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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 18 December 2025.
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.
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:
“a separation member” in claim 7, line 2. This element is recited in ¶¶ 20-21 of the specification and although no structure is described in this passage, it is also shown in fig. 3 (with reference numeral 25) where it is illustrated identically to a wall member (31) of the container (30). As such, in accordance with the original disclosure, the “separation member” has been interpreted as a wall of the container and equivalent structures thereto.
“a supply section configured to supply a refrigerant into the container” in claim 17, line 1. Although this element is recited in ¶ 28, the supply section is taught only in terms of its function of supplying refrigerant to the container and the associated structure of a valve disposed between the supply section and the container. Because the specification does not identify the structure of the “supply section”, attention is directed to the rejections of the claim set forth below under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b).
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.
It is noted that the teachings in claim 1 of “a boiling section” (line 3) and “a condensing section” (line 4) both include functional language (“boiling” and “condensing”, respectively) paired with the term “section”, these recitations have not been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because each of these sections is taught to be “arranged in the container”, thus teaching structure for the “sections” as, essentially, “sections of the container” so that in the context of this claim, the term “section” is not found to be a generic non-structural term and interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked.
In contrast, claim 17 has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the word “section” in “a supply section” is not presented as a section of any specific or identifiable element so that in the context to this claim, the word “section” does not convey any structural meaning and is found to be a generic placeholder term and thus invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claim 17 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.
As discussed above, claim 17 teaches “a supply section configured to supply a refrigerant into the container” but the specification does not teach or suggest any structure for this “section” (including what device or system it might be a “section” of) by which the function of supplying refrigerant is performed. For this reason, the specification is not found to provide sufficient written description for this recitation and the claim is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 12 and 17 is 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.
Claim 12 teaches in lines 1-2 “the guide is provided on at least one of the plurality of second heat exchange plates”. The teaching of “the plurality of second heat exchange plates” lacks antecedent basis as neither claim 12 nor any of the previous claims (1, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11) upon which it depends includes any previous teaching of this “plurality of second heat exchange plates”, a teaching which is presented only in claim 9 upon which claim 12 does not depend directly or indirectly. For this reason, it is not clear whether “the plurality of second heat exchange plates” taught in claim 12 requires the specific features and details recited for these plates in claim 9, such as their placement in the condensing section or function in condensing the boiled refrigerant. For this reason, the scope of claim 12 with regard to the second heat exchange plates cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
For purposes of examination, claim 12 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and has not been interpreted as including any of the limitations of claim 9 with regard to the placement or function of the plurality of second heat exchange plates.
As discussed above, claim 17 teaches “a supply section configured to supply a refrigerant into the container” but the specification does not teach or suggest any structure for this “section” (including what device or system it might be a “section” of) by which the function of supplying refrigerant is performed. As such, it cannot be positively ascertained what structure would or would not fall within the scope of the claimed supply section and for this reason claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Further, in lines 1-2, claim 17 teaches the operation of “supply[ing] a refrigerant into the container”. In independent claim 1 upon which the claim depends, there is taught in line 8 “a refrigerant” which moves in the second flow path. Because claim 17 uses “a” rather than “the” or “said” in referring to the refrigerant supplied by the supply section, it is not clear whether this refrigerant is required to be the same as the as the refrigerant recited in claim 1 or if a system in which a different refrigerant is supplied would fall within the scope of the claim. For this reason, the scope of claim 17 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
For purposes of examination, claim 17 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and the scope of the claim is found to include both a system in which the refrigerant from the supply section is the same as the refrigerant in the container and in which it is different from the refrigerant in the container.
PNG
media_image1.png
558
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
512
336
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 1-4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chinese Publication No. 102803887 A to Sakabe et al. An English translation of Sakabe has been provided with this Office Action and citations to specific passages and paragraphs of this reference are directed to this translation rather than to the Chinese-language original document.
Sakabe teaches limitations from claim 1 in figs. 5 and 6, shown above, an air cooling apparatus for cooling air, comprising:
a container (the enclosure of the heat recovery device 20);
a boiling section (heat recovery unit 30, the heat medium in the unit is taught to boil in ¶ 64) arranged in the container (as shown); and
a condensing section (40) arranged in the container (20) and above the boiling section (as shown in fig. 5),
wherein the boiling section (30) includes a separator (the walls of the device which separate the exhaust passages 32 from the heat medium passages, 33, as discussed in ¶ 65) configured to separate a first path (32) through which air of a cooling target moves (exhaust gas from an engine as taught in the Abstract and ¶¶ 49 and 61) and a second path (heat medium passages 33) through which a refrigerant moves (as taught in ¶ 65), the separator including a first heat exchanger (the core 31) configured to cause the air and the refrigerant to exchange heat (for the function of “heat recovery” as taught in ¶ 65), and
the refrigerant boiled in the second path (33 as taught in ¶ 65) by cooling the air (in the path 32) is condensed in the condensing section (40, by contact with cooling water in the LLC tube 42 as taught in ¶ 66 and the Abstract of Sakabe).
Sakabe teaches limitations from claim 2 in figs. 5 and 6, shown above, the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the container (the enclosure of the device 20) supports the boiling section (30 and the condensing section (40, as shown in figs. 5 and 6).
Sakabe teaches limitations from claim 3 in figs. 5 and 6, shown above, the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the condensing section (40) faces the boiling section (30) via a space (the opening 50) in the container (as shown).
Sakabe teaches limitations from claim 4 in figs. 5 and 6, shown above, the apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the refrigerant boiled in the second path (33, as taught in ¶ 65) of the boiling section (30) reaches the condensing section (40) via the space (50, as taught in ¶ 84).
Sakabe teaches limitations from claim 15 in fig. 5, shown above, the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a boiling point of the refrigerant (with some refrigerants suggested in ¶ 64) is lower than a temperature of the air of the cooling target supplied to the boiling section (as the boiling point is taught to be suppressed by a low pressure in ¶ 64 and the refrigerant is taught to be evaporated by heat from the exhausting ¶ 65, teaching the temperature of the exhaust to be higher than the boiling point).
PNG
media_image3.png
456
601
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakabe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 5,737,923 to Gilley et al.
PNG
media_image4.png
324
260
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Sakabe teaches a cooling device in which a refrigerant in a closed loop is evaporated in a heat exchanger in contact with a stream of hot exhaust gas and flows to a condensing section where it is condensed in thermal contact with a cold water pipe and returns to the heat exchanger to be evaporated and repeat the cycle. Sakabe particularly teaches in figs. 3 and 5, shown above, the heat exchanger (31) being structured with channels (33) for the flow of the refrigerant and spaces (32) between these channels for the flow of the hot exhaust gas and further teaches particularly in fig. 3 and ¶ 82 that the spaces (32) include corrugated fins (34b) to increase the surface area over which heat exchange occurs. Sakabe does not teach the heat exchanger being formed with a plurality of heat exchange places arranged to be spaced apart in a vertical direction and a plurality of tubes extending through the plates so that the flow path of the refrigerant is formed in the inner surfaces of the tubes and the flow path of the gas is defined by the outsides of the tubes and the plates. Gilley teaches in fig. 10, shown above, teaches a heat exchanger (240) for exchanging heat between an external gas and an internal refrigerant, the heat exchanger being formed with a plurality of refrigerant tubes (188) passing through a plurality of horizontal fins (242) which are spaced apart vertically (as shown). Although Gilley teaches (e.g. in col. 10, line 66-col. 11, line 15) the use of this heat exchanger as a condensing section of the system of his invention, it is understood that the same structure is applicable to an evaporator and provides the same benefits of increased surface area and thus heat exchange efficiency and capacity and improved fluid flow in each tube. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Sakabe with the tube and plate heat exchanger structure taught by Gilley in order to provide increased surface area for heat exchange while also allowing greater area for fluid flow and providing less risk of blockage and impairment to heat exchange as taught in col. 10, line 66-col. 11, line 15 of Gilley. Further, MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) indicate that the “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” (here, substituting the tube and fin heat exchanger structure taught by Sakabe for the plate and tube structure of Gilley to achieve the benefits taught by Gilley for this structure) is an exemplary rationale for supporting a conclusion of obviousness.
Sakabe as modified by Gilley as discussed above teaches limitations from claim 6, the apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the plurality of tubes (188 of the heat exchanger of Gilley, as applied to the heat exchanger 31 of Sakabe as discussed above) communicate under the plurality of first heat exchange plates (equivalent to the header 82 of Gilley and the recovery space 36a of Sakabe taught in ¶ 84.)
Sakabe as modified by Gilley as discussed above teaches limitations from claim 7, the apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the first heat exchanger (31 of Sakabe) further includes a separation member (the walls separating the channels 32 for the exhaust gas from the channels 33 for the refrigerant) arranged on sides of the plurality of first heat exchange plates (on the edges of the plates 242 of Gilley where they contact the tubes 188 of Gilley/33 of Sakabe) to separate the first path (32) and the second path (33).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakabe as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2007/0193300 A1 to Tilton, et al.
Regarding claims 16, 17, and 18, Sakabe teaches a cooling device in which a refrigerant in a closed loop within a container is evaporated in a heat exchanger in contact with a stream of hot exhaust gas and flows to a condensing section where it is condensed in thermal contact with a cold water pipe and returns to the heat exchanger to be evaporated and repeat the cycle. Sakabe does not teach the system of their invention comprising a pump for exhausting gas from the container as taught in claim 16, or comprising a supply section to supply a refrigerant into the container as taught in claim 17, or comprising a pressure sensor for detecting the pressure of coolant in the container as taught in claim 18.
PNG
media_image5.png
638
468
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Tilton teaches in fig. 1, shown above, and in ¶¶ 28-32, a cooling system (100) in which a two-phase coolant circulates through a cooling module (105) in which it absorbs heat from a heat producing device and is evaporated from a liquid phase to a vapor phase, into a condenser (120) in which it condenses back to the liquid phase and to a reservoir (115) from which it again circulates to the cooling module (105). Tilton teaches this system (100) being provided with an active venting system (125) comprising an auxiliary pump (130) for “causing the venting system 125 to remove and/or add gases into and out of the cooling system 100” as taught in claim 16 and 17, the storage chamber (160) from which the pump (130) pumps gas into the reservoir (115) constituting a “supply section” as taught in claim 17. Tilton further teaches the cooling system (100) having a control system (140) for use in activating the active venting system (125), the control system including a pressure transducer (145) as taught in claim 18, this pressure transducer being used in combination with a temperature transducer (150) for determining the pressure and temperature of the coolant in the system (100) and activating the venting system as needed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Sakabe with the venting system and the pressure sensor used in controlling the operation thereof taught by Tilton in order to maintain an optimal pressure of the coolant in the system to increase the performance and reliability of the system as taught in ¶ 12 of Tilton.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11, 13, and 14 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.
Particularly, claim 8 upon which claims 9-11, 13, and 14 all depend directly or indirectly teaches “the apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the condensing section includes a guide configured to guide the condensed refrigerant to a space between the separation member and a wall member that forms a part of the container.” The prior art of record taken alone or in combination (including references discussed below which are not relied upon in the rejections of the claims set forth above) does not teach or suggest such a guide, particularly including its function of guiding the condensed refrigerant to a space between the separation member and a wall member.
Claim 12 is likewise considered to read over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed combination of features including those found in claim 8 upon which it depends. However, this claim cannot be considered "allowable" at this time due to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office Action. Specifically, claim 12 has been rejected as being indefinite based on the lack of antecedent basis found in its recitation of “the plurality of second heat exchange plates”. Therefore upon the claims being rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office Action, further consideration of this claim with respect to the prior art will be necessary.
PNG
media_image6.png
468
358
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chinese Publication No. 111207612 A to Jiang (a translation of which is included with this Office Action) teaches in fig. 1, shown above, a loop heat tube and heat exchange device having a liquid header (3) and a vapor header (1) connected by a plurality of evaporating channels (2) and condensing channels (4). Jiang teaches that heat is rejected from the vapor header (1) to condenser refrigerant therein and teaches in fig. 1 that the refrigerant in this header (1) is directed to flow into (among others) the far left condensing channel (4) shown in fig. 1, which his formed between an outer wall of the device and an inner wall which separates this channel (4) from a channel gap (5), equivalent to the teachings of claim 8 regarding the condensed refrigerant being guided into “a space between the separation member and a wall member that forms a part of the container”. Jiang does not teach the device comprising a guide arranged in this vapor header (1) or teach any other structure or physical apparatus which might be construed as the guide and which would serve to guide refrigerant to exhibit the flow path and direction described above and in claim 8, appearing to achieve this flow via heat transfer and pressure differences rather than by the action of any specific structure.
US Publication No. 2009/0242174 A1 to McCutchen et al. teaches in fig. 1, shown below, a vapor vortex heat sink in having an evaporating end (3a) and a condensing end (3b) arranged so that a liquid refrigerant in the evaporating end (3a) absorbs heat from a heat source (1) and evaporates to flow into the condensing end (3b) via a vapor space (5) to be condensed and return to the evaporating end (3a) through a condensate space (9).
PNG
media_image7.png
368
474
media_image7.png
Greyscale
McCutchen teaches particularly in ¶ 75 that an annular thrust bearing (10) engages a flange to guide a flow of condensed refrigerant into the condensate space (9). Although this bearing and/or flange may be taken as a guide similar to that claimed in claim 8, the condensate space (9) is not equivalent to “a space between the separation member and a wall member” taught in this claim as, while the outer wall of the condensate space is equivalent to the wall member, McCutchen does not teach or suggest air flow paths through the condensate or vapor spaces such that any element would be equivalent to the “separation member” taught in claim 8 (and claim 7 from which it depends).
Further, the structures of Sakabe and McCutchen differ greatly enough that it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to integrate such a separator and/or flange into the device of Sakabe and it is not clear that such integration would result in the structure of the claimed invention as it does not address the return path (60) already provided in the system and figures of Sakabe (which also fails to teach the limitations of claim 8).
PNG
media_image8.png
536
252
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Similar to McCutchen, US Publication No. 2019/0011196 A1 to Hoshino et al. teaches in fig. 2A, shown above, a heat pipe (10) in which condensing space (31, within box 30) contains a plurality of cooling plates (36A, shown in fig. 2A to be spaced apart both horizontally (in two vertical columns) and vertically (in three horizontal levels) and to guide condensed refrigerant (11) into a flow path (51) to be returned to an evaporating end (at the lower end of the heat pipe 10 as shown in fig. 2A). The path (51) cannot be taken as being equivalent to, or as suggesting “a space between the separation member and a wall member that forms a part of the container” taught in claim 8 because it is formed entirely internal to the walls of the heat pipe (outer tube 20) so that no wall of this space “forms a part of the container”. Further, as with McCutchen, the structure of Hoshino is such that no wall adjacent to the space (51) represents the claimed “separation member” between a refrigerant path and an air flow path and that it would not be obvious to modify Hoshino with such features or modify Sakabe in view of the teachings of Hoshino to place the space (51) in such a way.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C COMINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 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, 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.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763