DETAILED ACTION
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 1-20 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 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.
While the applicant has support for attachment of the extinguisher valve directly upstream or downstream of a heat exchanger (see Figs. 2-3) there is no support for attachment of the extinguisher valve simultaneously upstream and downstream as required by the newly amended independent claims.
No support could be located in the specification for such a device.
“Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation in the application as filed.” MPEP 2163.04(I)(B).
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are 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. The claims are identical to each other. 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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 10-11, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2023/0052320) in view of EP 997330 (‘330).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-4, Kim teaches a distribution device for a thermal management system comprising: a component configured to handle a heat exchange fluid (120 or 140); an extinguisher valve (130) connected with the component so that the heat exchange fluid can flow therebetween; the fluid is a fire suppressant (Para. [0072]); the extinguisher valve is configured to selectively release the heat exchange fluid into ambient (through 200 via 240); the component may comprise a heat exchanger (120 or 140) with the extinguisher valve connected directly upstream (of 140) or downstream (120) of the heat exchanger; the device has multiple inlets and outlets (each element 120, 130, 140 has at least one inlet and one outlet).
Kim does not specify that the refrigerant is CO2.
‘330 teaches that CO2 is a commonly used refrigerant in vehicular operations and it is known to utilize its fire suppressant qualities in emergencies directly from the cooling system including release to the ambient to suppress a fire by directing the coolant at the fire (Fig. 1; 20a; “Since the carbon dioxide gas (CO.sub.2 gas) has a high fire-extinguishing ability, the fragile portion is preferably formed in the vicinity of an area in the engine room where a fire tends to be induced. More preferably, the fragile portion is faced to such area.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize CO2 in the device of Kim as it is a well-known coolant with the desired properties, per ‘330.
Kim further teaches that: the fluid is released in a specific direction (at 210), per claim 2; the component includes an accumulator for the heat exchange fluid (150), per claim 5; the component includes a plate heat exchanger (120 or 140), per claim 6; the extinguisher valve includes a housing with a housing inlet (in this case the inlet to the “valve” in Fig. 1) and an extinguisher outlet (the outlet connected to 310) for egressing the fluid to the ambient (see Para. [0059]), per claim 7; the extinguisher outlet directs the egressed heat exchange fluid away from the distribution device (to 310), per claim 10; the housing includes a housing outlet (connected to 310) with an outlet fluid line (310) configured to convey the fluid downstream from the distribution device, per claim 11.
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches a distribution device for a thermal management system comprising: a component configured to handle a heat exchange fluid (100); an extinguisher valve (130) connected with the component so that the heat exchange fluid can flow therebetween; the fluid is a fire suppressant (Para. [0072]); the extinguisher valve is configured to selectively release the heat exchange fluid into ambient (via through 200 via 240); the component may be a heat exchanger (120 or 140) with the extinguisher valve mounted directly upstream (140) or downstream (120).
Kim does not specify that the refrigerant is CO2.
‘330 teaches that CO2 is a commonly used refrigerant in vehicular operations and it is known to utilize its fire suppressant qualities in emergencies directly from the cooling system including release to the ambient to suppress a fire by directing the coolant at the fire (Fig. 1; 20a; “Since the carbon dioxide gas (CO.sub.2 gas) has a high fire-extinguishing ability, the fragile portion is preferably formed in the vicinity of an area in the engine room where a fire tends to be induced. More preferably, the fragile portion is faced to such area.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize CO2 in the device of Kim as it is a well-known coolant with the desired properties and to aim it at a heat source (fire), per ‘330.
Regarding claims 19-20, Kim further teaches that the heat source is a battery (210)
Claim(s) 8 and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of ‘330 and Hamada (US 2022/0090700).
Regarding claims 8 and 12-17, the extinguisher valve of Kim (“valve” in Fig. 1) is a three-way expansion valve (see Para. [0059]) but does not have its internal mechanisms discussed.
Hamada teaches that three-way expansion valves (see Fig. 4) may include a diverter configured to assume any rotational position (i.e. any degree orientation from 0-360; see Para. [0100] and Fig. 4) including fully or partially blocking two outlets (114a and 114b) or all inlets and outlets (i.e. when the opening 161a is aligned with 114c); this includes a first position in which the diverter prevents flow between the inlet and one of the outlets (corresponding to the extinguisher outlet; i.e. when 161a is not aligned with 114a), per claim 12; a second position enabling flow with the outlet (corresponding to the extinguisher outlet; i.e. when 161 is aligned with 114a), per claim 13; a third position enabling flow between the inlet and a different outlet (corresponding to the housing outlet, i.e. connected to 150 in Fleming; when 161a is aligned with 114b in Hamada) and preventing flow through the one outlet (e.g. Fig. 4), per claim 14; a fourth position partly enabling flow between the inlet and different outlet (corresponding to the housing outlet in Fleming) and preventing flow to the one outlet (extinguisher outlet in Fleming; position is slightly more rotated counterclockwise than the range W1 in Fig. 4), per claim 15; in the first position of claim 12 above the diverter prevents flow between the two outlets (e.g. Fig. 4), per claim 16; in the second position of claim 13 above the diverter prevents flow between the inlet and housing outlet (fully closes off the housing outlet, i.e. the opening 161a is completely aligned with 114a; see Fig. 4), per claim 17; furthermore, the device of Hamada is a rotary type valve (Fig. 4), per claim 8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Kim with the valve of Hamada, as the details of construction of such a valve were left entirely to one of ordinary skill.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of ‘330 and Pereira (US 2015/0075212).
Kim, as modified, does not specify the mechanisms of the valve (“valve” in Fig. 1).
Pereira teaches that such three-way valves are known to be rectilinear (see Figs. 2-4).
It would have been obvious to form the valve in Kim in any manner known in the art, including rectilinearly a la Pereira, as such decisions have been left entirely to one of ordinary skill by Kim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because they are entirely directed to the newly entered limitations which have been addressed on the record above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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