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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Siegfriedsen US 2011/0247710 Al.
Re claim 1, Siegfriedsen teach a cooling system for a component to be cooled, comprising: a heat exchange module (220), wherein the heat exchange module comprises at least one first passage, another first passage and a second passage which are independent of one another (fig 4); a first cooling circuit (230), wherein the first cooling circuit is connected to the one first passage of the heat exchange module; and a second cooling circuit (250), wherein the second cooling circuit is connected to the another first passage of the heat exchange module; and wherein a first coolant (coolant in 230) in the first cooling circuit and a second coolant (coolant in 250) in the second cooling circuit is-are configured to flow through the one first passage and the another first passage of the heat exchange module respectively, to exchange heat with a third coolant (coolant in 200) which flows through the second passage of the heat exchange module;
wherein the first cooling circuit and the second cooling circuit serve as backup for each other (noting that both circuits are considered to “support” each other in the overall system for the entire system to function; noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘backup’ is one that serves as a substitute or support);
the third coolant is configured to directly absorb heat from the component to be cooled, and the first coolant and the second coolant are configured to cool the third coolant;
first cooling circuit is provided with a heat dissipater (top 220, fig 4) configured for cooling the first coolant;
and the first cooling circuit and the second cooling circuit are independent of each other, wherein only heat is transferred between the first cooling circuit and the second cooling circuit without mass transfer (fig 4, para 17).
For clarity, the recitation “…serve as backup for each other …” has been considered a functional limitation. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g). In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above.
Re claim 2, Siegfriedsen teach wherein the heat exchange module comprises a first heat exchanger and a second heat exchanger, the one first passage and the another first passage are located in the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger respectively; the second passage is embodied as one second passage and another second passage being located in the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger respectively (fig 4), wherein the first coolant is configured to flow through the one first passage of the first heat exchanger, to exchange heat with the third coolant which flows through the one second passage of the first heat exchanger; and the second coolant is configured to flow through the another first passage of the second heat exchanger, to exchange heat with the third coolant which flows through the another second passage of the heat exchange module (fig 4).
Re claim 3, Siegfriedsen teach wherein the one second passage of the first heat exchanger is in communication with the another second passage of the second heat exchanger (fig 4).
Re claim 10, Siegfriedsen teach further comprising a third coolant supply pipeline and a third coolant return pipeline, wherein a first end of the third coolant supply pipeline is connected to a first end of the second passage of the heat exchange module, and a first end of the third coolant return pipeline is connected to a second end of the second passage of the heat exchange module (figs, noting some sort of pipeline is naturally present at the inlet and outlet to carry fluid, and that all structure is connected to each other directly or indirectly in a single structural assembly).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7-8, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegfriedsen in view of BONGO US 20130112391 A1.
Re claim 7, Siegfriedsen teach the heat exchange module further comprises a liquid inlet pipeline connected to a first liquid inlet of the heat exchange module and a liquid outlet pipeline connected to a first liquid outlet of the heat exchange module (figs, noting some sort of pipeline is naturally present at the inlet and outlet to carry fluid) but fail to explicitly teach filters.
BONGO teach and a first filter (F1A) is provided in the liquid inlet pipeline (in the instant combination), wherein a first pressure transmitter is arranged at an inlet side of the first filter, and a second pressure transmitter (annotated fig) is arranged at an outlet side of the first filter to provide a filter for contamination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include filters as taught by BONGO in the Siegfriedsen invention in order to advantageously allow for filtration with measured pressure differential to measure filtering capacity in a heat exchange system.
PNG
media_image1.png
513
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 8, Siegfriedsen, as modified, teach all the claim limitations as stated above. Siegfriedsen, as modified, fail to explicitly teach a third pressure transmitter is provided in the liquid outlet pipeline of the heat exchange module.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a third pressure transmitter is provided in the liquid outlet pipeline of the heat exchange module to advantageously allow for redundancy in pressure measurement equipment for reliability and to measure pressure in more locations if another filter is desired, since it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, section VI, part B.
