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 .
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 4/20/2023 are as follows:
Claims 1-12 are pending and are being examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figures 1-3 contain solid black shading (See 37 CFR1.84(m) “Solid black shading areas are not permitted”);
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it refers to the purported merits, repeats phrases which can be implied, and uses legal form (i.e. run on sentence). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“heating unit” in claim 1, interpreted as a part that generates heat at the evaporator (see paragraph 30);
“cooling unit” in claim 1, interpreted as a heat sink at the condenser (see paragraph 30);
“power supply unit” in claim 2, interpreted as a device that supplies power (see paragraph 9, 52);
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kroliczek (US2002/0007937A1).
Re Claim 1. Kroliczek teaches a heat switch device using a cryogenic loop heat pipe provided in a spacecraft (The italicized portion is intended use of the apparatus, of which Kroliczek is capable of being used in), comprising:
a heating unit (Qv at 610) (Figure 6; Paragraph 17);
a cooling unit (heat sink at 620) (Figure 6; Paragraph 17);
the cryogenic loop heat pipe (Figure 6) in which a working fluid accommodated therein is circulated and which connects between the heating unit and the cooling unit to exchange heat, and including a first evaporator (610) connected to the heating unit, a condenser (620) connected to the cooling unit, a liquid transfer pipe (lower horizontal pipe in figure 6) connecting between the first evaporation and the condenser to move liquids of the first evaporator and the condenser, and a steam transfer pipe (middle horizontal pipe in Figure 6) connecting between the first evaporator and the condenser to move gases of the first evaporator and the condenser (Figure 6; Paragraph 17);
a second evaporator (630) connected to the condenser (Figure 6; Paragraph 17); and
a heater (Qr at 630) heating the second evaporator (Figure 6; Paragraph 17).
Re Claim 2. Kroliczek teaches a power supply unit supplying power to the heater (Figure 6 illustrates a set point control heater at 630, and thus implicitly teaches a power supply unit for the heater; Paragraph 17).
Re Claim 7. Kroliczek teaches the first evaporator and the second evaporator further include an auxiliary transfer pipe (top horizontal pipe in Figure 6) through which the liquid and steam moves (Figure 6; Paragraph 17).
Re Claim 8. Kroliczek teaches the auxiliary transfer pipe moves the working fluid of the first evaporator to the second evaporator (Figure 6; Paragraph 17).
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, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroliczek (US2002/0007937A1) in view of Hoang (US9146059B2).
Re Claim 3. Kroliczek teaches the first evaporator and the second evaporator (Figure 6) but fails to specifically teach the first evaporator and the second evaporator are configured to include a compensation chamber formed on one side to store the inflowing working fluid, a wick through which the working fluid of the compensation chamber passes, and a steam discharge channel formed on the other side to discharge steam evaporated from the wick to an outside.
However, Hoang teaches it is known in heat pipes to have the first evaporator (3) and the second evaporator (4) are configured to include a compensation chamber (8, 9) formed on one side to store the inflowing working fluid, a wick (middle U-portion in 3 and 4) through which the working fluid of the compensation chamber passes, and a steam discharge channel formed on the other side to discharge steam evaporated from the wick to an outside (right sides of 3 and 4 is steam discharge) (Figure 1; Column 3 lines 1-42).
Therefore, in view of Hoang's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add compensation chambers and wicks to Kroliczek in order to more efficiently operate the loop heat pipe by ensuring consistent supply of working fluid. The use of compensation chambers and wicks is well-known and established in the heat pipe art.
Re Claim 5. Kroliczek as modified by Hoang teach wherein the heater is provided in a portion where the wick of the second evaporator is accommodated (Kroliczek Figure 6; Hoang Figure 1, wherein Hoang Figure 3A illustrates it is known to place a heater 43 at the wick 34 location).
Re Claim 6. Kroliczek teaches a working fluid but fails to specifically teach the working fluid of the loop heat pipe is a gas containing at least one of nitrogen, oxygen, neon, and helium gases.
However, Hoang teaches the working fluid of the loop heat pipe is a gas containing helium or nitrogen (Column 5 lines 6-9).
Therefore, in view of Hoang's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select one of the gases as the working fluid in order to achieve a desired heat transfer characteristic for a given application. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select one of the gases as the working fluid in Kroliczek, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 are allowed.
Claim 4 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 4 recites “a refrigerator contacting a portion where the compensating chamber of the second evaporator is accommodated and the condenser”. Kroliczek teaches the second evaporator and the condenser (figure 6) but fails to teach a refrigerator contacting a portion where the compensating chamber of the second evaporator is accommodated and the condenser. The next closest prior art Hoang teaches plural evaporators and condensers, wherein a thermal strap connects the liquid line to the vapor line (Figure 1) but fails to also teach the refrigerator. There would be no motivation to further modify Kroliczek to include a refrigerator without utilizing impermissible hindsight reasoning or without changing the principle of operation of Kroliczek. Therefore, the invention is novel and non-obvious in view of the prior art.
Claim 9 similarly recites “a refrigerator operation step of operating a refrigerator connected to a partial area of the second evaporator and the condenser to cool the second evaporator and the condenser to form a liquefied working fluid”. There would be no motivation to further modify Kroliczek to include a refrigerator without utilizing impermissible hindsight reasoning or without changing the principle of operation of Kroliczek. Therefore, the invention is novel and non-obvious in view of the prior 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