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 .
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, the “sphere”, “cylinder”, and “cube” shapes recited in claim 6 must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. Furter, the “sieve” recited in claim 7 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation that the “the heated air moving toward the egress and the air directed into the compartment through the ingress are configured to generate a vortex region moving through the compartment.” However, the specification does not explain how to achieve the aforementioned functionality (i.e., the vortex air flow), but just provides conclusory and generic statements about the results to be achieved (e.g., see par. [0062], [0064], [0080], [0095], [011]). There is no teaching of any kind of specific structure that would produce the claimed “vortex” airflow. After considering all of the Wands factors (and specifically, that there is no adequate direction provided by the inventor/applicant, no existence of the working examples as per the current record, etc.), the Office has concluded that the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the instant disclosure will be high and undue to a person of the ordinary skill, and therefore, such a person will not be able to make and use the claimed invention without resorting to undue experimentation. See In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Brown, 477 F.2d 946, 177 USPQ 691 (CCPA 1973), and In re Ghiron, 442 F.2d 985, 169 USPQ 723 (CCPA 1971).
All claims dependent from claim 1 (claims 2-10) have been also rejected along with said claim 1, since they inherit aforementioned problems of said claim 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitations: “the compartment has a shape selected from a group consisting of a sphere, a cylinder, or a cube.” There is no support for these limitations in the specification.
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 1-20, 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, 2, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, and 20 on numerous instances (e.g., claim 1, ll. 8 and 11; claim 2, ll. 3 and 4; claim 12, ll. 9 and 14; claim 16, l. 6, claim 20, l. 2, etc.) recite open-ended limitations “configured to” and “operably coupled”. Just because something is “configured to” do something (i.e. is “capable of” doing something), doesn’t actually mean it does it. “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). The Office hereby notes that “configured to” does not explicitly denote how features(s) are constructed and/or associated with other claimed limitations; whereas the claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions. If a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, then the claim may be deemed indefinite. See Ex parte Miyazaki, 2008 WL 5105055 at *5(BPAI Nov. 19, 2008). Further, the “operably coupled” is also open-ended, vague, and indefinite, since it’s not clear what kind of coupling is actually claimed. Applicant is required to amend the aforementioned claims to recite unambiguous and specific limitations instead of the open-ended ones.
Regarding claims 3-5, the claims refer on numerous instances to an electrical standard “NEMA”, which produces indefiniteness, as standards are subject to changes and revisions. A recitation referencing an external document standard (such as “NEMA”) in a claim as a limitation renders the claim indefinite because there is no way of knowing that such a standard will be consistent in the future and remain unchanged. Unforeseeable circumstances or changes may occur at any time to the NEMA policy or resting standards or identifying nomenclature, even if there is no history of such changes until the present. As such, it is unknown whether the scope of the claim(s) would remain consistent and the public may be unable to identify if and when any infringement may or may not occur. Therefore, said claims 3-5 are indefinite.
All remaining dependent claims have been also rejected, since they inherit earlier noted problems of the aforementioned parent claims.
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 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, 7-9, and 11, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2018/020615 A1 to Kitanaka et al. (hereafter “Kitanaka”, cited in IDS; for English translation see US counterpart US 2019/0166729 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 11, Kitanaka discloses (Fig. 1-11): a variable frequency drive (VFD) apparatus (1), comprising: an enclosure(10-40) including a first portion (10a) and a second portion (10b), wherein the first portion is isolated from the second portion by an internal wall (11, 21); one or more internal components (82-86) coupled with the internal wall and at least partially housed in a space defined by the first portion (10a) of the enclosure; and a compartment (10b) defined by the second portion (10b) of the enclosure, wherein the second portion further defines an ingress (13) defined proximate a lower wall of the enclosure or on one or more sides of the enclosure, and an egress (14), the ingress defined in communication with the compartment and configured to direct air outside of the enclosure into the compartment, wherein heat from one or more internal components is dissipated by the air, and heated air is directed out of the compartment through the egress, an further wherein the heated air moving toward the egress and the air directed into the compartment through the ingress are configured to generate a vortex region moving through the compartment (as best understood, the protruding fins (89) will inherently generate some vortex air flow).
Examiner’s Note: Regarding method claim 11, since there are no specific method steps being claimed, just a general process of using of the apparatus, the fact that the structure of the apparatus of the present invention is anticipated by Kitanaka means that the general method for using such a structure is also anticipated by the same reference. The method steps recited in the claim are inherently necessitated by the structure of the apparatus of Kitanaka.
Regarding claim 2, Kitanaka discloses that one or more heat sinks (89) operably coupled with the one or more internal components (82-86) and positioned within the compartment (10b), wherein the ingress (13) is configured to direct air over the one or more heat sinks, and further wherein the second portion of the enclosure is configured to isolate air flowing through the compartment and over the one or more heat sinks from the one or more internal components housed in the space defined by the first portion (10a), (Fig. 9, 10).
Regarding claim 7, Kitanaka discloses a sieve positioned over the ingress and/or egress (see perforations at the ingress (13)).
Regarding claim 9, Kitanaka discloses an exhaust mechanism (6, 20, 62-64) associated with the egress (14), placed on one or more sides of a hood of the enclosure (10-40), and wherein the exhaust mechanism facilitates an exit of the air from the compartment (Fig. 9).
Claims 1, 2, 7-9, and 11, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2019/118352 to Krippner et al. (hereafter “Krippner”; all textual references refer to the specification of the US counterpart patent No. 11191191, cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 11, Krippner discloses (Fig. 4): a variable frequency drive (VFD) apparatus (50, 100, 135), comprising: an enclosure (200) including a first portion (105) and a second portion (210), wherein the first portion is isolated from the second portion by an internal wall (vertical and horizontal walls of the portion (210)); one or more internal components (135) coupled with the internal wall and at least partially housed in a space defined by the first portion (105) of the enclosure; and a compartment (210) defined by the second portion of the enclosure, wherein the second portion further defines an ingress (211) defined proximate a lower wall of the enclosure (200) or on one or more sides of the enclosure (200), and an egress (227), the ingress defined in communication with the compartment and configured to direct air (220) outside of the enclosure (200) into the compartment (210), wherein heat from one or more internal components (135) is dissipated by the air (220), and heated air (222) is directed out of the compartment (210) through the egress (227), an further wherein the heated air (222) moving toward the egress (227) and the air (222) directed into the compartment (210) through the ingress (211) are configured to generate a vortex region moving through the compartment (as best understood, the protruding fins (127) will inherently generate some vortex air flow).
Examiner’s Note: Regarding method claim 11, since there are no specific method steps being claimed, just a general process of using of the apparatus, the fact that the structure of the apparatus of the present invention is anticipated by Krippner means that the general method for using such a structure is also anticipated by the same reference. The method steps recited in the claim are inherently necessitated by the structure of the apparatus of Krippner.
Regarding claim 2, Krippner discloses that one or more heat sinks (125, 127) operably coupled with the one or more internal components (135) and positioned within the compartment (210), wherein the ingress (211) is configured to direct air (220) over the one or more heat sinks, and further wherein the second portion of the enclosure (210) is configured to isolate air (220, 222) flowing through the compartment (210) and over the one or more heat sinks (125, 127) from the one or more internal components (135) housed in the space defined by the first portion (105), (Fig. 9, 10).
Regarding claim 7, Krippner discloses a sieve (215) positioned over the ingress and/or egress.
Regarding claim 9, Krippner discloses an exhaust mechanism (224) associated with the egress (227), placed on one or more sides of a hood of the enclosure (200), and wherein the exhaust mechanism facilitates an exit of the air from the compartment (col. 9, ll. 42-54; Fig. 4).
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 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.
Claims 3-5, and 6, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either Kitanaka or Krippner, each taken alone.
Regarding claims 3-5, Kitanaka or Krippner do not teach specific NEMA ratings for the compartment and second portion.
The Official Notice is taken outside of the current record that NEMA ratings for the electrical enclosures have been notoriously known in the related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided any optimal NEMA ratings for the compartment and second portion in Kitanaka or Krippner, in order to restrict foreign objects (e.g., dust, dirt particles, insects, etc.) from entering internal electronic components, thus enhancing safety and reliability of the installation. Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Examiner’s Note: Since Applicant has failed to seasonably traverse the aforementioned well-known statement (see the non-final Office action in parent application No. 17/182,225), the object of said well-known statement is taken to be admitted prior art. See In re Chevenard, 139 F.2d71, 60 USPQ 239 (CCPA 1943), ("If Applicant does not seasonably traverse the well-known statement during examination, then the object of the well-known statement is taken to be admitted prior art"). MPEP 2144.03 (C).
Regarding claim 6, Kitanaka or Krippner do not specifically disclose that the compartment has a shape selected from a group consisting of a sphere, a cylinder, or a cube.
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any desired optimal shape for the compartment in Kitanaka or Krippner, including as claimed, in order to achieve desired cooling efficiency and space utilization, while not exceeding targeted production costs of the device, since the rational that a particular shape is a design choice may be found in legal precedent. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 10, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either Kitanaka or Krippner, each taken with US 7,436,660 to Pedoeem et al. (hereafter “Pedoeem”, of record, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 10, Kitanaka or Krippner do not teach an enclosure stand to support the enclosure and a mounting bracket.
Pedoeem discloses (Fig. 2) an enclosure (10) and an enclosure stand (not numbered support legs adjacent to the wall (28)) to support the enclosure and form an air gap (30) for improved ventilation (col. 5, ll. 7-12). Further, Pedoeem teaches a mounting bracket (26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the enclosure stand and mounting bracket to support and mount the enclosure of Kitanaka or Krippner, as taught by Pedoeem, in order to facilitate mounting thereof while providing the air gap for improved ventilation (Pedoeem, col. 5, ll. 7-12). Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 12-15, 18, 19, 20, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/118352 to Krippner et al. (hereafter “Krippner”; for English translation see US counterpart US patent No. 11, 191, 191).
Regarding claims 12 and 18-20, Krippner, as best understood, discloses (Fig. 4) an apparatus (100) for housing and cooling a VFD (135), comprising: an enclosure (200) including a first portion defining a space (105) and a second portion defining a compartment (210), wherein the enclosure further includes an upper wall and a lower wall (Fig. 4); an internal divider (vertical and horizontal walls of (210), Fig. 4) integrally formed with the first portion (105) of the enclosure (200) and extending between the upper wall and lower wall of the enclosure and defining an opening (col. 6, ll. 20-32); a VFD (135) positioned within the opening of the internal divider (col. 6, ll. 20-32), wherein a heat sink (125, 127) of the VFD is positioned within the compartment (210); a panel (126) coupled with the VFD and further coupled with the internal divider, wherein the first portion is isolated from the second portion by the internal divider and the panel (col. 6, ll. 57-62); an ingress (211) defined by the second portion of the enclosure and in communication with the compartment (210); a baffle (224) positioned within the compartment (210) and positioned proximate the heat sink (125, 127) of the VFD, the baffle configured to prevent airflow (222) from the compartment toward the ingress (211) (col. 9, ll. 42-54), and an egress (227) defined by the second portion of the enclosure and in communication with the compartment (210), wherein the ingress and the egress are configured to direct air (220, 222) from external of the enclosure through the ingress, over the heat sink of the VFD, and outward of the enclosure through the egress (Fig. 4).
Krippner does not disclose: that the panel including a gasket operably coupled with the panel and configured to abut the heat sink of the VFD to seal the panel and the internal divider.
The Official Notice is taken of the fact outside of the current record that gaskets have been notoriously known and widely used in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for sealing and hermitization purposes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a gasket for the panel of Krippner, so the gasket is operably coupled with the panel and configured to abut the heat sink of the VFD to seal the panel and the internal divider, in order to predictably enhance isolation between the first and second portions of the enclosure, thus enhancing cooling efficiency. Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 13, Krippner discloses that electronic components (135) of the VFD are positioned within the space defined by the first portion (105) of the enclosure (200), (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Krippner discloses that heat from the electronic components (135) of the VFD is dissipated by the air (220) directed over the heat sink (125, 127) of the VFD to create heated air (222) to be directed outward of the enclosure (200), (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, Krippner discloses that the egress (227) is defined by a rear (right) wall of the second portion (210) of the enclosure (200), (Fig. 4).
Conclusion
The additional references made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, because of the teachings of various air cooled electronic and/or electrical arrangements, wherein cooling air flow is indirectly and/or directly cooling the electronic and/or electrical components.
Furthermore, the US 6164369 could have been also used for statutory rejection of the at least independent claims (see Fig. 8).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is (571)272-2047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 pm.
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, Jayprakash N. Gandhi can be reached on 571-272-3740. 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.
/Anatoly Vortman/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2835