Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/23/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-23 are pending. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 9-15 remain withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 1-2, “the at least one firs coolant outlet” should read –the at least one coolant outlet--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102:
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krug, Jr. et al. (US 2016/0113149, herein “Krug”).
Regarding claim 1, Krug discloses:
a coolant distribution manifold (310’ plus 320’ plus 330’, seen in fig. 4 and figs. 5A-5B) for an electronics cooling system (110’’) [par. 0027, lines 1-7, as it applies to the embodiment of figure 4, see par. 0044], the cooling system (110’’) (figs. 4-5B) comprising a temperature conditioning circuit (350’) (seen in fig. 4) [par. 0029], and at least two coolant circuits (circuits of each of the respective electronic systems 301) (seen in figs. 4 and 5A) [par. 0027, lines 7-14, as it applies to the embodiment of figure 4, see par. 0044; par. 0045, lines 15-20] each configured to cool a respective electronic system (301) [par. 0030 and par. 0045, lines 15-20],
wherein the coolant distribution manifold (310’ plus 320’ plus 330’) (figs. 4-5A) comprises:
at least one first coolant inlet (inlet of 310’) configured to be connected to an outlet of and receive coolant directly from the temperature conditioning circuit (350’) (see fig. 4, where coolant flows directly from temperature conditioning circuit 350’ to section 310’ through hose 520) [par. 0050];
a receiving section (320’) comprising at least one second coolant inlet (each of the inlets at 502, seen in fig. 4, where the arrows ingressing receiving section 320’ represent inlets 502 of fig. 5A) configured to receive coolant from the at least two coolant circuits (circuits of each of the respective electronic systems 301) (seen in figs. 4 and 5A, where coolant flowing through the circuits of electronic systems 301 flows to section 320’); and
a supplying section (330’) configured to supply coolant to the at least two coolant circuits (circuits of each of the respective electronic systems 301) (through pumping units 335’) (fig. 4) [par. 0030, lines 1-6, as it applies to the embodiment of figure 4, see par. 0044]; and
wherein the supplying section (330’) is arranged downstream of the at least one first coolant inlet (inlet of 310’) and of the receiving section (320’) relative to an intended flow direction through the manifold (310’ plus 320’ plus 330’) (the flow direction is seen in fig. 4).
The recitation “for a vehicle propulsion battery cooling system” is considered to be a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used. It is noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations of the claimed, as is the case here. Refer to MPEP 2114 (II). In the instant case, the system disclosed by Krug, Jr. having the same structure claimed is capable of being used for a vehicle propulsion battery cooling system and, therefore, to cool a respective set of battery cells.
Regarding claim 2, Krug discloses:
the at least one first coolant inlet (inlet of 310’) of the manifold (310’ plus 320’ plus 330’) being arranged upstream of the receiving section (320’) relative to an intended flow direction through the manifold (310’ plus 320’ plus 330’) (following the flow direction of the coolant through the cooling system 110’’ depicted by arrows seen in fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Krug discloses:
the manifold (310’ plus 320’ plus 330’) comprising at least one coolant outlet (fig. 4, the arrows egressing supplying section 330’) configured to feed coolant to the temperature conditioning circuit (350’) (seen in fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Krug discloses:
the at least one coolant outlet (fig. 4, the arrows egressing supplying section 330’) of the manifold (310’ plus 320’ plus 330’) being located downstream of the supplying section (330’) relative to an intended flow direction through the manifold (310’ plus 320’ plus 330’) (seen in fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Krug discloses:
the manifold (310’ plus 320’ plus 330’) comprising a deairing section (321’) configured to evacuate air from the manifold (310’ plus 320’ plus 330’) [par. 0028, lines 1-5, as it applies to the embodiment of figure 4, see par. 0044].
Regarding claim 17, Krug discloses:
the at least one coolant inlet (inlet of 310’) of the manifold (310’ plus 320’ plus 330’) being located between the receiving section (320) and the supplying section (330’) (seen in fig. 4, following the flow direction of the coolant through the cooling system 110’’ depicted by arrows).
Regarding claim 18, Krug discloses:
the at least one coolant outlet (fig. 4, the arrows egressing supplying section 330’) of the manifold (310’ plus 320’ plus 330’) being located adjacent to the supply section (330’) (seen in fig. 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103:
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krug in view of Bahel et al. (US 7,908,126, herein “Bahel”).
Regarding claim 5, Krug discloses:
each of the receiving section (320’) and the supplying section (330’) being tubular (as seen in fig. 5A as rectangular tubular section [par. 0042, lines 5-8; par. 0050, lines 1-7], but does not disclose:
the manifold (310’ plus 320’ plus 330’) comprising a u-shaped section between the receiving section (320’) and the supplying section (330’).
Bahel, directed to designing heat exchangers for cooling systems [abs. lines 1-4], teaches that the geometry of a heat exchanger is defined by variables including outside diameter of manifolds/headers, thickness of manifolds/headers, shape of manifolds/headers, tubing inputs like tube length, outside diameter, tube thickness, etc., [col. 14, lines 33-47] for the purpose of optimizing performance of the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate into Krug the teachings of Bahel to have the manifold comprising a u-shaped section between the receiving section (320’) and the supplying section (330’) as a matter of an obvious design choice according to the user’s needs in order to optimize performance of the system. Further, it has been held that changing the shape of an old device is a matter of design choice which involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04, section IV, part A.
Regarding claim 6, Krug does not disclose:
a flow cross sectional area through the manifold being at least twice as large as a flow cross sectional area through each connection between the manifold and the at least two coolant circuits.
Bahel, directed to designing heat exchangers for cooling systems [abs. lines 1-4], teaches that the geometry of a heat exchanger is defined by variables including outside diameter of manifolds/headers, thickness of manifolds/headers, shape of manifolds/headers, tubing inputs like tube length, outside diameter, tube thickness, etc., [col. 14, lines 33-47] for the purpose of optimizing performance of the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate into Krug the teachings of Bahel to have the header having a flow cross sectional area through the manifold being at least twice as large as a flow cross sectional area through each connection between the manifold and the at least two coolant circuits (tubing of Bahel) in order to optimize performance of the system.
Further, Applicant discloses that the flow cross sectional area (CA1) through the manifold (1) may be within the range of two to twenty times as large as a flow cross sectional area (CA2) through each one of the connections (r1-f7; s1-s7) between the manifold (1) and the at least two coolant circuits (c1, c2) and this range is recognized by the Examiner to be a very broad range, and a range that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found obvious at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. In this instance, the flow cross sectional area through the manifold and the flow cross sectional area through each connection between the manifold and the at least two coolant circuits are recognized as result-effective variables (geometry pf heat exchanger according to Bahel), i.e. variables which achieve a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that having the optimal combination of those variables, heat transfer is optimized.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the geometry of a heat exchanger is defined by variables including outside diameter of manifolds/headers, thickness of manifolds/headers, shape of manifolds/headers, tubing inputs like tube length, outside diameter, tube thickness, etc., were disclosed in the prior art by the combination of Krug and Bahel, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation.
Claims 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krug.
Regarding claims 8 and 21, Krug discloses:
the deairing section (321’) being arranged downstream of the receiving section (320’) and downstream of the at least one first coolant inlet (inlet of 310’) (seen in fig. 4), but does not disclose:
the deairing section (321’) being arranged downstream of the supplying section (330’) relative to the intended flow direction through the manifold (310’ plus 320’ plus 330’).
However, Krug’s deairing section (321’) is arranged above the supplying section (330’) relative to gravity (seen in fig. 5A) for the purpose of more effectively remove dissolved gases from the coolant. It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrange the deairing section (321’) downstream and above of the supplying section (330’) relative to gravity so long as the supplying section (330’) is arranged on an inclined plane against gravity and downstream the receiving section (of 320’), according to the user’s mounting position needs, since the purpose of the deairing section (321’) is to facilitate gravity acting on the coolant while efficiently remove dissolved gases from the coolant.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 19-20 and 22-23 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/23/2026 with respect to amended claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Although the prior art or record is maintained, the overly broad language of the newly amended limitations of claim 1 allows a broad interpretation of the claim which reference Krug reads on (see for instance, Applicant’s remarks of page 8 “…in the claimed manifold, the first coolant inlet and the receiving section with its second coolant inlets are distinct and separate structures…” which Krug clearly discloses. Please refer to the rejection, above, for a detail explanation on how Krug structurally reads on amended claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUSTAVO A HINCAPIE SERNA whose telephone number is (571)272-6018. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5:30pm.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/GUSTAVO A HINCAPIE SERNA/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights