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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 6 and 8 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.
Claims 1, 6, 7-8 and 14 are objected to, because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 1, “comprises” should be “comprising”.
In claim 5 line 3, “at the at least” should be “with at least”
In claim 6, line 3, “is connected” should be “connected” and in line 6, “each the evaporator” should be “each evaporator”.
In Claim 7, line 3, “is configured” should be “configured”.
In Claim 8, lines 2 and 3, “each the coolant branch” should be “each coolant branch”.
In claim 14, line 3, “comprises” should be “comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 7 and 11-14 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because it is not clear if “a coolant” in line 6 is the same as “coolant” in line 3 of claim 7.
The term “normal temperature” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “normal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they claim a second fan, but parent claims 1, 5 and 6 do not teach a first fan.
Claim 14 lacks antecedent basis for the 2 ends of the pipe as it is not previously disclosed that the pipe only has 2 ends.
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: cooling module in claims 1, 3-7 and 10.
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 § 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 (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 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 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huai (CN114889394) in view of Zhang (CN 110425156).
Regarding claim 1, given that “cooling module” is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) in the context of the rejection it will be construed as that described in the specification. Huai teaches an energy storage thermal management system, comprising a refrigeration module “assembly” configured to circulate refrigerant (Huai, 0062). The refrigeration module comprises a compressor for compression of refrigerant and a condenser to cool the refrigerant (Huai, 0005), the condenser is connected to the compressor (Huai, 0050). The thermal management system is arranged with throttling element (Huai, 0010) and configured to dissipate heat from at least one target equipment (Huai, 0005). Huai’s thermal management system differs from the present invention in not having the refrigeration module comprising an air-floating centrifugal compressor. However, Zhang teaches an air-floating centrifugal air compressor that can be used in a cooling system. The centrifugal air compressor has an integrated design that reduces the overall size and weight, provides enhanced compression ratio and carries all benefits of an oil free bearing compressor, reducing mechanical loss and improving overall service life (Zhang, 0024-0028). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Huai’s refrigeration module to include Zhang’s centrifugal air compressor to obtain the above cited benefits.
Regarding claim 2, Huai and Zhang, as applied in claim 1, teach an energy storage thermal management system comprising a refrigeration module with a bypass valve connected between the inlet and the exhaust port of the compressor (Huai; 19, FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Huai and Zhang, as applied in claim 1, teach an energy storage thermal management system, comprising an evaporator arranged with at least one target equipment and is connected with a condenser and compressor (Huai, 0005). The evaporator is further arranged with a throttling element “valve” (Huai, 0010).
Regarding claim 7, Huai and Zhang, as applied in claim 1, teach an energy storage thermal management system configured to circulate coolant to cool at least one target equipment, and the coolant circuit comprises at least one water pump and an intermediate heat exchange device (Huai, 0013). The integration of the refrigeration module and the coolant circuit respectively, realize a heat exchange between a coolant and a refrigerant, so that the refrigerant can cool the coolant (Huai, 0066).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huai (CN114889394) and Zhang (CN 110425156), as applied to claim 1 in view of Lu (CN115207520).
Regarding claim 4 Huai and Zhang teach all the limitations of claim 1 but do teach a cooling plate arranged with a target equipment (battery) for heat management. Lu teaches a battery cooling plate being part of a thermal management assembly of a battery (Lu, 0014). Lu’s thermal management assembly differs from the present invention in only having one cooling plate on one side of the target equipment. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the thermal management system of Lu’s to include a cooling plate on each side as a known means of heat management in the battery art of temperature regulation as taught by Lu. It has been held that a duplication of parts is obvious unless an unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04 VI B). In this case the use of a second cooling plate gives the expected result of greater cooling efficiency. Flowing the fluid in the opposite direction would be obvious to try form the limited set of same direction, opposite direction or at an angle to the first direction (KSR rationale E)
Claim 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huai (CN114889394) and Zhang (CN 110425156), as applied to claim 1 in view of Gu (CN113580871).
Regarding claim 9 Huai and Zhang teach all the limitations of claim 1 but do not teach a throttling element that comprises an electronic expansion valve. Gu teaches an electronic expansion valve in a thermal management system as means of controlling refrigerant flow. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the thermal management system of Huai and Zhang as applied in claim 1, to substitute the economizer throttle valve of Huai with the electronic expansion valve of Gu, as known method of controlling the flow of refrigerant in a thermal management system.
Regarding claim 10 Huai and Zhang teach all the limitations of claim 1 but do not teach a temperature and pressure sensor in the thermal management system. Gu teaches sensors to report temperature and pressure information of coolant and refrigerant in a thermal management system (Gu, 0055). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the thermal management system of Huai and Zhang as applied in claim 1, to include temperature and pressure sensors as known means of reporting operational parameters in a thermal management system as taught by Gu.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Huai and Zhang teach all the limitations of claim 1 and 5 but do not teach a first fan arranged with the condenser and a second fan arranged with the evaporator. Gu teaches a first fan arranged with a condenser (Gu, 0011 & 0053) and an evaporator arranged with a fan (Gu, 0050 & FIG. 1), in a thermal management system for heat exchange. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the thermal management system of Huai and Zhang as applied in claim 1 and 5, to include a first fan arranged with a condenser and a second fan arranged with an evaporator as known means of heat transfer in a thermal management system as taught by Gu.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS E VENTURA HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:30 am-4:00 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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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.
/DOUGLAS E VENTURA HERNANDEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights