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
Newly submitted claims 8-15 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The new claims 8-15 are directed towards a method of adjusting a temperature of a load, whereas the originally presented invention was an apparatus. The claims lack unity of invention as determined a posteriori. Since claim 1 is rejected based on prior art (see rejection below), there is lack of unity a posteriori, since any feature in claim 1 (be it a single feature or a group of features) is not a technical feature that defines a contribution over the prior art.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 8-15 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 11/25/2025 are as follows:
Claims 7-15 are newly added;
Claims 1-15 are pending;
Claims 8-15 are withdrawn from consideration;
Claims 1-7 are being examined.
Specification
The amended title of the invention was received on 11/25/2025 and is accepted.
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 three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Currently, no claim limitation invokes 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 7 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. New claim 7 recites “a temperature sensor for measuring the temperature of the circulating liquid cooled by the heat exchanger disposed on a downstream side of the heat exchanger on the return passage, and the controller is configured to detect an abnormal temperature of the circulating liquid based on the temperature of the circulating liquid measured by the temperature sensor”. Paragraph 26 of the applicants’ disclosure outlines “In addition, the third temperature sensor 21d can also be used, for example, to detect an abnormal temperature of the circulating liquid and stop the temperature adjustment device 1 in response to the detection and to control the outputs of the heating unit 3 and the cooling unit 4 based on the difference between the temperature of the circulating liquid detected by the third temperature sensor 21d and that detected by the first temperature sensor 20c or the second temperature sensor 20d”. The disclosure in paragraph 26 states that the abnormal state is detected by the temperature sensor 21d and then compared to temperature sensors 20c or 20d, wherein temperature sensor 21d is on the supply line 21 and not the return line as claimed. Thus, the above recited limitation in claim 7 that the abnormal state is determined based on a single temperature sensor on the return line is new matter.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi (US2020/0318861A1, as cited in the IDS) in view of Kitamura (US5914885, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 1. Kikuchi teaches a temperature adjustment device (1) to adjust a temperature of a load (connected at 11, 12) to a target temperature, the temperature adjustment device comprising (Figure 1):
a circulating liquid circuit (3, 4) configured to cyclically deliver (via 11), to the load, circulating liquid returned (via 12) from the load after heat exchange with the load (Figure 1);
a heater (heater 22 and thermal fuse 22c) located in the circulating liquid circuit and configured to heat the circulating liquid in the circulating liquid circuit;
a heat exchanger (45) connected to a heat-dissipating water circuit (6), the heat exchanger located in the circulating liquid circuit and configured to cool the circulating liquid in the circulating liquid circuit (Figure 1); and
a controller (7) configured to control an output of the heater and an output of the heat exchanger, the controller configured to:
input (portion of 7 connected to the sensors) a measured temperature of the load (Figures 1, 4; Paragraph 39; Temperature at 35 will be indicative of the load temperature),
input (7a) the target temperature, serving as a target set temperature, and a target reach time period for the temperature of the load to reach the target set temperature from start of temperature adjustment (Figures 1, 4; Paragraphs 63-71),
control the output of the heater and the output of the heat exchanger such that the measured temperature of the load changes along the target temperature gradient (Figures 1, 4; Paragraphs 63-71).
Kikuchi fails to specifically teach to determine, based on an initial set temperature at the start of temperature adjustment as well as the target set temperature and the target reach time period, a target temperature gradient to the target set temperature.
However, Kitamura teaches an arithmetic unit configured to determine, based on an initial set temperature at the start of temperature adjustment as well as the target set temperature and the target reach time period inputted from the setting input unit, a target temperature gradient to the target set temperature (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 49-65, Column 5 lines 21-35). Kitamura teaches the benefit of the controller is to provide a thermal treatment apparatus that can perform control with high accuracy and with reduced costs (Column 2 lines 26-29).
Therefore, in view of Kitamura's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include an arithmetic unit into the controller of Kikuchi in order to provide precise gradual temperature changes, thereby achieving better temperature control (Kitamura Column 2 lines 26-29).
Re Claim 2. Kikuchi teaches a temperature adjustment device (1) to adjust a temperature of a load (connected at 11, 12) to a target temperature, the temperature adjustment device comprising (Figure 1):
a circulating liquid circuit (3, 4) configured to cyclically deliver (via 11), to the load, circulating liquid returned (via 12) from the load after heat exchange with the load (Figure 1);
a heater (heater 22 and thermal fuse 22c) located in the circulating liquid circuit and configured to heat the circulating liquid in the circulating liquid circuit;
a heat exchanger (45) connected to heat dissipating water circuit (6) located in the circulating liquid circuit and configured to cool the circulating liquid in the circulating liquid circuit (Figure 1); and
a controller (7) configured to control an output of the heater and an output of the heat exchanger, the controller configured to:
input (portion of 7 connected to the sensors) a measured temperature of the circulating liquid heated and cooled or to be heated and cooled (Figures 1, 4; Paragraph 39),
input (7a) a target set temperature of the circulating liquid that corresponds to the target temperature and a target reach time period for the temperature of the circulating liquid to reach the target set temperature from start of temperature adjustment (Figures 1, 4; Paragraphs 63-71),
control the output of the heater and the output of the heat exchanger such that the measured temperature of the circulating liquid changes along the target temperature gradient (Figures 1, 4; Paragraphs 63-71).
Kikuchi fails to specifically teach configured to calculate, based on an initial set temperature at the start of temperature adjustment as well as the target set temperature and the target reach time period, a target temperature gradient to the target set temperature.
However, Kitamura teaches an arithmetic unit configured to calculate, based on an initial set temperature at the start of temperature adjustment as well as the target set temperature and the target reach time period, a target temperature gradient to the target set temperature (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 49-65, Column 5 lines 21-35). Kitamura teaches the benefit of the controller is to provide a thermal treatment apparatus that can perform control with high accuracy and with reduced costs (Column 2 lines 26-29).
Therefore, in view of Kitamura's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include an arithmetic unit into the controller of Kikuchi in order to provide precise gradual temperature changes, thereby achieving better temperature control (Kitamura Column 2 lines 26-29).
Re Claim 3. Kikuchi in view of Kitamura teach the circulating liquid circuit includes a return passage (31 of Kikuchi) through which the circulating liquid returned from the load is received, a discharge passage (30 of Kikuchi) through which the circulating liquid subjected to temperature adjustment by the heater and the heat exchanger is delivered to the load, a tank (2 of Kikuchi) connected to the return passage and the discharge passage and configured to store the circulating liquid, and a circulation pump (23a, 24a of Kikuchi) configured to deliver the circulating liquid in the tank to the discharge passage (Kikuchi Figures 1, 4; Kitamura Figures 1-2).
Re Claim 4. Kikuchi in view of Kitamura teach the heat exchanger includes the heat exchanger (4 of Kikuchi) is configured to exchange heat between a heat-dissipating water flowing through the heat-dissipating water circuit and a circulating liquid flowing through the circulating liquid circuit, and the controller controls the output of the heater and the output of the heat exchanger by controlling the heater (Kikuchi Figures 1, 4; Kitamura Figures 1-2). Kikuchi teaches coolant flowing through the heat dissipating circuit but fails to specifically teach controlling the flow with a flow control valve configured to adjust a flow rate of the heat-dissipating water flowing through the heat-dissipating water circuit. However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the use of flow control valves in water cooling circuits to regulate the flow rate of the water flowing through the circuit. The use of flow control valves in water-cooling circuits is well-established and basic in nature requiring only routine skill in the art to implement. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a flow control valve to the heat dissipating water circuit of Kikuchi in order to control the flow rate through the circuit to achieve a desired heat transfer characteristic. The examiner’s assertion of Official Notice of common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because the applicant has failed to traverse the examiner’s previous assertion of official notice (See MPEP 2144.03(c)).
Re Claim 5. Kikuchi in view of Kitamura teach the controller calculates a time-dependent set temperature of the load from the target temperature gradient at each of a plurality of timings within the target reach time period and compares the time-dependent set temperature with the measured temperature of the load, and the controller controls, based on a result of comparison between the time-dependent set temperature and the measured temperature, the output of the heater and the output of the heat exchanger (Kikuchi Figures 1, 4; Kitamura Figures 1-2, Column 3 lines 49-65, Column 5 lines 21-35).
Re Claim 6. Kikuchi in view of Kitamura teach the controller calculates a time-dependent set temperature of the circulating liquid from the target temperature gradient at each of a plurality of timings within the target reach time period and compares the time-dependent set temperature with the measured temperature of the circulating liquid, and the controller controls, based on a result of comparison between the time-dependent set temperature and the measured temperature, the output of the heater and the output of the heat exchanger (Kikuchi Figures 1, 4; Kitamura Figures 1-2, Column 3 lines 49-65, Column 5 lines 21-35).
Re Claim 7. Kikuchi in view of Kitamura teach the heat exchanger is disposed on the return passage (Kikuchi Figure 1; The claim does not recite two locations to constrain the return passage, thus any portion of piping within 1 that is before the supply 11 can be considered still part of the return passage), the heater (Kikuchi 22) is disposed on the tank (Kikuchi 2),a temperature sensor (Kikuchi 33 or 35) for measuring the temperature of the circulating liquid cooled by the heat exchanger disposed on a downstream side of the heat exchanger on the return passage, and the controller is configured to detect an abnormal temperature of the circulating liquid based on the temperature of the circulating liquid measured by the temperature sensor (Kikuchi Figure 1; Paragraph 39 teaches monitoring the sensors and maintaining “appropriately controlled” control of the system, which is interpreted as being able to detect abnormal temperatures. Additionally, the claims are directed towards an apparatus and not a method of operating. Therefore, the presence of process limitations (i.e. process of detecting abnormal temperatures) on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See MPEP 2113).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 14-15 of the reply that “Kikuchi is silent with regard to controlling a temperature of the circulating liquid based on a temperature change rate (temperature gradient) until a circulating liquid reaches a predetermined temperature in a predetermined time”. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Kikuchi teaches the temperature control apparatus and Kitamura teaches an arithmetic unit configured to calculate, based on an initial set temperature at the start of temperature adjustment as well as the target set temperature and the target reach time period, a target temperature gradient to the target set temperature (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 49-65, Column 5 lines 21-35). Kitamura teaches the benefit of the controller is to provide a thermal treatment apparatus that can perform control with high accuracy and with reduced costs (Column 2 lines 26-29). Therefore, the combined teaches of the prior art disclose the claimed limitations. Thus, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts on page 15 of the reply that “Kikuchi, appears to argue that immediately controlling a temperature of a circulating liquid to a predetermined temperature as being ideal, and it is not necessary to perform a control based on a temperature change rate until reaching a predetermined temperature. This type of control in view of Kikuchi would be unnecessary and counter to the stated purpose of Kikuchi”. Applicants arguments lack factual evidence to support their argument and therefore amount to arguments of counsel. MPEP 2145 states that “arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence”.
Applicant argues on page 15 of the reply that “One of ordinary skill in the art would have no apparent reason to modify Kikuchi in view of Kitamura based on the mutually different control objectives of the references. That is, the skilled artisan would not conceive of applying Kitamura to Kikuchi”. In response to applicant's argument that Kitamura is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Kitamura is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Kitamura teaches the benefit of the controller is to provide a thermal treatment apparatus that can perform control with high accuracy and with reduced costs (Column 2 lines 26-29). Therefore, Kitamura provides explicit motivation for combining with Kikuchi. Therefore, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 15-16 of the reply that Kikuchi nor Kitamura generally teach the limitations of new claim 7. This argument is moot in view of the new matter rejection of claim 7.
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 TRAVIS C RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763