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 .
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.
Claims 8-9 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.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitation of “the other two side wall” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 9, the limitation of “electrical and/or electronic components” is unclear if it is the same or different than “electrical and/or electronic components” in claim 1.
In addition, the limitation of “the electrical and/or electronic components” is unclear if it is referring to “electrical and/or electronic components” in claim 9 or “electrical and/or electronic components” in claim 1.
Claim 10 is also rejected since the claim depends on claim 8.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Miller (US Pub No. 2017/0125858)
Regarding Claim 1, Miller et al. teaches a thermal control device for an electronic system [Fig. 7A-7B, 0037-0038], the thermal control device comprising:
A box [see annotated figure, Fig. 7A, 0037-0038] configured to accommodate electrical and/or electronic components of the electronic system [see cell array 202, Fig. 7A, 0037-0038],
Wherein the box comprises:
A bottom wall and side walls opposite in pairs, wherein the walls define an inner housing, wherein the inner housing is able to receive the electrical and/or electronic components, and wherein the outer faces of the side walls are defined as those facing away from the inner housing [see annotated figure, 0037-0038],
At least one thermal control fluid supply element [188, Fig. 7A, 0037],
At least one thermal control fluid discharge element [190, Fig. 7A, 0037],
Wherein the supply element and the discharge element are in fluid communication with the inner housing [Fig. 7A, 0037-0038]
Wherein the supply element and the discharge element respectively project from one of the outer faces of the side walls of the box and wherein the supply element and the discharge element are arranged on the side walls at different distances from the bottom wall [Fig. 7A, 0038, see annotated figure].
Examiner used solid square for the box, the solid circle is the bottom, and the dashed circles are the side walls
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
277
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image1.png
277
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Miller et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Miller et al. teaches wherein the supply element projects from the outer face of a side wall of the box and the discharge element projects from the outer face of an opposite side wall of the box [Fig. 7B, 0038, see 204 and 206]
Regarding Claim 3, Miller et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Miller et al. teaches wherein the supply element is separated from the bottom wall by a distance greater than the distance separating the discharge element from the bottom wall [Fig. 7A, 0037]
Regarding Claim 4, Miller et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Miller et al. teaches wherein the supply element comprises a duct [inside of the 188 is the duct, Fig. 7A, 0037] extending mainly along a longitudinal direction, wherein the duct is delimited longitudinally by two walls among which a first wall in the vicinity of a first longitudinal end of the box, bears an end piece [192, Fig. 7A, see annotated figure],
The two walls are the circles and the first wall is the rectangle, the arrow is the first longitudinal end of the box.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image1.png
277
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Miller et al. is silent on wherein the duct comprises a cross section in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction that decreases progressively away from the first wall.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the thermal control device, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the thermal control device is changed, the precise parameters the thermal control device would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the duct comprises a cross section in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction that decreases progressively away from the first wall.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the thermal control device to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 5, Miller et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Miller et al. teaches wherein the discharge element comprises a duct extending mainly along a longitudinal direction, wherein the duct is delimited longitudinally by two walls among which a first wall in the vicinity of the first longitudinal end of the box bears an end piece [194, Fig. 7A, see annotated figure],
The two walls are the circles and the first wall is the rectangle, the arrow is the first longitudinal end of the box.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: rect][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image1.png
277
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
And silent on wherein the duct comprise a cross section in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction that decreases progressively away from the first wall.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the thermal control device, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the thermal control device is changed, the precise parameters the thermal control device would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the duct comprise a cross section in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction that decreases progressively away from the first wall. ” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the thermal control device to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 6, Miller et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Miller et al. teaches wherein the discharge element comprises a duct extending mainly along a longitudinal direction, wherein the duct is delimited longitudinally by two walls among which a first wall in the vicinity of the first longitudinal end of the box bears an end piece [194, Fig. 7A, see annotated figure],
The two walls are the circles and the first wall is the rectangle, the arrow is the first longitudinal end of the box.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: rect][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image1.png
277
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
And silent on wherein the duct comprises a cross section in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction that widens progressively away from the first wall.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the thermal control device, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the thermal control device is changed, the precise parameters the thermal control device would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the duct comprises a cross section in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction that widens progressively away from the first wall.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the thermal control device to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 8, Miller et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Miller et al. wherein the box comprises a base and a cover wherein the base comprises the bottom wall and the side walls wherein the base is formed by a first element comprising the bottom wall and two opposite side walls
wherein the other two side walls, wherein the other two side walls are attached and fixed to the first element [Fig. 7A-7B, see annotated figure].
The circles are the bottom wall and the side walls, and the rectangle is the cover.
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
277
613
media_image1.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.
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.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US Pub No. 2017/0125858) in view of Drabon (US Pub No. 2018/0062224)
Regarding Claim 9, Miller et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Miller et al. teaches a electronic system comprising: a thermal control device as claimed in claim 1 and electrical and/or electronic components that are housed in the box of the thermal control device [Fig. 7A-7B, see annotated figure], and silent on wherein the electrical and/or electronic components are separated from at least one electrical an/or electronic components by a separating member.
Miller et al. teaches in figure 5 a separating member [67, Fig. 5, 0029] between cells [50, Fig. 5, 0029].
Since both figure 7 and figure 5 teaches the use of a battery, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to utilize the design of Miller et al. in figure 5 including the separating members and cell in the thermal control device in figure 7 of Miller et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 10, Miller et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Miller et al. is silent on further comprising a sealing element configured to be arranged between the electrical and/or electronic components and the walls in figure 7A and 7B.
Miller et al. teaches in figure 5 sealing element [67, Fig. 5, 0029] between cells [50, Fig. 5, 0029].
Since both figure 7 and figure 5 teaches the use of a battery, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to utilize the design of Miller et al. in figure 5 including the sealing element and cell the thermal control device in figure 7 of Miller et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US Pub No. 2017/0125858) in view of Drabon (US Pub No. 2018/0062224)
Regarding Claim 7, Miller et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Miller et al. is silent on wherein the duct forms a projection which as in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction a u-shape open onto the inner housing of the box.
Drabon et al. teaches a duct comprising a u-shape [Fig. 22, 0065].
Since Miller et al. teaches the use duct for the supply and discharge elements, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the ducts of Miller et al. with the duct layout of Drabon et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights