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 with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-17) and Species A1 (Figures 1-8) in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Group I and II share common features. This is not found persuasive because Group I does not recite stone guards, and thus Groups I and II do not share the same technical feature. The traversal is also on the ground(s) that the species. The applicant then states “The Office Action's requirement that the special technical feature recited by the claims be patentable over the cited reference(s) confuses the Unity of Invention requirement with the requirements for patentability.” This is incorrect. The Office Action clearly stated that there can be no special technical feature if said features are already known in the prior art. Thus, the existence of an “X” reference that anticipates the features of claim 1 establishes that no feature in claim 1 makes a contribution over the prior art (Additionally, see rejection of claim 1 below that establishes claim 1 does not make a contribution over the prior art). Thus, no feature of claim 1 can be considered a special technical feature. Applicant then argues on page 4 of the reply that all claims were “examined without issue at the international stage”. The USPTO is not governed nor constrained by international patent regulations and procedures. Thus, the examination of the application in other countries is immaterial to the prosecution of the application in the United States. The applicant then cites MPEP 1850(II) as stating the unity of invention can only be determined by the international searching authority. Again, this is immaterial to a 371 national stage application, which is governed by MPEP 1893.03 and 37 C.F.R. 1.499 that clearly states “37 C.F.R. 1.499 Unity of invention during the national stage: If the examiner finds that a national stage application lacks unity of invention under § 1.475, the examiner may in an Office action require the applicant in the response to that action to elect the invention to which the claims shall be restricted”. Applicant then cites MPEP 803 that if no serious burden exists, then the claims should be examined. The divergent search strategies involved would create a serious search burden. Therefore, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 2, 5, and 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/29/2025. Applicant assert claim 9 reads on the elected species. However, claim 9 recites a stone guard, which is directed towards non-elected species D. Species A makes no mention of a stone guard in the specification. Therefore, claim 9 is additionally withdrawn from consideration as being directed towards a non-elected species.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 12/29/2025 are as follows:
Claims 1-20 are pending;
Claims 2, 5, 9, and 14-20 are withdrawn from consideration;
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, and 10-13 are being examined.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Fuel Cell Cooling System with Open Sprinkler Circuit”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
“at least one distribution line is completely embedded in the at least one heat exchanger” (Claim 3). The figures illustrate the distribution line outside of the heat exchanger, and thus fails to illustrate completely embedded in the heat exchanger.
“the channel structure is attached to the at least one heat exchanger in at least one of a force-fitted manner, an integrally bonded manner, and a form-fitted manner” (Claim 4).
“the plurality of channels are finned towards an outside, at least in regions, to increase an area of an outer surface of the plurality of channels” (Claim 6, the channels are not finned in the figures)
“a flow cross-section of the plurality of channels decreases in a flow direction of the sprinkler fluid such that a pressure of the sprinkler fluid in the channel structure is uniform” (Claim 7).
“plurality of channels are formed by a porous material; and the plurality of outlet nozzles are defined by a plurality of pores of the porous material” (Claim 8).
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Currently, no claim limitation invokes 112(f).
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 3-4 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.
The term “stiff” in claims 3 and 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “stiff” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what degree of flexibility is required in order to be considered a “stiff tube”.
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, 6, 8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Partin (US2514253, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 1. Partin teaches a cooling system (14, 22) for a fuel cell of a motor vehicle (the italicized portion is intended use of the cooling system, of which Partin is capable of performing. Partin in particular teaches use in a vehicle 10) (Figures 1-8), comprising:
a closed coolant circuit (connected to 14) through which a coolant is circulatable (Figures 1-8; Column 2 lines 1-5);
at least one heat exchanger (14) fluidically incorporated in the coolant circuit for cooling the coolant, the at least one heat exchanger including an air inlet surface (front surface of 14), an air outlet surface (rear surface of 14), and a plurality of cooling tubes (internal of 14, wherein 14 is a conventional vehicle radiator, which is conventionally formed of tubes and fins), the coolant flowable through the at least one heat exchanger via the plurality of cooling tubes, air flowable through the at least one heat exchanger from the air inlet surface to the air outlet surface (Figures 1-8; Column 2 lines 1-4);
an open sprinkler circuit (22) through which a sprinkler fluid is flowable for cooling the at least one heat exchanger (Figures 1-8; Column 2 lines 8-54, Column 3 lines 35-50);
a channel structure (24) fluidically incorporated in the sprinkler circuit, the channel structure including a plurality of channels (24), the channel structure arranged in parallel with and directly adjacent to the air inlet surface; and wherein the plurality of channels each include a plurality of outlet nozzles (42) via which the sprinkler fluid is appliable to the plurality of cooling tubes (Figures 1-8; Column 2 lines 8-22, Column 3 lines 35-50).
Re Claim 6. Partin teaches the plurality of channels are finned (44) towards an outside, at least in regions, to increase an area of an outer surface of the plurality of channels (Figures 3, 6, 8; Column 2 lines 42-54).
Re Claim 8. Partin teaches plurality of channels are formed by a porous material (44); and the plurality of outlet nozzles are defined by a plurality of pores of the porous material (Figures 3, 6, 8; Column 2 lines 42-54).
Re Claim 11. Partin teaches the sprinkler fluid in the sprinkler circuit is temperature controlled (Figures 1-2; The storage tank is inside the vehicle, and thus is temperature controlled relative to the vehicle temperature).
