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 . This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant's communication filed on October 11, 2024. In view of this communication, claims 1-21 are now pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: the misspelling of “interruptable”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-21 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.
Claims 1 and 20 both recite, “a second temperature controller”, this term is indefinite because it is unclear what the second temperature controller is. The drawings filed on October 11, 2024 contain no element highlighting the second temperature controller, and the specification disclose no structural or positional information on where the second temperature controller may be found or placed. Given the present application, the Examiner has no way to decern what “a second temperature controller” is or how it relates to the present invention.
In order to properly conduct a search on the subject, the second temperature controller is interpreted to mean, “ an additional first temperature controller.”
I recommend rewriting the [cite of the term] as stated above.
Claims 2-19 and 21 are rejected solely due to their dependency on claim 1 and 20 respectively.
Claim 21 recites, both an apparatus and the method steps of making the apparatus. A single claim drawn to both types of limitations is deemed indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). As outlined in MPEP 2173.05(p) paragraph II.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 19 recites a " A modular system " comprising a temperature control device according to claim 1, but does not recite any additional limitations of said temperature control device. All the limitations included in claim 19 regarding the temperature control device are also recited in claim 1. Thus, the claim does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2, 8-14, and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated BAHL (US 20110239662 A1).
Regarding claim 1, BAHL teaches:
A temperature control device (Fig 1A; 2) that is a magnetocaloric cooling device[abstract], the temperature control device (Fig 1A; 2) comprising a stator(Fig 1A; 4), a rotor(Fig 1A; 6) mounted to rotate on a shaft, and a drive assembly for rotating the rotor(a drive assembly to rotate a shaft is well known in the art), the temperature control device (Fig 1A; 2) having a magnetic field source [0032] and a temperature controller(Fig 1A; 8), the temperature controller(Fig 1A; 8) having channels (Fig 11; 44)with a magnetizable material through which a fluid is flowable as a heat transfer medium[0060], the temperature controller (Fig 1A; 8)being at least partially disposed in a magnetic field of the magnetic field source (Fig 1A; 6) and being able to rotate relative thereto in such a manner that the magnetic field varies at each of the channels(Fig 7; [0046]), an increasing magnetic flux of the magnetic field increasing a temperature of the magnetizable material and a decreasing magnetic flux of the magnetic field decreasing a temperature of the material[0041], wherein
the temperature controller (Fig 1A; 8) is selected from at least a first temperature controller made of at least a first material having a first Curie temperature and a second temperature controller made of a second material having a second Curie temperature, which differs from the first Curie temperature(Fig 11; [0060])
PNG
media_image1.png
365
539
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
292
413
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
442
439
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, BAHL teaches the temperature control device according to claim 1:
the temperature control device(Fig 1A; 2) is configured in such a manner that the first temperature controller (Fig 11; Tc1) is interchangeable with the second temperature controller (Fig 11; Tc2)and vice versa(shown to be removable in Fig 1A).
Regarding claim 8, BAHL teaches the temperature control device according to claim 1:
the temperature control device (Fig 1A; 2)comprises a fluid circuit with a transporting means for circulating the fluid and a heat exchanger (Fig 2; 18)for dissipating thermal energy of the fluid, the drive assembly comprising at least one electric motor(a drive assembly with a motor to rotate a shaft is well known in the art).
PNG
media_image4.png
301
470
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, BAHL teaches the temperature control device according to claim 1:
the rotor (Fig 1A; 6) comprises the temperature controller and the stator comprises (Fig 1A; 4)the magnetic field source or vice versa[0032].
Regarding claim 10, BAHL teaches the temperature control device according to claim 1:
the temperature controller is a bushing(Fig 1A shows temp controller 8 sliding like a bushing onto the bed 4), and the magnetic field source (Fig 1A; 6)is disposed inside and/or outside of the bushing coaxially relative to the bushing(Fig 1A; 8), the magnetic field source (Fig 1A; 6)being formed by at least one permanent magnet [0032] or electromagnet.
Regarding claim 11, BAHL teaches the temperature control device according to claim 1:
materials having different Curie temperatures [0060]are disposed in a sequence in the flow direction of the fluid along the channels(shown in Fig 11).
Additionally, 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 a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 .
Regarding claim 12, BAHL teaches the temperature control device according to claim 11:
the materials are disposed along a circumference of the temperature controller with different Curie temperatures in a sequence(shown in Fig 11[0060]).
Additionally, 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 a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 .
Regarding claim 13, BAHL teaches the temperature control device according to claim 11:
the bushing is composed of at least two rings(4 rings), whose respective materials have different Curie temperatures(shown in Fig 11[0060]).
Additionally, 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 a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 .
Regarding claim 14, BAHL teaches the temperature control device according to claim 1:
the material exhibits a gradient of a Curie temperature in the flow direction of the fluid along the channels(shown in Fig 11[0060]).
Additionally, 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 a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 .
Regarding claim 17, BAHL teaches the temperature control device according to claim 1:
the material forms temperature control elements (Fig 1A; 8)which are disposed on the channels(Fig 11; 44) or which at least partially or completely form the channels(Fig 11; 44) (only the channels are described as magnetocaloric material).
Additionally, 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 a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 .
Regarding claim 18, BAHL teaches the temperature control device according to claim 17:
the temperature control elements (Fig 1A; 8)are produced by additive manufacturing, powder injection molding, metal powder extrusion or laser melting.
The Examiner points out the limitation of “the temperature control elements are produced by additive manufacturing, powder injection molding, metal powder extrusion or laser melting.” in claim 18, is considered as a product-by-process limitation. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777F, 2d 659, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2113
Regarding claim 19, BAHL teaches:
A modular system for producing a temperature control device according to claim 1,
the modular system comprising the temperature control device(Fig 1A; 2) comprising a stator(Fig 1A; 4), a rotor (Fig 1A; 6)mounted to rotate on a shaft, and a drive assembly for rotating the rotor(a drive assembly to rotate a shaft is well known in the art), the temperature control device having a magnetic field source(Fig 1A; 6), the modular system comprising a set of temperature controllers(Fig 1A; 8), the set of temperature controllers (Fig 1A; 8)comprising at least a first temperature controller and a second temperature controller(Fig 11; [0060]), the first temperature controller comprising a first magnetizable material having a first Curie temperature and the second temperature controller comprising a second magnetizable material having a second Curie temperature[0060], which differs from the first Curie temperature, the temperature control device being selectively provided with the first temperature controller or the second temperature controller(Fig 11; [0060]).
Regarding claim 20, BAHL teaches:
A method for producing a temperature control device(Fig 1A; 2), that is a magnetocaloric cooling device[abstract], the temperature control device (Fig 1A; 2) comprising a stator(Fig 1A; 4), a rotor(Fig 1A; 6) mounted to rotate on a shaft, and a drive assembly for rotating the rotor(a drive assembly to rotate a shaft is well known in the art), the temperature control device (Fig 1A; 2) having a magnetic field source [0032] and a temperature controller(Fig 1A; 8), the temperature controller(Fig 1A; 8) having channels (Fig 11; 44)with a magnetizable material through which a fluid is flowable as a heat transfer medium[0060], the temperature controller (Fig 1A; 8)being at least partially disposed in a magnetic field of the magnetic field source (Fig 1A; 6) and being able to rotate relative thereto in such a manner that the magnetic field varies at each of the channels(Fig 7; [0046]), an increasing magnetic flux of the magnetic field increasing a temperature of the magnetizable material and a decreasing magnetic flux of the magnetic field decreasing a temperature of the material[0041], wherein
the temperature controller (Fig 1A; 8) is selected from at least a first temperature controller made of at least a first material having a first Curie temperature and a second temperature controller made of a second material having a second Curie temperature, which differs from the first Curie temperature(Fig 11; [0060]).
Regarding claim 21, BAHL teaches:
A method of using a refrigerant as a heat transfer medium of a temperature control device (Fig 1A; 2)according to claim 1, the method comprising changing a phase of the refrigerant within the temperature control device[0032-0035].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 3-7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAHL (US 20110239662 A1) in view of UCHIKADO (WO 2019130883 A1).
In regards to claim 3, BAHL teaches the temperature control device according to claim 1.
BAHL does not teach:
the channels run in an axial direction of the shaft and each form an entry opening for the fluid at an axial end of the temperature controller and an exit opening for the fluid at an opposite axial end.
UCHIKADO teaches:
the channels (Fig 1; 2) run in an axial direction of the shaft and each form an entry opening(Fig 1; O1) for the fluid at an axial end of the temperature controller and an exit opening (Fig 1; O2)for the fluid at an opposite axial end.
PNG
media_image5.png
223
778
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BAHL by making the channel entry and exit are on opposite axial ends as taught by UCHIKADO, in order to simplify the flow path of the refrigerant.
Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of making the entry and exit on axially opposite ends since, rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
In regards to claim 4, BAHL in view of UCHIKADO teaches the temperature control device according to claim 3:
a distributor (Fig 1A; 10) configured to control the flow of the fluid through the channels (Fig 11; 44) is disposed on at least one axial end[0034-0035].
In regards to claim 5, BAHL in view of UCHIKADO teaches the temperature control device according to claim 4:
a flow of fluid through first channels is interruptable and a flow of fluid through second channels is releasable(flow distributor controls where fluid flows in magnetocaloric bed [abstract]), the interruption taking place when the first channels move into the magnetic field and/or out of the magnetic field[0007, 0017].
In regards to claim 6, BAHL in view of UCHIKADO teaches the temperature control device according to claim 4:
a flow of fluid through the channels(Fig 11; 44) is able to be continuous when the channels move into the magnetic field and out of the magnetic field[0017].
In regards to claim 7, BAHL in view of UCHIKADO teaches the temperature control device according to claim 6:
the distributor (Fig 1A; 10) connects adjacent channels in such a manner that the channels and the distributor together at least partially form meanders along a circumference [0034-0035]of the temperature controller(Fig 1A; 8).
In regards to claim 15, BAHL teaches the temperature control device according to claim 1.
BAHL does not teach:
a Curie temperature at an entry opening and a Curie temperature at an exit opening for the fluid on the temperature controller exhibit a difference in temperature of at least 4 K.
UCHIKADO teaches:
a Curie temperature at an entry opening and a Curie temperature at an exit opening for the fluid on the temperature controller exhibit a difference in temperature of at least 4 K(shown in Fig 5).
PNG
media_image6.png
287
626
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BAHL by using the material as taught by UCHIKADO, in order to make the temperature difference greater that 4 K, thus gradually changing temperature.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAHL (US 20110239662 A1) in view of BENEDICT (US 9797630 B2).
In regards to claim 16, BAHL teaches the temperature control device according to claim 1.
BAHL does not teach:
the material consists of a mixture of materials composed of lanthanum (La), iron (Fe), silicon (Si), cobalt (Co) and/or other components.
UCHIKADO teaches:
the material consists of a mixture of materials composed of lanthanum (La), iron (Fe), silicon (Si), cobalt (Co) and/or other components[Col 10; 27-39].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BAHL by using the lanthanum as taught by BENEDICT, in order to accommodate such ambient temperature changes and to provide the desired temperature[Col 9; 40-52 BENEDICT].
Additionally, 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 a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 .
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS L SETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-3021. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-5pm EST.
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, Oluseye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270-5112. 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.
/N.L.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights