfer where heat transport encompasses thermal energy transfer of both removing heat or adding heat) is, and
IP is the input power supplied to the TEC ([0066]: CpM (delta T) (the power required to heat or cool the fluid)); and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Pal and to have modified them by determining TEC peak performance (PKP) according to the formula PKP = Delta T * N, where Delta T is the temperature difference between the hot plate and cold plate of the TEC of Pal as taught by Bell, and N = HR / IP, where HR is the identified heat to be removed, and IP is the input power supplied to the TEC of Pal as taught by Bell; and position at least one TEC of Bell meeting the peak performance for the identified heat removal as taught by Bell, in order to limit the amount of wasted thermal losses to the environment and heat transfer between the two sides of the TEC and to have efficiency gains when there is no temperature difference, i.e., the delta is maintained to improve system efficiency (See Bell [0089] and [0097]), without yielding unpredictable results.
Pal as modified teaches further comprising operating the at least one TEC (Pal 44, 46) to maintain the Delta T (Bell [0022] the temperature difference across the TE is ΔT; and [0089]: it is preferable for efficiency gains that there is no temperature difference, i.e., the delta is maintained to improve system efficiency; See also [0061]: where steady state is assumed and there is no change in delta T) according to a predetermined relationship (Bell [0100]: electable inputs to manually achieve pre-determined or dynamically determined performance of the system.) between
an input voltage (Bell [0098]; [0102-0104]: TEC voltage can be monitored and modified for particular applications and conditions) and
a coefficient of performance of the at least one TEC (Bell [0014-0017]; [0093-0094]).
Pal as modified teaches the system according to claim 12, further comprising
measuring the Delta T of the at least one TEC during operation (Bell [0022] the temperature difference across the TE is ΔT; [0032] and [0036]: temperature gradient, i.e. change in temperature, during operation measured by sensors) and
adjusting the input voltage ([0032]: adjusting the power which necessarily includes input voltage) to maintain the Delta T according to the predetermined relationship ([0032]) between
the input voltage (0098]; [0102-0104]: TEC voltage can be monitored and modified for particular applications and conditions) and
coefficient of performance of the at least one TEC (Bell [0014-0017]; [0093-0094]).
Response to Arguments
The Remarks of October 17, 2025, regarding the prior art have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons below.
Applicant argues
On Page 1 ¶4-Page 3¶2 of the Remarks, that the examiner has not shown that claims 11 is obvious over Pal in view of Bell because nothing in Bell teaches or otherwise suggests “determin[ing] TEC peak performance (PKP) according to the formula PKP = Delta T * N, where Delta T is the temperature difference between the hot plate and cold plate of the TEC, and N = HR / IP, where HR is the identified heat to be removed, and IP is the input power supplied to the TEC.” Applicant asserts the lack of this claim limitation cannot be cured by appeals to common sense as the equation itself was previously unknown. This is not persuasive.
Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of the Pal/Bell combination. First, contrary to Applicant' s assertion that the references fail to show certain features of applicant's invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies the application of the formula “PKP = Delta T * N, where Delta T is the temperature difference between the hot plate and cold plate of the TEC, and N = HR / IP, where HR is the identified heat to be removed, and IP is the input power supplied to the TEC” to acquire peak performance for at least one thermoelectric cooler. However, in view of Pal/Bell the formula is nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions1.
Second, it should be noted that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In light of the above, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the findings of fact outlined in the rationale and motivation for the 103 rejection based on Pal and Bell satisfy the requirements to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In essence, the fact that Bell’s overall goal is to the efficiently operate electric components (the thermoelectric cooler) that require optimizing the relationship between a temperature gradient, input power, and heat removal (See Bell [0022], [0037], and [0089]) provides evidence that the of Bell is indeed compatible with the teachings of Pal which uses a processor to in communication with the apparatus to determine heat removal (Pal [0025]). As a result of the combination, Pal/Bell teaches the relationship suggested by the formula PKP =∆T*N (i.e., PKP = (THP-TCP)(HR/IP)).
Since Pal/Bell teach or suggest all the limitations of Claim 11, Applicant’s remaining arguments are moot as the rejection of Claim 11 is maintained and additional arguments are not presented in regards to Claims 12-13.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 IBRAHIM M ADENIJI whose telephone number is (571)272-5939. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 PM.
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 on 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.
/IBRAHIM A. MICHAEL ADENIJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 See MPEP 2144(IV)¶4