Re Claim 12. Partin teaches a collecting tank (52) for collecting the sprinkler fluid, wherein: the collecting tank is fluidically incorporated (via lines 50, 46) in the sprinkler circuit upstream of the channel structure; the collecting tank, during operation of the cooling system is arranged above the channel structure (Figure 1 illustrates the tank 62 is above cooler 22); and the collecting tank is at least one of (i) formed in the at least one heat exchanger and (ii) attached (via conduits 50, 46) to the at least one heat exchanger (Figure 1; Column 2 line 55 to Column 3 line 12).
Re Claim 13. Partin teaches the plurality of channels are formed by a fluid-tight material (24); and the plurality of outlet nozzles (42) are defined by a plurality of openings that are disposed in the fluid-tight material and that open towards the air inlet surface (Figures 3, 6, 8; Column 2 lines 8-54).
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.
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.
Claims 3-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partin (US2514253, as cited in the IDS) in view of Scofield (US3926000).
Re Claim 3. Partin teaches a plurality of stiff tubes (24, wherein tubes 24 hold their shape and thus are considered stiff) and at least one distribution line (30) (Figure 3), wherein:
the plurality of channels are formed by the plurality of stiff tubes and the at least one distribution line (Figure 3),
the plurality of stiff tubes are at least partially embedded in the at least one heat exchanger and at least one distribution line is completely embedded in the at least one heat exchanger (Figure 3; The tubes are covered by clamp 32, and thus are considered embedded in the heat exchanger. The distribution line 30 is attached to the heat exchanger as seen in Figures 3-4, and thus is considered embedded in the heat exchanger).
Partin teaches a distribution line connected to a first tube (24) but fails to specifically teach the at least one distribution line fluidically connects the plurality of stiff tubes with one another on one side.
However, Scofield teaches a vehicle (10) open sprinkler system (50-54) comprising at least one distribution line (50) fluidically connects the plurality of stiff tubes (51, 52, 53) with one another on one side (Figure 1; Column 4 lines 15-35).
Therefore, in view of Scofield's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the distribution line of Partin as a one side header in order to create a parallel distribution to the channels rather than a serial distribution. The parallel distribution allows for better operation since a single blockage in one channel does not prevent the remaining channels from receiving fluid. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use a parallel distribution as taught by Scofield.
Re Claim 4. Partin teaches a plurality of stiff tubes (24, wherein tubes 24 hold their shape and thus are considered stiff) and at least one distribution line (30) (Figure 3), wherein:
the plurality of channels are formed by the plurality of stiff tubes and the at least one distribution line (Figure 3);
the plurality of stiff tubes and the at least one distribution line are connected to the channel structure in an integrally bonded manner (Figure 3, the lines are all connected in a fluid tight manner and thus are considered integrally bonded); and
the channel structure is attached (via 32, 34) to the at least one heat exchanger in at least one of a force-fitted manner, an integrally bonded manner, and a form-fitted manner (Figures 3-5; Column 2 lines 8-42).
Partin teaches a distribution line connected to a first tube (24) but fails to specifically teach the at least one distribution line fluidically connects the plurality of stiff tubes with one another on one side.
However, Scofield teaches a vehicle (10) open sprinkler system (50-54) comprising at least one distribution line (50) fluidically connects the plurality of stiff tubes (51, 52, 53) with one another on one side (Figure 1; Column 4 lines 15-35).
Therefore, in view of Scofield's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the distribution line of Partin as a one side header in order to create a parallel distribution to the channels rather than a serial distribution. The parallel distribution allows for better operation since a single blockage in one channel does not prevent the remaining channels from receiving fluid. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use a parallel distribution as taught by Scofield.
Re Claim 10. Partin teaches the sprinkler circuit (Figure 3) but fails to specifically teach a radiator for temperature controlling the sprinkler fluid, wherein: the radiator is fluidically incorporated in the sprinkler circuit; and the sprinkler fluid and a second coolant of a second coolant circuit are flowable through the radiator.
However, Scofield teaches a radiator (25) for temperature controlling the sprinkler fluid, wherein: the radiator is fluidically incorporated (via 30) in the sprinkler circuit; and the sprinkler fluid and a second coolant (i.e. refrigerant) of a second coolant circuit (14) are flowable through the radiator (Figure 1; Column 3 lines 14-32; The sprinkler fluid condense at 25 and thus exchanges heat with 25 before being stored in tank 32).
Therefore, in view of Scofield 's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a radiator to the sprinkler circuit of Partin in order to provide temperature-controlled fluid to the sprinkler system, thereby achieving optimal heat exchange with the heat exchanger.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partin (US2514253, as cited in the IDS) in view of Nelson (US5002123).
Re Claim 7. Partin teaches the plurality of channels (Figure 3) but fails to specifically teach a flow cross-section of the plurality of channels decreases in a flow direction of the sprinkler fluid such that a pressure of the sprinkler fluid in the channel structure is uniform.
However, Nelson teaches a flow cross-section of the plurality of channels (34e) decreases in a flow direction of the sprinkler fluid such that a pressure of the sprinkler fluid in the channel structure is uniform (Figures 6-7, 10; Column 1 lines 33-57, Column 5 lines 4-29, Column 6 lines 3-13). When Partin is combined with Nelson, the resulting combination would be the channels (24) of Partin would be tapered from the inlet at 30 to the end cap 28 in order to provide uniform pressure throughout the channels.
Therefore, in view of Nelson's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to decrease the flow cross-section of Partins’ channels in order to provide uniform pressure in the channels, as is well-understood in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 for other relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS C RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
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 at 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.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763