Re claim 11, Siegfriedsen teach the heat exchange module further comprises a liquid inlet pipeline connected to a first liquid inlet of the heat exchange module and a liquid outlet pipeline connected to a first liquid outlet of the heat exchange module (figs, noting some sort of pipeline is naturally present at the inlet and outlet to carry fluid) but fail to explicitly teach filters.
BONGO teach a second filter (F1a) and/or a second on-off valve and/or a fourth pressure transmitter and a fifth pressure transmitter (annotated fig) located at two sides of the second filter is provided in the third coolant supply pipeline; and/or, a sixth pressure transmitter and/or a third temperature sensor and/or a third on-off valve is provided in the third coolant return pipeline to provide a filter for contamination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include filters as taught by BONGO in the Siegfriedsen invention in order to advantageously allow for filtration with measured pressure differential to measure filtering capacity in a heat exchange system.
PNG
media_image2.png
513
661
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegfriedsen in view of BONGO US 20130112391 A1 further in view of D'silva US20140222218A1.
Re claim 9, Siegfriedsen, as modified, fail to explicitly teach sensors.
D'silva teach a first on-off valve and/or a first temperature sensor is further provided in the liquid inlet pipeline of the heat exchange module, and a regulating valve and/or a second temperature sensor is further provided in the liquid outlet pipeline of the heat exchange module (para 35) to calculate energy transfer of an energy consumer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include sensors as taught by D'silva in the Siegfriedsen, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for optimized heat exchange via flow controls (paras 13-14).
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegfriedsen in view of GUO US 20210028089 A1.
Re claim 12, Siegfriedsen fail to explicitly teach a plate heat exchanger.
GUO teach the heat exchange module comprises a plate heat exchanger which comprises heat exchange fins (para 7) to use a heat exchanger known in the art
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a plate heat exchanger as taught by GUO in the Siegfriedsen invention in order to advantageously allow for an efficient heat exchange process that is easily cleaned (abs).
Re claim 13, Siegfriedsen fail to explicitly teach a plate heat exchanger.
GUO teach the heat exchange module comprises a plate heat exchanger which comprises heat exchange fins (para 7) to use a heat exchanger known in the art
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a plate heat exchanger as taught by GUO in the Siegfriedsen invention in order to advantageously allow for an efficient heat exchange process that is easily cleaned (abs).
Re claim 14, Siegfriedsen fail to explicitly teach a plate heat exchanger.
GUO teach the heat exchange module comprises a plate heat exchanger which comprises heat exchange fins (para 7) to use a heat exchanger known in the art
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a plate heat exchanger as taught by GUO in the Siegfriedsen invention in order to advantageously allow for an efficient heat exchange process that is easily cleaned (abs).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Siegfriedsen fails to teach an “wherein the first cooling circuit and the second cooling circuit serve as backup for each other”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Siegfriedsen teach the new claim limitations since both circuits are considered to “support” each other in the overall system for the entire system to function; noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘backup’ is one that serves as a substitute or support.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “reversed”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). However, to further address the “reversal” arguments, it is possible that applicant believes that a reversal of the system is required to meet the claim limitation “and the first coolant and the second coolant are configured to cool the third coolant”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. By nature of a connection and heat exchange , the configuration is met since any of the three fluids is capable of cooling another one of the three coolants due to all three being thermally connected. If the third coolant where to heat up, the first and second coolant are configured to cool the third coolant due to the thermal connection. But none of these conditional examples are needed, since the heat exchange setup meets the broad configuration of “and the first coolant and the second coolant are configured to cool the third coolant” due to 220. Furthermore, in an apparatus claim, once the structural limitations are met, it is not patentable to claim how the structure is intended to be used. A claim term is functional when it recites a feature "by what it does rather than by what it is" MPEP 2173.05(g).
Applicant argues the claims dependent on the independent claim(s) are allowable based upon their dependence from an independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been addressed above. Thus, the rejections are proper and remain.
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 GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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.
/GORDON A JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763