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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to the reply filed on June 11, 2026.
Receipt and entry of the amended abstract and of the amendments to the claims filed on June 11, 2026 are acknowledged.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 through 20 are pending. Of these, claims 4, 5, and 16 through 20 have been amended, whereas all of the remaining pending claims all are as originally filed. Claims 14 and 15 remain withdrawn as explained in greater detail below.
Response to Arguments
As noted by applicant in the Remarks section of the reply filed on June 11, 2026, the abstract has been amended in an attempt to address the previously cited informalities. However, the amended abstract still contains informalities as noted in greater detail below in the section related to the specification.
As noted by applicant in the Remarks section of the reply filed on June 11, 2026, the claims have been amended to address the objections and the indefiniteness rejections of the claims as cited in the previous Office action. The amendments to the claims have therefore obviated both the objections and the indefiniteness rejections of the claims as set forth in the previous Office action.
All of the remaining applicant's arguments filed on June 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks filed on June 11, 2026, applicant has stated that the term “mixing device” as used in the claims is not intended to invoke a means-plus-function interpretation, further offering that this term “particularly when read in light of the specification, is recognizable by a person having ordinary skill in the art and the specification and drawings provide sufficient detail so that this term would be understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning for a structure”, and then points to page 10 through 12 of the specification as providing “various examples and description of the structure and operation of a ‘mixing device’ that is more than sufficient for a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that said term has a sufficiently definite meaning as a name for a structure”. However, applicant’s aforementioned remarks are not clear in that they seem to argue against non-existent rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and/or under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on the use of the term “mixing device”.
In response to applicant’s aforementioned remarks, the examiner notes that, first of all, the Claim Interpretation section of the previous Office action clearly refers only to claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and not to any rejections under any section of 35 U.S.C. 112(f). There is nothing objectionable about the term “mixing device” as used in the claims of the instant application. As applicant has pointed out, the original specification is both enabling and clear with regard to the scope of protection associated with and sought by the term “mixing device”. Also, as noted in the aforementioned section of the previous Office action, the term “mixing device” is properly interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) “to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof” given that the term “device” is a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language (i.e., “mixing”) without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and without being preceded by a structural modifier. The term “mixing device” is definitely proper for use in the claims to include all of the equivalents as disclosed in the original specification in the sections and as pointed out by applicant’s remarks. Applicant’s remarks, however, have not presented any evidence that the claim limitation “mixing device” is, for example, an art-recognized term clearly associated with the structures described in the original specification to avoid an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); on the contrary, an art-recognized use of the term “mixing device” would NOT equate this term with a tube as noted in the instant specification. Applicant’s remarks are therefore not persuasive and the current claim interpretation of the term “mixing device” as set forth in the previous Office action and as repeated hereinbelow is maintained.
Applicant has argued that Mohlin et al. does not disclose or suggest the features recited by the examined claims.
Applicant has stated, for example, that main circuit 1 and each of the sub-circuits 7, 12 share common tubing, in which coolant flows may mix. This common tubing (i.e., mixing device 42) referenced by applicant’s aforementioned remarks is in the form of a tube, and therefore appears to be identical to applicant’s inventive mixing device 50 as described in the specification and as shown in the drawings of the instant application.
Applicant has also stated that Mohlin et al. “fails to disclose a valve arrangement (as in claim 1) configured to control a mix of (i) coolant from the supply circuit and (ii) recirculated coolant from the load circuit, in a coolant flow provided to the cooling load heat exchanger, or (as in claim 16) controlling a valve arrangement to vary a mix of (i) coolant from the supply circuit and (II) recirculated coolant from the load circuit, in a coolant flow provided to the cooling load heat exchanger”. Applicant then states that the ”rejection appears to refer to the three-way valve 26 of the main circuit as a valve arrangement equivalent to that claimed” but that this “appears to be incorrect” because there is no mention or reference to the valve 26 in Mohlin et al. in this regard. In response, the examiner notes that the instant disclosure specifies that “the valve arrangement 40 comprises a three-way valve 40” (i.e., see page 13, lines 4-5 of the instant specification) while Mohlin et al. also specifies that a three-way valve 26 controls coolant flow through two parallel portions of a load circuit (i.e., see at least paragraph [0047] and Figures 1, 4, and 5), with one of the parallel portions inherently being a bypass to the other as disclosed by Mohlin et al. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive in this regard as well.
Applicant further argues that “there is no valve arrangement in Mohlin for controlling a mix between those separate sources of coolant flow in the main circuit and any of the sub-circuits”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show these certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a valve arrangement for controlling a mix between those separate sources of coolant flow in the main circuit and any of the subcircuits) are not recited in the rejected claims as such. 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). Additionally, the aforementioned arguments relate to an intended use of the claimed invention. In response to applicant's arguments, it is therefore further noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Applicant has failed to specify any structural differences between the claimed invention and the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. And, in the instant case, the same structure (i.e., a three-way valve 26) in the prior art reference which is similarly positioned as in the inventive apparatus as claimed inherently can perform the intended use at least as broadly interpreted as required for pending claims.
Alternately stated, applicant has merely restated multiple times that there is no valve arrangement in the system of Mohlin that can be used to control a mix of coolant (i.e., as recited in the pending claims without ever pointing out which particular structure is necessarily encompassed by the “valve arrangement” of the instant application as claimed and as disclosed (i.e., see page 13, lines 4-5 of the instant specification) that is in any way structurally different from the three-way valve that the instant disclosure specifies. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive in this regard as well.
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., “decoupling the flow rate through the cooling load heat exchanger 32 from the flow rate in the mixing device, with associated advantages as discussed for example in the second paragraph of page 15 of the application”) 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).
Applicant further argues that “with respect to claim 7, the rejection appears to consider the first sub-circuit 7 of Mohlin to be a bypass line from the second sub-circuit 12” but that “the first sub-circuit 7 is parallel to the second sub-circuit 12 and therefore could not be a bypass line from it”. However, applicant’s aforementioned remarks rely on an overly broad interpretation of the pending claims, contrary to that which is required for pending claims. In actuality, every parallel flow arrangement can and is inherently a bypass arrangement because bypass flow arrangements are inherently parallel flow arrangements or else they cannot be bypasses. Furthermore, just because a parallel portion of a circuit is not labeled as a bypass circuit does not mean that it is incapable of functioning as such. Applicant’s remarks and conclusions are again found to be unpersuasive by the examiner.
Applicant further argues that how the three-way valve 26 of Mohlin et al. can control a split of flow and furthermore that “the valve 26 has absolutely no control, not even indirectly, over how much coolant flows into either the first sub-circuit 7 or the second sub-circuit 12” and that “only the pumps 17 and 18 control the flow” in the respective sub-circuits. In response, the examiner notes that, contrary to applicant’s assertions, Mohlin et al. quite clearly and expressly states that three-way valve 26 is “a directing valve” and is “provided for controlling coolant flow to the radiator 4 and the heater 5 and the cooler 6” (i.e., see paragraph [0047] of Mohlin et al.), where radiator 4, heater 5, and cooler 6 are disposed in respective subcircuits of the inventive system of Mohlin et al. as clearly shown in at least Figures 1 and 3 through 5. Again, applicant’s arguments are found to be unpersuasive.
Therefore, applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicant's arguments, taken as a whole, seem to amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Election/Restriction
Claims 14 and 15 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected second species or the embodiment of Figure 2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without proper traverse in the reply filed on December 1, 2025.
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 amended abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not avoid phrases which can be implied (i.e., “is provided”, in each of the first and the last sentences of the amended abstract). 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 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.
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: “mixing device” in claims 1, 7 through 13, and 16 through 20.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5 through 8,10, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mohlin et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0055502 A1; made of record via IDS).
With regard to claim 1 of the instant application, Mohlin et al. (especially Figure 4, for example) discloses a heat exchange system for providing cooling by circulating a coolant, the heat exchange system comprising: a supply circuit 1 for circulating the coolant comprising: a coolant supply heat exchanger 4 for rejecting heat from the coolant to provide a supply of chilled coolant; a supply pump 3 for circulating the coolant in the coolant supply circuit 1; a load circuit 12 for circulating the coolant, comprising: a cooling load heat exchanger readable on the coolant flow line through component 13 configured to transfer heat from the component 13 to the coolant; a load pump 18 for circulating the coolant in the load circuit 12; a mixing device 42 which is configured to form part of each of the supply circuit 1 and the load circuit 12; and a valve arrangement 26 configured to control a mix of (i) coolant from the supply circuit 1 and (ii) recirculated coolant from the load circuit 12, in a coolant flow provide to the cooling load heat exchanger.
With regard to claim 2 of the instant application, Mohlin et al. discloses the heat exchange system of claim 1, wherein the mixing device 42 comprises a supply circuit inlet for receiving chilled coolant from the supply circuit 1; a supply circuit outlet for providing coolant to the supply circuit 1 for recirculation to the coolant supply heat exchanger 4; a load circuit inlet for receiving coolant from the load circuit 12; a load circuit outlet for providing coolant to the load circuit 12 for heat transfer at the cooling load heat exchanger at component 13 (i.e., all as shown in Figure 4; also see paragraph [0060] which specifies the end points of the mixing device 42).
With regard to claim 5 of the instant application, Mohlin et al. discloses the heat exchange system of claim 2 wherein the mixing device 42 has two opposing ends and a flow pathway between the two opposing ends of the mixing device 42, wherein the supply circuit inlet and the load circuit outlet are relatively closer to a first end of the mixing device, and wherein the supply circuit outlet and the load circuit are relatively closer to the opposing second end of the mixing device (i.e., all as shown in Figure 4; also see paragraph [0060] which specifies the end points of the mixing device 42).
With regard to claim 6 of the instant application, Mohlin et al. discloses the heat exchange system of claim 1, wherein the mixing device 42 is in the form of a tube as shown in Figure 4 at least.
With regard to claim 7 of the instant application, Mohlin et al. discloses the heat exchange system of claim 1, wherein the load circuit 12 comprises a bypass line 7 for recirculation of coolant within the load circuit 12 without passing through the mixing device 42.
With regard to claim 8 of the instant application, Mohlin et al. discloses the heat exchange system of claim 7, wherein the valve arrangement 26 (at least broadly interpreted as required for pending claims; i.e., indirectly) is configured to control the mix of coolant provided to the cooling load heat exchanger to (a) the bypass line 7 and (b) the mixing device 42 via a return line of the load circuit 12.
With regard to claim 10 of the instant application, Mohlin et al. discloses the heat exchange system of claim 7, wherein the valve arrangement 26 comprises a three-way valve (as shown in Figure 4) configured to control a split of flow received from the cooling load heat exchanger to (i) the bypass line 7 and (ii) the mixing device 42 via the coolant supply heat exchanger 4 (i.e., at least broadly interpreted as required for pending claims).
With regard to claim 11 of the instant application, Mohlin et al. discloses the heat exchange system of claim 1, comprising a controller or control unit 21 configured to control at least one of the valve arrangement 26 and the load pump 18 to meet a cooling demand of the cooling load heat exchanger within component 13 (i.e., see dashed control lines in Figure 4).
With regard to claim 16 of the instant application, Mohlin et al. discloses a method of operating a heat exchange system having a supply circuit 1 and a load circuit 12, comprising: operating a supply pump 3 of the supply circuit 1 to circulate coolant in the supply circuit 1 including through a coolant supply heat exchanger 4 to reject heat from the coolant and to provide coolant to a mixing device 42 at a supply flow rate, the mixing device 42 forming a part of each of the supply circuit 1 and the load circuit 12 (i.e., as shown in at least Figure 4); operating a load pump 18 of the load circuit 12 to circulate coolant in the load circuit 12 including through a cooling load heat exchanger via component 13 at a cooling flow rate; and, controlling a valve arrangement 26 to vary a mix of (i) coolant from the supply circuit 1 and (ii) recirculated coolant from the load circuit 12, in a coolant flow provided to the cooling load heat exchanger (i.e., at least as broadly interpreted as required for pending claims; also see the dashed control lines in at least Figure 4).
The reference thus reads on the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 9, 12, 13, and 17 through 19 are 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: the prior art of record does not show nor reasonably suggest the particular heat exchange control features as recited in each of claims 4, 9, 12, 13, and 17 through 19.
Conclusion
The additional prior and/or related art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LJILJANA V CIRIC whose telephone number is (571)272-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Saturday, flexible.
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.
/Ljiljana V. Ciric/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
LJILJANA (Lil) V. CIRIC
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights