DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Braun (US 8,704,076) in view of Gaiser (US 9,954,157), Houfuku (US 8,091,615), and Renavikar (US 7,183,641).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Braun teaches an air conditioning (Col. 2:32-33) module comprising: a thermos electric cell (10) having first and second sides (Col. 6:3-8); a supply air heat exchange tunnel thermally connected to the first side of the cell (15; Fig. 1) at respective heat exchange surfaces of both components, the supply air heat exchange tunnel in use receiving and conditioning air from a room (see Fig. 1);
an extraction air heat exchange tunnel (15’) thermally connected to the second side of the thermoelectric cell (Fig. 1) at an external surface, the extraction air heat exchange tunnel is in use venting unwanted thermal energy (see Fig. 1);
wherein the conditioning duct receives and conditions air from a room (Col. 2:32-33; element 2) and the exhaust duct vents unwanted thermal energy (via 16’).
Braun teaches parallel flow paths with the thermoelectric cell located at a junction of the supply and extraction tunnels, but does not teach cross-flow configurations.
Gaiser teaches that parallel (Fig. 4) and cross-flow (Fig. 5) paths are known art equivalents.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Braun with either the cross or parallel flow path as required by a particular application (e.g. installation space) as such configurations are recognized art equivalents.
Braun does not teach substantially circular cross-section tunnels.
Houfuku teaches a heat exchange tunnel that is substantially circular in cross section (Fig. 4a), comprises a plurality of ribs (23, 24; Fig. 4b) extending from the periphery toward the cross sectional center of the tunnel (Fig. 4b), each rib tapers in cross section as the rib extends from the periphery (Fig. 4b) and adjacent ribs alternate in length between a first (23) and second (24) length (Fig. 4b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to shape the tube of Braun in the circular means with internal ribs, as taught by Houfuku, in order to increase turbulence and thus thermal transfer in the air flow within the tube.
Braun does not specify that the heat exchange surface of the supply air heat exchange tunnel is larger than the heat transfer surface of the first side of the thermoelectric cell.
Renavikar teaches that it is old and well-known to attach chips (114) to heat transfer surfaces (102) which have larger surface areas (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize whatever chip and heat exchange tunnel surfaces readily available on the market, including those of differing surface areas, in order to reduce cost and customization. It is noted that no criticality is provided for the use of differing surface areas in the specification.
Regarding claim 3, Braun does not teach thermal transfer blocks.
Gaiser further teaches that thermal transfer blocks (4, 5, 40+, 50+) are used on both sides of thermoelectric cells (3, 30+) to attach them to air conditioning (1) and exhaust (2) ducts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize thermal transfer blocks, as taught by Gaiser, in the device of Braun in order to normalize the voltage requirements across thermoelectric cells experiencing differing temperatures or temperature gradients.
It is noted that, per the rejection statement above of claim 1 regarding differing surface areas between thermally connected components, Renavikar further teaches that thermal transfer elements (e.g. 106) may be formed such that each end matches the available surface area of the component to which it is attached (e.g. the trapezoidal shape of Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Braun teaches fans (13, 13’) generating air flow through each of the supply (15) and extraction (15’) tunnels.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Braun teaches that the supply air tunnel comprises a return air duct at one end (inlet to 13) to receive air from said room (2; Col. 2:32-33) and a supply air duct at the opposite end (duct outlet 16) to return conditioned air to the room (2; Col. 2:32-33).
Regarding claim 8, Braun does not teach multiple air conditioning and/or exhaust ducts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to increase the number of ducts and/or cells attached to them to increase the capacity of the device as this amounts to a mere duplication of parts.
Regarding claim 10, Gaiser further teaches tunnels arranged at 90 degrees to each other (Fig. 5).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (US 8,704,076) in view of Gaiser, Houfuku, Renavikar, and Fenton.
Braun does not teach that the portion of tunnel walls attached to a thermoelectric cell is thicker than portions which are not.
Fenton teaches that, in system having an air conditioning duct (18) and exhaust duct (15) each comprising side walls (13, 14, 20, 21; and 16, 17, 22, 23; see Fig. 1) with thermoelectric cells (11) attached therebetween (Fig. 1) it is old and well-known to form the sidewalls of each duct attached to the thermoelectric cells (13, 14; and 16, 17) with a greater thickness than the duct sidewalls which do not engage with the thermoelectric cells (20, 21; and 22, 23; see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to form the duct walls of Braun which engage with the thermoelectric cells thicker than the other duct walls, as taught by Fenton, as these portions of the ducts will be the areas of greatest thermal gradient and stress in the device.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun in view of Gaiser, Houfuku, Renavikar, and Poccianti (US 2017/0254550).
Regarding claim 1 Braun teaches that the device may be mounted to a wall (2.1) but does not teach walls forming cavities.
Poccianti teaches that it is old and well-known in building systems to two part walls forming cavities between them.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the wall of Braun with such a wall cavity, as taught by Poccianti, in order to further insulate the system from external influence.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun in view of Gaiser, Houfuku, Poccianti, Renavikar, and McLarty (US 4,463,569).
Regarding claim 16, Braun does not teach the baffle.
McLarty teaches that it is old and well-known in the art to provide a supply air duct (70) with a supply air baffle (72) for directing the conditioned air in a chosen direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide such a baffle to the device of Braun in order to allow for the adjustable direction of conditioned airflow according to the whims of the user, including parallel to a wall.
It is noted that the “circular air flow” recited will depend upon the shape of the room, arrangement of obstacles such as furniture, and other elements which are outside of the scope of the claim. This feature is treated as intended use and, as such, Braun as modified is capable of performing such a function.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun in view of Gaiser, Houfuku, Renavikar, and Bell (US 8,640,466).
Braun does not specify how the tunnels are secured to each other.
Bell teaches that it is old and well-known to secure tunnels (fig. 9b; 954) attached to each other and to either side of a thermoelectric cell (952) by securing elements which comprise spring clips (900a, 900b) and provide a compression force across the area of junction of the thermoelectric cell onto surfaces of the tunnels (Fig. 9) and prevent relative motion of these elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Braun with the spring clips of Bell as such attachments mechanisms are left undiscussed in Braun.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun in view of Gaiser, Houfuku, Renavikar, and Keyes (US 3,267,564).
Braun, as modified by Houfuku, does not specify ribs extending the majority of the internal radius.
Keyes teaches that such rib dimensions are old and well-known (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize rib dimensions chosen to maximize the performance of the particular fluid flowing through the tube, including those of Keyes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments against the combinability of Renavikar and Braun mischaracterize what it means for two pieces of art to be analogous.
In Renavikar, a chip (114) is to be joined to a thermal sink (102) in order to transfer thermal energy between the chip to the source.
In Braun, a chip (10) is joined to a thermal sink (15, 15’) in order to transfer thermal energy between the chip and the sink.
Applicant’s focuses first on the nature of the thermal sink. In Braun, the thermal sink is the solid surface which the chip (10) receives or transfers thermal energy from via air flow within the conduit which the solid surface forms an exterior face of. In Renavikar, the thermal source is again, a chip (114). Renavikar is interested in the material of the thermal sink but very disinterested in the specific structures or functions: “For example, a heat spreader of any shape can be formed as part of or attached to IHS 102 in order to increase the rate of heat dissipation from die 114.” (Col. 6:29-31). In other words, the heat sink of Renavikar can hardly be said to be non-analogous to that of Braun when it encompasses well-known designs such as those of Braun.
Applicant next focuses on the needs addressed in Renavikar to reduce thermal stresses in the joints between a chip and its heat sink and characterizes this as unrelated to the problem of air conditioning. This is not persuasive as the air conditioning problems resolved by the current application are resolved via joints between chips and their heat sinks.
Finally, the applicant states that one of ordinary skill in HVAC arts would not look to integrated circuit packaging for relevant teachings. This is not persuasive as the present applicant has chosen to utilize integrated circuits (the Peltier chips) in order to design the device. An HVAC designer who chooses to work with uncommon materials is not excused from basic knowledge of how to utilize those materials.
Finally, the applicant’s arguments against the reasons for combination are also not persuasive. Braun appears to have supplied no discussion at all regarding the relative dimensions of the devices. It is equally plausible that one of ordinary skill dimensions of the relevant devices differently from each other or the same; such choices were explicitly left to one of ordinary skill. The combined fact that such different dimensioning is old and well-known in the art (as disclosed by Renavikar) and that the question of dimensions was not discussed at all in the base reference supports the examiner’s conclusion that the choice of differing dimensions requires a very low barrier to motivate.
It is not hindsight to choose between two equal options left by the teachings of the prior art just because one of those options is the one chosen by the present applicant.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 Devon Lane whose telephone number is (571)270-1858. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9-4.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571.270.5054. 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.
/DEVON LANE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763