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 § 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 1-12 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, “a cold-side heat exchanger” and “a hot-side heat exchanger” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if they are of the “at least one cold-side heat exchanger” and the “at least one hot-side heat exchanger”.
Claims 2-6 and 8-12 are indefinite by virtue of dependency.
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 (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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (CN108826468A) in view of Yajima (US20130306124A1).
Regarding claim 1, Peng teaches a cooling system, comprising:
one or more thermoelectric (TE) modules (Figure 3: 6),
one or more desiccant wheels, wherein the one or more desiccant wheels are capable of rotating (Figure 2, Figure 3: 4); wherein the cooling system is configured to direct air over both the TE modules and the desiccant wheels (Figure 3).
Peng does not disclose the particulars of the thermoelectric modules.
However, Yajima discloses a TE module comprising at least one semiconductor element located between two ceramic plates (Figure 6: 121 between 11-12, which can be ceramic, ¶215); wherein the ceramic plates further comprise one or more electrodes (Figure 6: 31-32, ¶258); and one or more heat exchangers wherein the one or more heat exchangers are in contact with at least one ceramic plate, wherein the one or more heat exchangers comprise at least one cold-side heat exchanger and at least one hot-side heat exchanger (¶215), where heat is transferred from a cold-side heat exchanger to a hot-side heat exchanger (see Figure 6B, ¶265, the heat exchangers can be defined as such to accord with the claim) to increase heat exchange efficiency (¶215).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to structure the TE modules of Peng as at least one semiconductor element between two ceramic plates, where the ceramic plates comprise further comprise one or more electrodes, wherein each ceramic plate has a heat exchanger thereon, i.e. a cold-side and a hot-side heat exchanger, where heat transfers from the cold-side exchanger to the hot-side exchanger, in order to increase heat exchange efficiency of the TE modules.
Regarding claim 2, Peng teaches all of the limitations of the cooling system of claim 1 wherein the ceramic plates comprise a material selected from the group consisting of hexagonal boron nitride, aluminum oxide (¶215 of Yajima) and combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 4, Peng as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, wherein
The at least one semiconductor element is bonded to at least one of the one or more electrodes (see Figure 6: 121 and 31/32 of Yajima)
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (CN108826468A) in view of Yajima (US20130306124A1), further in view of Maeshima (US20130269744A1).
Regarding claim 3, Peng as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 but does not teach the particulars of claim 3.
However, Maeshima discloses that it is known to utilize Bi2Te2.7Se0.3 within the semiconductor element (¶45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Bi2Te2.7Se0.3 within the semiconductor element of Peng as modified in order to provide a reliable semiconductor element.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (CN108826468A) in view of Yajima (US20130306124A1), further in view of Kawahara (CN109210646A).
Regarding claim 5, Peng as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach the particulars of claim 5.
However, it is known to utilize microporous ceramic foam in the construction of desiccant wheels (Kawahara, see at least the Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize microporous ceramic foam in the desiccant wheel of Peng in order to provide good structure and adequate adsorption of humidity.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (CN108826468A) in view of Yajima (US20130306124A1), further in view of Moffitt (US20070163279A1).
Regarding claim 6, Peng as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach the particulars of claim 6.
However, it is known to utilize zeolite in the construction of desiccant wheels to adsorb moisture from the air (Moffitt, ¶32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize zeolite in construction the desiccant wheel of Peng in order to provide adequate moisture adsorption.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (CN108826468A) in view of Yajima (US20130306124A1), further in view of Matsui (US20090025408A1), further in view of Fischer (US20090042071A1).
Regarding claim 7, Peng teaches a cooling system, comprising:
one or more thermoelectric (TE) modules (Figure 3: 6),
one or more desiccant heat exchangers, wherein the exchangers are capable of rotating (Figure 2, Figure 3: 4); wherein the cooling system is configured to direct air over both the TE modules and the desiccant heat exchangers (Figure 3).
Peng does not disclose the particulars of the thermoelectric modules.
However, Yajima discloses a TE module comprising at least one semiconductor element located between two ceramic plates (Figure 6: 121 between 11-12, which can be ceramic, ¶215); wherein the ceramic plates further comprise one or more electrodes (Figure 6: 31-32, ¶258); and one or more heat exchangers wherein the one or more heat exchangers are in contact with at least one ceramic plate, wherein the one or more heat exchangers comprise at least one cold-side heat exchanger and at least one hot-side heat exchanger (¶215), where heat is transferred from a cold-side heat exchanger to a hot-side heat exchanger (see Figure 6B, ¶265, the heat exchangers can be defined as such to accord with the claim) to increase heat exchange efficiency (¶215).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to structure the TE modules of Peng as at least one semiconductor element between two ceramic plates, where the ceramic plates comprise further comprise one or more electrodes, wherein each ceramic plate has a heat exchanger thereon, i.e. a cold-side and a hot-side heat exchanger, where heat transfers from the cold-side exchanger to the hot-side exchanger, in order to increase heat exchange efficiency of the TE modules.
Peng does not disclose wherein the desiccant heat exchanger is one or more solid desiccant coated heat exchangers coated in microporous metal foam, microporous ceramic foam, metal plate fins with millimeter spacing, or combinations thereof.
However, in desiccant aided cooling systems it is known to utilize one or more desiccant coated heat exchangers for adsorbing or desorbing moisture from the air in order to control humidity (Matsui, Figures 5A-B, ¶50, ¶92-93).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize one or more desiccant coated heat exchangers as taught by Matsui in the system of Peng in order to efficiently adsorb or desorb moisture from the air stream.
Furthermore, it is known to utilize microporous metal foam as the substrate of heat exchangers (Fischer, ¶27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize metal foam in the substrate of a desiccant heat exchanger of Peng in order to provide enhanced heat exchange.
Regarding claim 8, Peng as modified teaches all of the limitations of the cooling system of claim 1 wherein the ceramic plates comprise a material selected from the group consisting of hexagonal boron nitride, aluminum oxide (¶215 of Yajima) and combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 10, Peng as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 7, wherein
The at least one semiconductor element is bonded to at least one of the one or more electrodes (see Figure 6: 121 and 31/32 of Yajima).
Regarding claim 11, Peng as modified teaches all of the limitations of The cooling system of claim 7 wherein the one or more substrates comprise metal foam (see rejection of claim 7).
Regarding claim 12, Peng as modified teaches all of the limitations of The cooling system of claim 7 wherein the desiccant for the DCHX is selected from the group consisting of mesoporous silica particles, silica aerogels, zeolite (¶50 of Matsui), carbon-based materials, hygroscopic salts, and combinations thereof.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (CN108826468A) in view of Yajima (US20130306124A1), further in view of Maeshima (US20130269744A1).
Regarding claim 9, Peng as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 but does not teach the particulars of claim 9.
However, Maeshima discloses that it is known to utilize Bi2Te2.7Se0.3 within the semiconductor element (¶45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Bi2Te2.7Se0.3 within the semiconductor element of Peng as modified in order to provide a reliable semiconductor element.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 08/28/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant has argued that the TE module of Yajima is not capable of regulating atmospheric temperature. However, the TE module of Yajima has a “hot side” and a “cold side”, as is typical of a TE module. Any of the hot or cold side would be capable of regulating atmospheric temperature because it could either heat or cool air.
Applicant further argues that Yajima’s temperature control device is not described as a TE module. However, a Peltier device is a TE module.
Applicant’s argument that altering Peng’s TE module to have a structure as disclosed by Yajima would render Peng unsatisfactory for its intended purpose is not persuasive.
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 SCHYLER S SANKS whose telephone number is (571)272-6125. The examiner can normally be reached 06:30 - 15:30 Central Time, M-F.
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, Michael Huntley can be reached at (303) 297-4307. 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.
/SCHYLER S SANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2129