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 G (encompassing claims 1-2 and 10-15) in the reply filed on 11/27/2024 is acknowledged. Claims 3-9 and 16-19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Even though applicant’s election was made without traverse, applicant however further proceed and argued the species restriction, wherein the traversal is on the ground(s) that Figures 12A and 12B show a modification of the cooling device of Figures 11A and 11B, i.e., with greater number of components as compared to the configuration of Figure 11, 1.e., two water tanks 4 and the three heatsinks 1.” Thus, there cannot be a serious search and/or examination burden as between at least these two alleged species, because a search and examination of Species G (more elements) would necessarily include a search and examination of Species F (fewer elements) -- and Species F-G should be examined together on the merits. This is not found persuasive because as shown in the restriction/election requirement (dated 08/28/2024) each species comprises independent/distinct cooling apparatuses that have mutually exclusive features would require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Therefore, the argument that there cannot be a serious search and/or examination burden is not persuasive. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 recites the limitation " the cumulative cold sides and the cumulative hot sides” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1 recites the limitation "cold and hot sides of the array” in line 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates to the previously cited limitation of “a cold and a hot side” in line 2-3.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the heatsink(s)" in lines 6 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since line 5 recites “one or more heatsinks”, it would not be clear as to which heatsinks “the heatsink(s)” would be referring to if there are “more heatsinks”. The limitation should read --the one or more heatsinks-- to overcome the lack of antecedent basis. Appropriate correction required throughout the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one reservoir configured to supply liquid to the heatsink(s), by being adjoined to the heatsink(s) and/or with the aid of one or more liquid channels connected to said reservoir and installed in the interior of the cooling apparatus in proximity to, or within, said heatsink(s);wherein the apparatus is open to the surroundings” which renders the claim indefinite because of the use of the phrase “and/or”, if one or more liquid channels are not required, it is unclear how the at least one reservoir be configured to supply liquid to one or more heatsinks.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the aid” in line 7 lacks antecedent basis. Should read “an aid”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said reservoir” in line 7 lacks antecedent basis. Should read “said at least one reservoir”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the interior” in line 8 lacks antecedent basis. Should read “the interior”.
Claims 1 recites the limitation "the cooling apparatus” in line 8 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claims 1 recites the limitation "the surroundings" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the reservoir” in line 1 lacks antecedent basis. Should read “said at least one reservoir”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “these vapors” in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the term “these vapors” represents. Should read –the vapors--.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “A portable cooling apparatus according to claim1, combined with a garment” renders the claim indefinite because there is not clear structural connection of the portable cooling apparatus with the garment. Is the garment merely disposed on top of the portable cooling apparatus, the portable cooling apparatus integrated into the garment? Clarification is needed.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a liquid channel” in line 1 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates with the previously cited limitation “one or more liquid channels” in claim 1.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the liquid reservoir" in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction required throughout the dependent claims.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the heat sink" in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis. Should read –the at least one or more heat sinks--.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "a liquid channel in the form of a narrow piece of wettable material” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the phrase “in the form of a narrow piece of wettable material” structurally represents. For examination purpose as long as the prior art teaches a liquid channel, then it meets the claimed language.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the liquid tank" in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the channel" in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the heat sink" in line 2-3 lacks proper antecedent basis. Should read –the at least one or more heat sinks--.
Claim 12 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 1-2, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Edwards et al. (US 2013/0291563 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Edwards disclose a portable cooling vented apparatus, comprising:
- an array (cartridge 112, Fig. 7, ¶0080) made of one or more thermoelectric cooler(s) (4 TEC 136, Fig. 7), each thermoelectric cooler having a cold side and a hot side, the cumulative cold sides and the cumulative hot sides of all the thermoelectric cooler(s) define cold and hot sides of the array, respectively (as arranged on interconnect board 134, Fig. 7)
- one or more heatsinks at the hot side of the array (hot side heat sink 108, Fig. 1, ¶0059);
PNG
media_image1.png
755
739
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
680
725
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and - at least one reservoir (chamber 254 having an inlet port 256, Fig. 34, ¶0141) configured to supply liquid to the heatsink(s), by being adjoined to the heatsink(s) with the aid of one or more liquid channels (inlet port 256) connected to said reservoir (254), wherein the apparatus is open to the surroundings (shown in Fig. 1).
The limitation “and/or with the aid of one or more liquid channels connected to said reservoir and installed in the interior of the cooling apparatus in proximity to, or within, said heatsink(s)” has 112(b) issues as stated above. Based on the “and/or”, the one or more liquid channels connected to said reservoir and installed in the interior of the cooling apparatus are not required.
PNG
media_image3.png
780
577
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 2, Edwards disclose the portable cooling apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the reservoir (254) is in the form of a liquid-absorbing layer attached to the heatsink (Fig. 34, ¶0141).
In regard to claim 10, Edwards disclose the portable cooling apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hot side is at least partially uncovered or covered with a gas-permeable cover (shown in Fig. 34 above), such that when vapors are formed in the hot side, these vapors escape to the surroundings (escaping gas is shown by arrow annotated with “G” in Fig. 34).
In regard to claim 13, Edwards disclose the portable cooling apparatus according to claim 1, and further disclose a liquid channel (inlet pipe 258, Fig. 34) in the form of a narrow piece of wettable material emerging from the liquid reservoir (254) and in contact with the heatsink (Fig. 34).
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.
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.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al. (US 20130291563 A1) in view of Sims et al. (US 20130019611 A1).
In regard to claim 11, Edwards disclose the portable cooling apparatus according to claim 1, except being combined with a garment.
However, Fig. 2 of Sims disclose a garment in with portable cooling apparatus comprising of “a thermoelectric cooling/heating unit 46 having thermoelectric cooling (TEC) plates 48, a heat sink 50” (see ¶0073).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the garment of Sims to use the portable cooling apparatus of Edwards, as a simple substitution, yielding predictable results, for the purpose of providing a personal temperature control system that helps to stabilize an individual’s body temperature while wearing the garment (¶0002 of Sims).
PNG
media_image4.png
751
522
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 12, Edwards disclose the portable cooling apparatus according to claim 1, except for use within a cooling box, a chair cushion, a helmet or a bike handle. Sims disclose a helmet (22, Fig. 2) wherein the temperature is controlled using a portable cooling apparatus as discussed above in claim 11. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the helmet of Sims to use the portable cooling apparatus of Edwards, a simple substitution, yielding predictable results, for the purpose of providing a personal temperature control system that helps to stabilize an individual’s body temperature while wearing the garment (¶0002 of Sims).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al. (US 20130291563 A1) in view of Gaal (US 10,753,896 B1).
In regard to claim 14, Edwards disclose the portable cooling apparatus according to claim 13, wherein Edwards disclose the liquid tank (254) comprising the liquid channel (258), wherein the liquid tank (254) is filled with a liquid (260) using the a liquid channel (258), but does not explicitly teach wherein the liquid channel has one end that is immersed in the liquid tank, to enable liquid flow along the channel by capillary action.
However, Gaal teaches an apparatus using cryo-fluid cooled heat sink, wherein flow of LCO2 to the two part heat sink is through a capillary injector tube (37) and is controlled by a cryogenic rated solenoid valve (35), and the formed CO2 gas is freely exited to the atmosphere through a large exit port 36. The solenoid valve (35), in turn, is controlled by its own PID controller (36). The supply of liquid CO2 from a tank with a syphon tube (see col. 8, line 36-43). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the liquid channel of Edward to be able to flow liquid along the channel by capillary action, in view of the teaching of Gaal, for the purpose of providing a self-regulating fluid flow to maintain efficient thermal balance because capillary driven channels automatically draw liquid to hot regions where evaporation occurs and return it to cooler regions where condensation happens.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al. (US 20130291563 A1) in view of Rittman et al. (US 2020/0008975 A1).
In regard to claim 15, Edwards disclose the portable cooling apparatus according to claim 13, herein Edwards disclose the liquid tank (254) comprising the liquid channel (258), wherein the liquid tank (254) is filled with a liquid (260) using the a liquid channel (258), but does not explicitly teach the liquid channel has a serpentine-like shape, curving in alternate directions on the heatsink. However, Rittman teaches a heating/cooling system comprising a heat sink (225) is attached to the hot fluid reservoir (221), a cold fluid reservoir (241) is juxtaposed next to the cooling side of a Peltier device (230), wherein a serpentine channel (211) used as the cold fluid reservoir (see ¶ 0063, 0073). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the liquid channel of Edward to have a serpentine-like shape, in view of the teaching of Rittman, for the purpose of providing a prolonged exposure to the cooling effects of the heat sink.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEBESHET MENGESHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1793. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7-4, alternate Fridays, EST. 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 on 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.
/W.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763