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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the: “the climate chamber is attached to a movable support of a motion simulator and the movable support can be set in motion by means of joints of said motion simulator”
“the climate chamber being attached to a movable support of a motion simulator and the movable support being able to be set in motion by means of joints of said motion simulator, and wherein a secondary thermal regulation circuit including a heat exchange end for an external face of a thermoelectric unit is further implemented, the heat exchange end is arranged against the external face of the thermoelectric unit, the rest of the secondary thermal regulation circuit being arranged out of movable parts of the motion simulator and being connected to the heat exchange end by movable fluid seals passing through the joints of the motion simulator”
“movable fluid seals intended to be installed in joints of the motion simulator to allow the circulation of the heat-transfer fluid of the secondary thermal regulation circuit between the heat exchange end that is intended to be installed in the motion simulator against the external face of the thermoelectric unit and the rest of the secondary thermal regulation circuit that is intended to be installed out of the movable parts of the motion simulator”
“movable electrical connections intended to be installed in joints of the motion simulator to allow a circulation of electrical current”
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Additionally, Figure 3 of the drawings is untranslated and as such is objected to as well.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1-4, 12-27 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 reads “both faces” in line 8 but should read “the two faces”.
Claim 27 needs the word “the at least one” before “thermoelectric in line 18.
Claim 27 reads “both faces” in line 11 but should read “the two faces”.
Claims 2-4, 12-26 are objected to as being dependent upon an objected to claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Means for connection in claim 27 is understood to be referring to inlet and outlet points of the heat transfer-fluid circuit into the various components.
Thermoelectric unit is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as it would be understood to be referring to a Peltier element and associated heat exchange components.
The “loops” referred to in claims 21-25 are understood to be referring to connections or signals between a control system and components which can make adjustments such as between sensors and valves or between controllers and components that are adjusted and not to physical loops such as heat exchange loops.
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 27 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.
Claim 27 recites “means for attachment” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) but the specification provides no showing of any structure, materials or acts to the function of attachment which renders the claim lacking written description.
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 1-4, 6-27 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 1 recites “at least one thermoelectric unit” and then later recites “each thermoelectric unit” which renders the claims unclear as it is unclear if more than one thermoelectric unit is required as “each” implies more than one required. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted that only one thermoelectric unit is required.
Claim 1 recites “each external face” which is considered indefinite as the claims only require a singular external face so it is unclear how this can apply to each. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted that this limitation is “the external face”. For further claim limitations, “the external face” is understood to be referring to the same limitation.
Claim 1, lines 12-15 recites wherein “a heat exchange end for an external face of a thermoelectric unit of a secondary thermal regulation circuit is placed in thermal contact with each external face of thermoelectric unit in order to exchange caloric energy between said at least one thermoelectric unit and said secondary thermal regulation circuit” which is considered indefinite. The claims appear to recite that there is a thermoelectric unit in a secondary thermal regulation circuit and it is this thermoelectric unit that is in heat exchange with each external face of thermoelectric unit; however, this is unclear. A review of the specification makes it clear that there is not an additional thermoelectric unit, but that the secondary thermal regulation exchanges heat with an external face of the thermoelectric unit (see page 9 of instant specification). For the purpose of examination this limitation is interpreted that the secondary thermal regulation circuit is placed into thermal contact with the external face of the thermoelectric unit to provide heat exchange between the thermoelectric unit and the secondary thermal regulation circuit, as wherever the secondary thermal regulation circuit exchanges heat with the external face would be a heat exchange end.
Claim 3 recites “the chamber temperature regulation system further adjust the temperature of the hot source” which is considered indefinite as it is a method step in an apparatus claim which renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be only what the climate chamber is configure for.
Claim 20 recites “including at least two thermoelectric units” which is considered indefinite as it unclear how it relates to the “at least one thermoelectric unit” in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be that the at least one thermoelectric unit specifically includes at least two thermoelectric units.
Claim 26 recites “a secondary thermal regulation circuit including a heat exchange end for an external face of a thermoelectric unit is further implemented, the heat exchange end is arranged against the external face of the thermoelectric unit” which is considered indefinite. Claim 1 already requires the presence of a secondary thermal regulation circuit so it is unclear how this can be provided additionally. For the purpose of examination, this part of the claim is considered repetitive of what is already claimed.
Claim 27 recites “at least one thermoelectric unit” and then later recites “each thermoelectric unit” which renders the claims unclear as it is unclear if more than one thermoelectric unit is required as “each” implies more than one required. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted that only one thermoelectric unit is required.
Claim 27 recites “each external face” which is considered indefinite as the claims only require a singular external face so it is unclear how this can apply to each. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted that this limitation is “the external face”. For further claim limitations, “the external face” is understood to be referring to the same limitation.
Claim 27, lines 17-19 recites wherein “a heat exchange end for an external face of a thermoelectric unit of intended to come into thermal contact with an external face of thermoelectric unit in order to exchange caloric energy between said at least one thermoelectric unit and said secondary thermal regulation circuit” which is considered indefinite. The claims appear to recite that there is a thermoelectric unit in a secondary thermal regulation circuit and it is this thermoelectric unit that is in heat exchange with each external face of thermoelectric unit; however, this is unclear. A review of the specification makes it clear that there is not an additional thermoelectric unit, but that the secondary thermal regulation exchanges heat with an external face of the thermoelectric unit (see page 9 of instant specification). For the purpose of examination this limitation is interpreted that the secondary thermal regulation circuit is placed into thermal contact with the external face of the thermoelectric unit to provide heat exchange between the thermoelectric unit and the secondary thermal regulation circuit, as wherever the secondary thermal regulation circuit exchanges heat with the external face would be a heat exchange end.
Claim limitation “means for attachment” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification provides no showing of any structure, materials or acts to the function of attachment. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 27 recites “intended to be installed” multiple times which is considered indefinite as it is unclear if the components are required to be installed, or even capable of being installed or just be present as part of the invention because as claimed they do not appear to be actually required in combination with other components. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be that it is required to be able to be installed as claimed or actually installed.
Claims 2, 4, 12-19, 21-26 are rejected as being dependent upon an rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 12-16, 21, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C18. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitaoka (US Patent No. 6170267), hereinafter referred to as Kitaoka and Hume et al. (US PG Pub 20200110047), hereinafter referred to as Hume and Newton (US Patent No. 3252504), hereinafter referred to as Newton.
With respect to claim 1, Kitaoka (Figure 1) teaches a thermally regulated climate chamber (thermostatic chamber 10, Column 4, lines 36) intended for at least one piece of equipment (vessels 2, Column 4, line 57) the climate chamber having a wall defining an internal space containing a gas and able to receive and contain said at least one piece of equipment (the space inside 10 formed by heat insulating wall 11 which contains 2 and has air that is cooled, Column 4, lines 35-37), the internal space being thermally insulated from the environment outside the climate chamber (11 is a thermally insulating wall), wherein at least one thermoelectric unit is arranged through the wall of the climate chamber (Peltier element 11), each thermoelectric unit having two faces, an internal face located inside the climate chamber and an external face located outside the climate chamber (the face of 33 is inside the chamber and a face of 32 Is outside the chamber as seen in the figure), and wherein one of both faces, called the cold face, is intended to absorb caloric energy and the other one, called the hot face, is intended to reject caloric energy as a function of the electric current passing through said at least one thermoelectric unit (this is a description of how a thermoelectric unit works, and as such would work that way in Figure 1), wherein a heat exchange end for an external face of a thermoelectric unit of a secondary thermal regulation circuit is placed in thermal contact with each external face (the secondary thermal regulation circuit is formed by the air passing via 14, though labeled incorrectly in the specification, is drawn by 38 into air duct 37, Column 2, lines 60-63) of thermoelectric unit in order to exchange caloric energy between said at least one thermoelectric unit and said secondary thermal regulation circuit (air would exchange heat in this way), the secondary thermal regulation circuit being external to the climate chamber and including a heat-transfer fluid circuit (this circuit is external to the chamber and has the circuit for air from 14 into 37).
Kitaoka does not teach the chamber is intended to test the piece of equipment such that the internal space is able to receive and contain said at least one piece of equipment to be tested. Kitaoka does teach that the device can be used with not limited to use as described but can be used with pretreatment of samples, reaction device and devices for storing samples (Column 5, lines 45-47).
Hume teaches that a temperature-controlled device which is heat exchanges with a Peltier component (paragraph 56) can be a test cell for measuring a thermal property of a sample placed inside the cell using a cell that is temperature controlled (paragraph 26).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have instead of using the thermostatic chamber of Kitaoka to have cooled a component to prepare it for analysis to have utilized the chamber for temperature control during analysis based on the teaching of Hume since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results is obvious whereby as they are both known uses for temperature controlled chambers with samples it would have been obvious to have used the Kitaoka’s chamber for the predictable result of temperature control during a test of a sample because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution and the results are reasonably predictable.
Kitaoka does not teach wherein the secondary thermal regulation circuit has a cold source, a hot source, a mixing device, a circulation pump and sensors.
Newton teaches an enclosure (16) that is temperature controlled by a thermoelectric conditioning unit (22, Column 2, lines 45-48) is temperature controlled by a circuit with conduits with a fluid which includes a pump (76) a cold source (cooling tower or heat exchanger 92 with fan 94) and a hot source (boiler 82), a three way valve (78 and a sensor (84) (Column 4, lines 35-45) and can be a temperature comparing device inserted between conduits 70 and 74 (Column 9, lines 55-57).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed to have provided instead of the air cooling system in Kitaoka to have had the second thermal regulation circuit to have included conduits with a fluid with a pump which fluid would pass into heat exchange with the heat radiating fins of the Peltier element, a sensor which compares the temperature of the conduits into and out of the heat exchange with the thermoelectric unit, a boiler which has a sensor for measuring the boiler output fluid as well as a heat exchanger acting as a cold sink and a three-way valve which controls where the fluid passes to based on the teaching of Newton since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing a circuit operating in this way would allow for the temperature control to be made through both heating and cooling which would provide what is common knowledge in the art of ensuring the desired temperature is reached and able to be maintained (Newton teaches that the temperature can be set to any desired temperature, Column 1, line 65). A temperature comparing device would be understood to be a sensor.
Kitaoka does not each wherein a chamber temperature regulation system is configured to control the electric current of said at least one thermoelectric unit and to control at least the mixing device and the circulation pump of the secondary thermal regulation circuit as a function of a chamber temperature setpoint and of sensor measurements.
Newton teaches that the three-way valve is controlled by the temperature comparing device temperatures including a temperature differential (Column 8, lines 55-60) which controls where the pump passes fluid to (Column 5, lines 5-6). Further thermostat (56) is used to set the temperature and has sensing means to maintain the desired set temperature within the unit which controls the thermoelectric unit to provide heating or cooling depending on the current (Column 3, lines 5-15)
There it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided a thermostat in the chamber of Kitaoka which measure temperature in the chamber and compares it to the set temperature and used that to control using the thermoelectric unit current to provide either heating or cooling based on need and to have then based on the temperature differential of fluid flowing into and out of the thermoelectric unit (which would be temperature measurements as well and based on the set temperature) to have controlled the three way valve to control where the pump passes fluid to based on the teaching of Newton since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby controlling the pump, three-way valve and thermoelectric unit as a function of the chamber temperature setpoint as well as sensor measurements would provide the predictable result that would be common knowledge in the art of being able to set the device to any desired temperature (Column 1, lines 65 of Newton) which would allow the components in the device to be brought to said desired temperature. As the control is based on temperature measurements, a control system would be understood to be necessarily present as there are control loops.
With respect to claim 3, Kitaoka as modified does not teach wherein the temperature of the hot source is adjustable and the chamber temperature regulation system further adjusts the temperature of the hot source.
Newton teaches that the burner can have an actuating burner control to heat sink the fluid to the desired temperature which controls by a temperature measurement the amount of heating required from the boiler (Column 7, lines 52-60).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Newton to have when using a boiler in Kitaoka to have had the boiler be adjustable to control the amount of heating provided since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the boiler control would allow what would be common knowledge in the art of being able to more precisely control the temperature as desired when heating.
With respect to claim 4, Kitaoka as modified teaches wherein the chamber temperature regulation system is configured to regulate the temperature of the external face as a function of the chamber temperature setpoint and in such a way that the polarity of the current circulating in said at least one thermoelectric unit is constant, the internal face being a cold face absorbing caloric energy coming from the inside of the climate chamber (cooling is provided by the Peltier element to the inside of the chamber which would be the configuration when the setpoint is such that cooling is desired which is controlled by the thermostat as modified which controls based on the setpoint, where the polarity of the Peltier element would be constant during cooling, as the polarity of a Peltier element determines if cooling or heating occurs, such that during cooling polarity would be constant and this would regulate in turn the external face by based on the temperature setpoint ultimately dumping heat to the external face).
With respect to claim 12, Kitaoka as modified teaches wherein the chamber temperature regulation system is configured to regulate the temperature of the external face as a function of the chamber temperature setpoint and in such a way that the polarity of the current circulating in said at least one thermoelectric unit is constant, the internal face being a cold face absorbing caloric energy coming from the inside of the climate chamber (cooling is provided by the Peltier element to the inside of the chamber which would be the configuration when the setpoint is such that cooling is desired which is controlled by the thermostat as modified which controls based on the setpoint, where the polarity of the Peltier element would be constant during cooling, as the polarity of a Peltier element determines if cooling or heating occurs, such that during cooling polarity would be constant and this would regulate in turn the external face by based on the temperature setpoint ultimately dumping heat to the external face).
With respect to claim 13, Kitaoka as modified teaches wherein the chamber temperature regulation system is configured to ensure a continuous flow of the heat-transfer fluid in the heat exchange end for an external face of a thermoelectric unit of the secondary thermal regulation circuit (the presence of the pump would allow the system to provide such continuous control).
With respect to claim 14, Kitaoka as modified teaches wherein the chamber temperature regulation system is configured to ensure a continuous flow of the heat-transfer fluid in the heat exchange end for an external face of a thermoelectric unit of the secondary thermal regulation circuit (the presence of the pump would allow the system to provide such continuous control).
With respect to claim 15, Kitaoka as modified teaches wherein the chamber temperature regulation system is configured to ensure a continuous flow of the heat-transfer fluid in the heat exchange end for an external face of a thermoelectric unit of the secondary thermal regulation circuit (the presence of the pump would allow the system to provide such continuous control).
With respect to claim 16, Kitaoka as modified teaches wherein the chamber temperature regulation system is configured to ensure a continuous flow of the heat-transfer fluid in the heat exchange end for an external face of a thermoelectric unit of the secondary thermal regulation circuit (the presence of the pump would allow the system to provide such continuous control).
With respect to claim 21, Kitaoka as modifieds teaches wherein the chamber temperature regulation system includes at least two regulation loops (the control provide to the valve and the control provided to the thermoelectric unit would be two regulation loops as they are each based on measurements of temperatures and change as the system continues to operate), said at least two regulation loops being a main regulation loop controlling the electric current of said at least one thermoelectric unit and at least one secondary regulation loop controlling the secondary thermal regulation circuit (one of the loops controls the thermoelectric unit current and the other controls the secondary thermal regulation circuit).
With respect to claim 23, Kitaoka as modifieds teaches wherein the chamber temperature regulation system includes at least two regulation loops (the control provide to the valve and the control provided to the thermoelectric unit would be two regulation loops as they are each based on measurements of temperatures and change as the system continues to operate), said at least two regulation loops being a main regulation loop controlling the electric current of said at least one thermoelectric unit and at least one secondary regulation loop controlling the secondary thermal regulation circuit (one of the loops controls the thermoelectric unit current and the other controls the secondary thermal regulation circuit).
Claim(s) 17-19, 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitaoka/Hume/Newton and further in view of Hauleitner et al. (US PG Pub 20200166252), hereinafter referred to as Hauleitner.
With respect to claim 17, Kitaoka as modified does not teach wherein the chamber temperature regulation system is configured to control the heat-transfer fluid flow while avoiding a high-temperature cavitation of the heat-transfer fluid that would be due to a too high speed of the heat-transfer fluid.
Hauleitner teaches that to avoid risk of cavitation in the pump suction line, the pump speed may be controlled (paragraph 16).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have configured the pump of Kitaoka as modified to have the speed controlled to avoid the risk of cavitation (which would be controlling the heat transfer fluid to avoid cavitation) based on the teaching of Hauleitner since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing control to the pump in this way would prevent cavitation in the fluid entering the pump (which can be a high temperature fluid depending on the configuration the system is operating in) that could damage the pump.
With respect to claim 18, Kitaoka as modified does not teach wherein the chamber temperature regulation system is configured to control the heat-transfer fluid flow while avoiding a high-temperature cavitation of the heat-transfer fluid that would be due to a too high speed of the heat-transfer fluid.
Hauleitner teaches that to avoid risk of cavitation in the pump suction line, the pump speed may be controlled (paragraph 16).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have configured the pump of Kitaoka as modified to have the speed controlled to avoid the risk of cavitation (which would be controlling the heat transfer fluid to avoid cavitation) based on the teaching of Hauleitner since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing control to the pump in this way would prevent cavitation in the fluid entering the pump (which can be a high temperature fluid depending on the configuration the system is operating in) that could damage the pump.
With respect to claim 19, Kitaoka as modified does not teach wherein the chamber temperature regulation system is configured to control the heat-transfer fluid flow while avoiding a high-temperature cavitation of the heat-transfer fluid that would be due to a too high speed of the heat-transfer fluid.
Hauleitner teaches that to avoid risk of cavitation in the pump suction line, the pump speed may be controlled (paragraph 16).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have configured the pump of Kitaoka as modified to have the speed controlled to avoid the risk of cavitation (which would be controlling the heat transfer fluid to avoid cavitation) based on the teaching of Hauleitner since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing control to the pump in this way would prevent cavitation in the fluid entering the pump (which can be a high temperature fluid depending on the configuration the system is operating in) that could damage the pump.
With respect to claim 24, Kitaoka as modified teaches wherein the secondary regulation loop controlling the secondary thermal regulation circuit includes a hot and cold sharing regulation loop (the control of the three way valve is a hot and cold sharing regulation loop as it controls where the hot and cold fluids pass to).
Kitaoka does not teach a flow rate regulation loop.
Hauleitner teaches that to avoid risk of cavitation in the pump suction line, the pump speed may be controlled (paragraph 16).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have configured the pump of Kitaoka as modified to have the speed controlled to avoid the risk of cavitation (which would be controlling the heat transfer fluid to avoid cavitation) based on the teaching of Hauleitner since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing control to the pump in this way would prevent cavitation in the fluid entering the pump that could damage the pump. Controlling the pump speed is a flow rate regulation loop as the pump speed would change the flow rate of the fluid.
With respect to claim 25, Kitaoka as modified teaches wherein the secondary regulation loop controlling the secondary thermal regulation circuit includes a hot and cold sharing regulation loop (the control of the three-way valve is a hot and cold sharing regulation loop as it controls where the hot and cold fluids pass to).
Kitaoka does not teach a flow rate regulation loop.
Hauleitner teaches that to avoid risk of cavitation in the pump suction line, the pump speed may be controlled (paragraph 16).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have configured the pump of Kitaoka as modified to have the speed controlled to avoid the risk of cavitation (which would be controlling the heat transfer fluid to avoid cavitation) based on the teaching of Hauleitner since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing control to the pump in this way would prevent cavitation in the fluid entering the pump that could damage the pump. Controlling the pump speed is a flow rate regulation loop as the pump speed would change the flow rate of the fluid.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitaoka/Hume/Newton and further in view of Tadmor (US PG Pub 20220390151), hereinafter referred to as Tadmor.
With respect to claim 20, Kitaoka as modified teaches including at least two thermoelectric units through the climate chamber (Kitaoka has a second thermoelectric unit with 21, 22, 23 together, Column 4, lines 39-40).
Kitaoka does not teach the at least two thermoelectric units are in are electrically connected in parallel.
Tadmor teaches that when multiple TECs are used in a device they can be electrically connected in series, or parallel or a combination of both (paragraph 62)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have in Kitaoka as modified connected the two thermoelectric units electrically in parallel based on the teaching of Tadmor since it has been shown that choosing from a finite number of predictable solution is obvious whereby as it has been shown that multiple thermoelectric units in the same device can be connected in series, parallel, a combination of both, or as Kitaoka appears to teach not at all connecting them in parallel would have been obvious to provide the predictable result that would be common knowledge in the art of a single parallel electrical system able to provide control to the entire electric cooling system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 27 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: “the limitation wherein the climate chamber is attached to a movable support of a motion simulator and the movable support can be set in motion by means of joints of said motion simulator” in claim 2 and equivalent limitations in claims 26 and 27 render the claims being considered to contain allowable subject matter.
The prior art does not teach the presence of a motion simulator that a climate chamber that is being temperature regulated is mounted upon. While there are climate chambers with rotary tables inside, the rotary tables are inside the chamber and are rotary tables for rotating samples and would not rise to the threshold of being considered a motion simulator which while it may include a rotary table is understood to be specifically for the purpose of simulating motion for testing purposes. Murata (US PG Pub 20210333243) teaches a rotary machine that includes a thermoelectric generation module (paragraphs 20-22, Figures 1-2) used for testing is provided; however, the device is not part of a motion simulator, but is a testing device attached to a rotary machine that operates as a pump (paragraph 20) to test the vibrations (abstract) and as such the rotary machine would not be considered a motion simulator. Yotoriyama (US PG Pub 20210402389) teaches the use of Peltier element (paragraph 54) associated with a rotary table (Paragraph 61) but there is no teaching of a climate chamber being cooled or the rotary table simulating motion.
Park (KR101999644) teaches a motion simulator (150) that is associated with a chamber (130) which contains an infrared and visible light target source (140) (page 4 of translation) which can be a thermoelectric element (page 5 of translation); however, the chamber and the motion simulator are not connected as claimed as they are two separate components meant to interact with teach other but the chamber itself is not on a movable support. teaches Rubin (US PG Pub 20160139666) teaches the use of a motion simulator (Figure 14) which has a heat sink cooled by a thermoelectric element (paragraph 222) which is a teaching of using a thermoelectric element with a motion simulator and is part of a testing device; however, there is no climate chamber used in the invention. Additionally, the use of a motion simulator inside a climate chamber is known by Cere’ et al. (US PG Pub 20200165017); however, this would not provide the limitation as claimed of requiring the climate chamber to be attached to the movable support as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 5712726681. 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.
/BRIAN M KING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights