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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference character 1 and reference character 2 in Figure 1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: reference characters 10 and 20, see at least 0032 of Applicant Specification. 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. 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.
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 first runner, the second runner, the container, filter components, external circulation system, and the temperature sensor must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). See at least claims 1, 4, 7 and 9. No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the first sentence of the abstract “The present disclosure discloses a liquid-cooling heat exchange device and a control method thereof” includes a phrase which can be implied and repeats information given in the title. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
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:
Temperature control component in at least claim 1.
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.
A plate heat exchanger. See at least 0039 of Applicant Specification.
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 § 112
§112(b)
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 2 -8 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 2 and 7, the recitation of “…away from” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite.
The term “away from” 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.
Thus, as used to qualify the position of a return pipe and a supply pipe, the terms render the same indeterminate and the claims (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Further Regarding Claim 2, the recitation “…at one end away from…” renders the claims unclear.
In claim 2, the recitation of “the container return pipe and the container supply pipe are connected to a container at one end away from the first runner” is unclear to whether the pipes are connected to one end of the container or the pipes connect at one end of the box body some distance from the first runner. In Figure 2 of Applicant Drawings, the container inlet pipe 401 and container outlet pipe 402 seem to be facing one another, however, the container and first runner are not shown. One skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted generically as - - a …distance away from… - - for clarity.
Further Regarding Claim 7, the recitation “…at one end away from…” renders the claims unclear.
In claim 7, the recitation of “the external circulation return pipe and the external circulation supply pipe penetrate through the box body and connect an external circulation system at one end away from the second runner” is unclear to what structure “one end” refers to. The external circulation return pipe, external circulation supply pipe are not shown in Applicant Drawings. One skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted generically as - - …a distance away from… - - for clarity.
Claims 3-6 and 8 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi (US20220003464A1) in view of Chu (US20040050231A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Sakaguchi teaches a liquid-cooling heat exchange device [chiller 1, Figure 1] at least comprising a body [housing 9, Figure 1], wherein the body is internally provided with a temperature control component [second heat exchanger 22, Figure 1], a first pipeline [second cooling circuit 4, Figure 1], and a second pipeline [refrigeration circuit 2, Figure 1];
the temperature control component has a first runner [refrigerant flowing portion 22b, Figure 1] and a second runner [refrigerant flowing portion 22c, Figure 1], and the first runner and the second runner are respectively interconnected to the first pipeline and the second pipeline to form a first loop [second cooling circuit 4, Figure 1] and a second loop [refrigeration circuit 2, Figure 1], wherein the first loop and the second loop exchange heat through contact [where the second heat exchanger 22 exchanges heat between the refrigerant that flows in the refrigerant flowing portion 22 b and the coolant 8 that flows in the coolant flowing portion 22 c; 0027; where the heat exchanger 22 is taught as a counterflow heat exchanger, implying thermal contact, Figure 1]; and
the body is further internally provided with a cooling component [condenser 17 in the upper surface of housing 9, Figure 1; 0032], after the first loop exchanges heat with the second loop, temperature of the box body changes with the cooling component to adjust temperature of the first loop [where condenser 17 cools refrigerant using a fan 17b driven by an electric motor 17 a, Figure 1; 0032].
Sakaguchi does not teach the body is a box.
However, Chu teaches a scalable design for liquid cooling of electronic systems [0001] where a scalable coolant conditioning unit (SCCU) has a box body [scalable SCCU 21, Figure 2 and Figure 3], where the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Sakaguchi to where the body is a box in view of the teachings of Chu where a shape of the box is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed device was significant.
Further, Claim 1 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “after the first loop exchanges heat with the second loop, temperature of the box body changes with the cooling component to adjust temperature of the first loop” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP § 2114.
Regarding Claim 2, Sakaguchi, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1, and further teaches the first pipeline [second cooling circuit 4, Figure 1] comprises a container return pipe [return load pipe 6b, Figure 1] and a container supply pipe [supply load pipe 6a, Figure 1], and the container return pipe and the container supply pipe are respectively connected to two ends of the first runner [where the second coolant 8 in supplied from the second pump 61 to the coolant flowing portion 22 c of the second heat exchanger 22 through the primary supply pipeline 63, is supplied from the secondary supply pipeline 64 to the second load 6; 0057]; and
the container return pipe and the container supply pipe are connected to a container [second load 6, Figure 1] at a distance away from the first runner [where second load 6 is to the right of second heat exchanger 22 and outside housing 9], such that a liquid inside the container flows through the first loop and exchanges heat with the second loop [where coolant flows from return load pipe 6b through tank 60 to the return second pump 61 to the second heat exchanger coolant flowing portion 22c which exchanges heat with the refrigeration circuit 2;0041].
Regarding Claim 3, Sakaguchi, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 2, and further teaches where a pump body [second pump 61, Figure 1] is arranged on the container return pipe [where second coolant 8 goes to second pump 61 through tank 60, Figure 1; 0057], and the liquid in the container [second load 6, Figure 1] circulates along the first loop [second coolant circuit 4, Figure 1] by means of the pump body [where the second coolant 8 in the second tank 60 is consequently supplied by the second coolant circuit 4 to the coolant flowing portion 22 c of the second heat exchanger 22 by using the second pump 61; 0041]
Regarding Claim 7, Sakaguchi, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the second pipeline comprises a circulation return pipe [from refrigerant flowing portion 22b through meeting point 2 b, Figure 1] and a circulation supply pipe [branch flow path 26, Figure 1], and the circulation return pipe and the circulation supply pipe are respectively connected to two ends of the second runner [refrigerant flow portion 22b, Figure 1]; and
does not teach the circulation pipes are external circulation pipes where the external circulation return pipe and the external circulation supply pipe penetrate through the box body and connect an external circulation system at a distance away from the second runner, such that a liquid flowing out of the external circulation system flows into the second loop and exchanges heat with the first loop.
However, Chu teaches a scalable design for liquid cooling of electronic systems [0001] where the external circulation return pipe [line 16, Figure 2] and the external circulation supply pipe [line 17, Figure 2] penetrate through the box body [scalable SCCU 21, Figure 2] and connect an external circulation system [where customer water is pumped in 16 and out 17 from on site or a facility service water or coolant] at a distance away [at the bottom left side of SCCU 21, Figure 2] from the second runner [where lines 16 and 17 flow through ], such that a liquid flowing out of the external circulation system flows into the second loop and exchanges heat with the first loop [where working fluid lines 106a and 106b, Figure 1A; 0023] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., simplifying system by using facility service coolant available [Chu, 0022].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combined teachings have where the circulation pipes are external circulation pipes where the external circulation return pipe and the external circulation supply pipe penetrate through the box body and connect an external circulation system at a distance away from the second runner, such that a liquid flowing out of the external circulation system flows into the second loop and exchanges heat with the first loop in view of the teachings of Chu where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., simplifying system by using facility service coolant available [Chu, 0022].
Regarding Claim 8, Sakaguchi, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 7 and further teaches where the cooling component [condenser 17, Figure 1] at least comprises a blade [fan 17b, Figure 1]and a motor [electric motor 17a, Figure 1], the motor is arranged on the box body [where condenser 17 in upper surface of housing 9 at exhaust port 9b, Figure 1] and is connected to the blade to drive the blade to generate an airflow [where fan 17 b is driven by electric motor 17 a, Figure 1; 0032], thereby changing the temperature of the box body [where condenser 17 is an air-cooled condenser that cools refrigerant using a fan 17b driven by an electric motor 17 a, Figure 1; 0032].
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi (US20220003464A1) in view of Chu (US20040050231A1) and in further view of Palmer (US7508665B1).
Regarding Claim 4, Sakaguchi, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 3, where the supply pipe [supply load pipe 6a, Figure 1] has a filter component [second filter 66, Figure 1] but does not teach where both the container return pipe and the container supply pipe have a filter component, such that the liquid flowing to the first runner and the liquid flowing to the container flow through the filter component.
However, Palmer teaches a liquid thermal management system [col. 1, lines 57-63] including a container [thermal management unit 30, Figure 2] where both the container return pipe and the container supply pipe have a filter component [where supply line 40 has a supply filter and return line 50 has a return filter 54, Figure 2], such that the liquid flowing to the first runner [where return line 50 passes through heat exchanger 60, Figure 2; col. 6, lines 1-5 ] and the liquid flowing to the container [from thermal management unit 30, Figure 2] flow through the filter component, where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, i.e., improving system maintenance by filtering waste cooling liquid coolant to be conditioned for recycling in the cooling loop.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where both the container return pipe and the container supply pipe have a filter component, such that the liquid flowing to the first runner and the liquid flowing to the container flow through the filter component in view of the teachings of Palmer where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., improving system maintenance by filtering waste cooling liquid coolant to be conditioned for recycling in the cooling loop.
Regarding Claim 5, Sakaguchi, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 4, and further teaches where the container supply pipe [supply load pipe 6a, Figure 1] is a right-angle structure [where pipeline 6a bends at a right angle after filter 66, Figure 1], such that the container supply pipe is disposed on a left or right side of the box body [where supply load pipe 6a is on the right side of housing 9, Figure 1].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi (US20220003464A1) in view of Chu (US20040050231A1) and Palmer (US7508665B1) and in further view of Padilla et al. (US20240057297A1)
Regarding Claim 6, Sakaguchi, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 5 and further teaches a conductivity meter [conductivity sensor 79, Figure 1; 0048] is on the container return pipe [at the junction of return pipeline 65 and filtration pipeline 76, Figure 1] to detect electrical conductivity of the liquid flowing into the container [0048] but does not teach a conductivity meter is on the container supply pipe.
However, Padilla teaches a liquid cooling system for electronic equipment [0002] where a conductivity meter [sensor 109 where example sensors include a conductivity sensor, Figure 1; 0021;0022] is on the container supply pipe [where measures quality of water from reservoir 102 flowing to servers 190, 293, Figure 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., minimize system degradation by tracking a coolant quality level supplied to the object being cooled [Padilla, 0007] .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to where a conductivity meter is on the container supply pipe in view of Padilla where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., minimize system degradation by tracking a coolant quality level supplied to the object being cooled [Padilla, 0007].
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi (US20220003464A1) in view of Craft et al. (US20090269636A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Sakaguchi teaches a method for using a liquid-cooling heat exchange device, the liquid-cooling heat exchange device at least comprising a body [housing 9, Figure 1], the body being internally provided with a temperature control component [heat exchanger 22, Figure 1], a first pipeline [coolant circuit 4, Figure 1], a second pipeline [refrigeration circuit 2, Figure 1], and a cooling component [condenser 17, Figure 1], wherein the temperature control component has a first runner [coolant flowing portion 22c, Figure 1] and a second runner [coolant flowing portion 22b, Figure 1], and the first runner and the second runner are respectively interconnected to the first pipeline and the second pipeline to form a first loop [coolant circuit 4, Figure 1], and a second loop [refrigeration circuit 2, Figure 1], wherein the first loop and the second loop exchange heat through contact [where the heat exchanger 22 is taught as a counterflow heat exchanger, implying thermal contact, Figure 1; 0027];
both the first pipeline and the second pipeline are provided with a temperature sensor [where coolant circuit 4 has temperature sensor 71 and refrigeration circuit 2 has temperature sensors 31 and 34, Figure 1]; and
the method comprising: determining [via control device 10, Figure 1; ] whether temperature of the first runner is higher than a threshold value [where the temperature of second coolant 8 is compared to a set temperature; 0059; 0061], but Sakaguchi does not teach the body is a box body.
However, Craft teaches a liquid cooling system [0007] including a box body [fuel cell cabinet 100, Figure 1A], where the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Sakaguchi to where the body is a box in view of the teachings of Chu where a shape of the box is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed device was significant.
The combined teachings further do not teach turning on the cooling component when the temperature of the first runner is higher than the threshold value, to adjust temperature of the first loop by changing temperature of the box body by means of the cooling component.
However, Craft teaches a fuel cell cabinet liquid cooling system [0007] where the cooling component [where the dual cooling loop may selectively operate the fan of L-L assembly 506; 0056, Figure 5] is turned on when the temperature of the first runner [where the liquid-liquid heat exchanger 304b exchanges heat with fuel cell 302, Figure 3] is higher than the threshold value [where the cooling water should not exceed 65 °C with a target temperature range of between 45° C. and 65° C; 0081], to adjust temperature of the first loop by changing temperature of the box body [cabinet 300, Figure 3] by means of the cooling component when a liquid flows through the first loop [where the dual cooling loop selectively operates the pumps 504A and 504B, the fan of assembly 506, and liquid to liquid heat exchanger depending on the amount of required thermal control which may be based on the temperature of the first and second liquid;0056] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, temperature based control for a fan, to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., optimizing cooling by selectively operating components of the cooling system in response to required thermal control.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings to have where the cooling component is turned on when the temperature of the first runner is higher than the threshold value, to adjust temperature of the first loop by changing temperature of the box body by means of the cooling component in view of the teachings of Craft where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., optimizing cooling by selectively operating components of the cooling system in response to required thermal control.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi (US20220003464A1) in view of Craft et al. (US20090269636A1) and in further view of Kono (US20150377535A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Sakaguchi, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 9 and further teaches where the first pipeline comprises a container return pipe [from tank 60 to supply pipeline 63, Figure 1] and a container supply pipe [from secondary supply pipeline 64 to return pipeline 65, Figure 1], and the temperature sensor is arranged on the container supply pipe [where the temperature sensor 71 is on secondary supply pipeline 64, Figure 1]; and
does not teach when a liquid flows through the first loop, a differential between temperature of the liquid in the container supply pipe and the threshold value is determined, and a flow rate of a pump body is adjusted according to the differential.
However, Kono teaches a control apparatus for a cooling system [0001] where when a liquid flows through the first loop [cooling water pipe 4, Figure 1], a differential between temperature of the liquid in the container supply pipe [where temperature sensor 7 measures inlet temperature of the cooling tower 1, Figure 1; 0044] and the threshold value is determined [where the deviation of temperature detection value T2 from set value T2* is calculated, Figure 4; 0044], and a flow rate of a pump body is adjusted according to the differential [where the deviation of T2 from set value T2* is used to calculate a frequency command of inverter unit 127 for the motor of pump 21, Figure 2; 0044; 0082] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, temperature feedback control for a pump, to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., optimizing cooling by selectively operating components of the cooling system in response to required thermal control.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings to have where when a liquid flows through the first loop, a differential between temperature of the liquid in the container supply pipe and the threshold value is determined, and a flow rate of a pump body is adjusted according to the differential in view of the teachings of Kono where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., optimizing cooling by selectively operating components of the cooling system in response to required thermal control.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEONA LAUREN BANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-0426. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30- 6:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/KEONA LAUREN BANKS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763