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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/04/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 nozzle tilt of claim 29 and variable diameter of claim 30 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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:
“inner heat exchange elements” in claims 24 and 25.
The aforementioned meets the three-prong test outlined here in since:
(A) the term “element” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g.
“inner heat exchange”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or
acts for performing the claimed function.
“control unit” in claims 31 and 32.
The aforementioned meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “unit” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g.
“control”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or
acts for performing the claimed function.
“extracorporeal blood treatment device and/or extracorporeal circulatory support device” in claim 34.
The aforementioned meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g.
“extracorporeal blood treatment”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or
acts for performing the claimed function.
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.
Review of the specification found no described structure for the control unit, thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Review of the specification found the following structure for the extracorporeal blood treatment device and/or extracorporeal circulatory support device of “an extracorporeal membrane oxygenator (ECMO)” “an extracorporeal circulatory support (ECLS) device” or “an extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) device” found in paragraph 0047-0048 (PGPub). An extracorporeal circulatory support (ECLS) device” or “an extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) device” are not found to fall under 112(f) as they are known terms in the art.
Review of the specification found the following structure for the inner heat exchange elements per figures these are fins/pins of “(slightly) curved or sinusoidal in shape and/or comprise a plurality of” “may be ribbed and/or planar or sheet-like in shape,” found in para. 0032 (PGPub).
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 from 112(f) above - 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 31 and 32, and the claims depending from these claims 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. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed function of “control unit”. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function as claimed because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the broad terms “control unit”, are not defined nor specifically shown with sufficient structure in applicants claims or specification. The lack of the term “control unit” within the specification and the specification does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed functions in all possible claimed structures. A review of the specification and drawing found no specific description or drawing of the claimed structure, and as no physical description of the element is provided and no details is shown, and as no physical description of the element is provided and no detail is shown, described, or provided thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the terms “control unit”.
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 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Claims 31 and 32 includes the limitation “control unit” 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 for all claimed structures and various claimed structures are indefinite and unclear. The specification is devoid of adequate structure description to perform the claimed function of all claimed possible structures. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to implement “control unit”. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. A review of the specification and drawing found no described or shown structure thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the term “control unit”. 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. Any structure capable of controlling flow based on temperature will be considered to read on this.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20, 24, 25, 29, and 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 20, and 24 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. It is unclear the amount substantially is referring to in the drawings or specification. The claims will be examined as any amount or distance reading on the limitation.
The term tiltable in claim 29 is indefinite as it is unclear what structure applicant is claiming. The specification and drawings include no detail or structure for this. One skilled in the art would not know if the claim requires a bendable structure or some type of mechanical joint or pivot as no details are provided. The claim will be examined as any possible impossible redirection or pivot reading on it.
The term “variable diameter” in claim 30 is indefinite as it is unclear what structure the applicant is claiming. The specification and drawings include no detail or structure for this. One skilled in the art will not know if the claim requires an actuated adjustment of the diameter. Or if a replaceable tip/outlet would be considered to read on this. The claim will be examined as any possible change to out of diameter reading on it.
The claim 25 depending from the above rejected claims are also rejected.
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)(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) 17, 19, 20, 23, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being unpatentable over GUPTA et al. (US 20220201901 A1).
It has been held that the 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Thus, the intended use of “A cooling device for a medical treatment device” in the claim does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 MPEP 2214 (II).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Housing interior Hi)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First Fan SF1)][AltContent: textbox (Housing Wall HW)][AltContent: textbox (Second Fan SF2)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
668
561
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Gupta teaches a cooling device (cooling assembly, for example, fig. 9 shows a cooling assembly for an electronic device 260) for a medical treatment device (intended use, very limited patentable weight, the cooling assemble can be used to cool a medical treatment device), the cooling device comprising:
a housing (see annotated fig. 9 above) having an air inlet (fig. 9, inlet for air flow 460), an air outlet (fig. 9, outlet for air flow 460), and a housing interior (annotated above in fig. 9) defined by a housing wall (annotated above in fig. 9); an air channel (shown in fig. 9, air channel within 210) arranged in the housing interior (shown in fig. 9, 210 is in the housing interior), wherein a wall (wall of 210. Examiner’s note: a wall here is interpreted to be the entirety of the walls of 210. Applicant might consider to clarify this limitation as it appears that multiple walls form the air channel in the instant application) of the air channel defines a continuous inner cavity fluidically connected to the air inlet and the air outlet (shown in fig. 9, air flow 460 flows in the inner cavity of 210 continuously from the air inlet to the air outlet), and wherein the inner cavity, the air inlet, and the air outlet are hermetically sealed from the housing interior by the air channel (in fig. 9, it is shown that 210 is not sealed from the housing interior as recirculation flow 700 within the housing interior flows through 210, however, para. graph 0053 states that “in some embodiments, the heat exchanger 210 may include one or a plurality of channels for the ambient airflow path 460, and omit channels for the recirculating airflow path 450; instead allowing the recirculating airflow path 450 to be propelled around the heat exchanger 210 to transfer heat through the external surfaces of the heat exchanger 210 rather than via internal ducting or channels”, thus an alternative option of fig. 9 is disclosed (which is not show in figs.) such that the recirculating airflow path 450 is not going through 210 but going around 210, thus it is inherent that the inner cavity, the air inlet, and the air outlet (of 210) are hermetically sealed from the housing interior by the air channel); at least one first fan (not shown in figs. however, para. 0077 states “In other embodiments there may be additional removable fan assemblies 220 (not depicted) mounted at any of the various locations along the ambient airflow path 460 to affect the airflow rate along the ambient airflow path 460.”, thus at least one fan could be arranged in the inner cavity along the air flow 460 to control the airflow rate) arranged in the inner cavity and adapted to provide a first air flow from the air inlet to the air outlet; and at least one second fan (annotated above in fig. 9) arranged in the housing interior and adapted to provide a second air flow at least partially flowing around the air channel.
Regarding claim 18, Gupta teaches wherein the at least one second fan (annotated above in fig. 9 para. 0076 states “In some embodiments, the first removable fan assembly 220a is mounted inside of cooling chassis 140 at various other locations along the recirculating airflow path 450”) of the housing interior (annotated above in fig. 9) is spaced apart from the wall (wall of 210. Examiner’s note: a wall here is interpreted to be the entirety of the walls of 210. Applicant might consider to clarify this limitation as it appears that multiple walls form the air channel in the instant application) of the air channel (shown in fig. 9, air channel within 210 para. 0070 states “the electronic device 260 and the heat exchanger 210 can be located in opposite sections, or both located in the lower section.”) and/or wherein the at least one second fan of the housing interior and the air channel are arranged at opposing end portions of the housing (or annotated fig. 9 above).
Regarding claim 19, Gupta teaches wherein the wall (wall of 210. Examiner’s note: a wall here is interpreted to be the entirety of the walls of 210. Applicant might consider to clarify this limitation as it appears that multiple walls form the air channel in the instant application) of the air channel (shown in fig. 9, air channel within 210 para. 0053 states “in some embodiments, the heat exchanger 210 may include one or a plurality of channels for the ambient airflow path 460, and omit channels for the recirculating airflow path 450; instead allowing the recirculating airflow path 450 to be propelled around the heat exchanger 210 to transfer heat through the external surfaces of the heat exchanger 210 rather than via internal ducting or channels” thus the distance of the space the air flows through between the heat exchanger 210 and the housing wall, fig. 9, walls of 210 is spaced apart from the housing wall in the vertical direction either above 210 or below 210 or both) is spaced apart from the housing wall (annotated above in fig. 9) in a portion between the air inlet (fig. 9, inlet for air flow 460) and the air outlet (fig. 9, outlet for air flow 460).
Regarding claim 20, Gupta teaches wherein the at least one second fan (annotated above in fig. 9 para. 0076 states “In some embodiments, the first removable fan assembly 220a is mounted inside of cooling chassis 140 at various other locations along the recirculating airflow path 450”) of the housing interior (annotated above in fig. 9) is arranged such that the second air flow flows substantially circumferentially around the wall (wall of 210. Examiner’s note: a wall here is interpreted to be the entirety of the walls of 210. Applicant might consider to clarify this limitation as it appears that multiple walls form the air channel in the instant application.) of the air channel (shown in fig. 9, air channel within 210 para. 0053 states “in some embodiments, the heat exchanger 210 may include one or a plurality of channels for the ambient airflow path 460, and omit channels for the recirculating airflow path 450; instead allowing the recirculating airflow path 450 to be propelled around the heat exchanger 210 to transfer heat through the external surfaces of the heat exchanger 210 rather than via internal ducting or channels.” thus, the air is propelled around the external surfaces of the heat exchanger, the circumference of the air channel).
Regarding claim 23, Gupta teaches wherein the at least one first fan (not shown in figs. however, para. 0077 states “In other embodiments there may be additional removable fan assemblies 220 (not depicted) mounted at any of the various locations along the ambient airflow path 460 to affect the airflow rate along the ambient airflow path 460.”, thus at least two fans could be spaced apart at equal distances in the inner cavity along the air flow 460 to control the airflow rate) comprises two or more fans, wherein the two or more fans are arranged at the air inlet (fig. 9, inlet for air flow 460) and are equally spaced apart in a longitudinal direction of the air channel (shown in fig. 9, air channel within 210) with respect to the air inlet.
Regarding claim 31, Gupta teaches further comprising a control unit (fan controller 230 para. 0033 states “Depending on the relative temperatures inside and outside of the cooling assembly 160, the fan controller 230 provides control of the ambient air fans (e.g., the removable fan assemblies 220 in the ambient airflow path) and the recirculating air fans (e.g., the removable fan assemblies 220 and individual fans in the recirculating airflow path) based on heat dissipation in the electronic device 260, and a target temperature to keep the electronic device 260 cooled to” thus the air flow can be controlled based on the target temperature) adapted to receive a temperature measurement of the housing interior (shown in fig. 9, 210 is in the housing interior), the air channel (shown in fig. 9, air channel within 210), and/or a medical treatment device (intended use, very limited patentable weight, the cooling assemble can be used to cool a medical treatment device) cooled by the cooling device (cooling assembly, for example, fig. 9 shows a cooling assembly for an electronic device 260), and to control the first air flow provided by the at least one first fan (not shown in figs. however, para. 0077 states “In other embodiments there may be additional removable fan assemblies 220 (not depicted) mounted at any of the various locations along the ambient airflow path 460 to affect the airflow rate along the ambient airflow path 460.”, thus at least one fan could be arranged in the inner cavity along the air flow 460 to control the airflow rate) in the air channel based on the temperature measurement.
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) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 20220201901 A1) in view of Chen (US 11085709 B2).
For claim 21, Gupta does not teach additional claim limitations of claim 21.
Regarding claim 21, Chen teaches wherein a portion of the air outlet (shown in fig. 3C, air outlet 243) is configured such that air flow (fig. 2, column 4 line 1-4 states that “Heated air leaves the heat exchange device 2 through an outward circulation air outlet 243 along a direction O.sub.1” hence, the inclination can be determined comparing the direction of O2 to O1) at the air outlet is at least partially inclined relative to the first air flow from the air inlet to the air outlet. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the air outlet of Gupta, to be the air outlet design of Chen, the motivation would be to improve heat exchange efficiency (Abstract).
For claim 22, Gupta does not teach additional claim limitations of claim 22.
Regarding claim 22, Chen teaches wherein an angle of inclination of the air flow (fig. 2, column 4 line 1-4 states that “Heated air leaves the heat exchange device 2 through an outward circulation air outlet 243 along a direction O.sub.1” hence, the inclination can be determined comparing the direction of O2 to O1) at the air outlet (shown in fig. 3C, air outlet 243) relative to the first air flow is 10 degrees to 80 degrees.
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 20220201901) in view of Weiss (US 5235491 A).
For claim 24, Gupta does not teach additional claim limitations of claim 24.
Regarding claim 24, Weiss teaches wherein the air channel (shown in fig. 16, heat sink 40) comprises a plurality of inner heat exchange elements (fig. 16, column 4 line 49-60 states that “The profile of the cooling-unit elements 30, 40 is such that, while forming the wall of the ventilation conduit 21, the elements 30, 40 also bear cooling fins 36, 46 that project into the conduit 21” thus the cooling fins are interpreted as heat exchange elements ) in the inner cavity (shown in fig 16, ventilation conduit 21), wherein the inner heat exchange elements extend substantially in a longitudinal direction of the air channel and protrude from the wall (wall of ventilation conduit 21. Examiner’s note: a wall here is interpreted to be entirety of the walls of 21. Applicant might consider to clarify this limitation as it appears that multiple walls form the air channel in the instant application) of the air channel into the inner cavity. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the inner cavity of Gupta, to include the inner heat exchange elements of Weiss, the motivation would be to improve heat exchange efficiency (Description column 1).
For claim 25, Gupta does not teach additional claim limitations of claim 25.
Regarding claim 25, Weiss teaches wherein the inner heat exchange elements (fig. 9, column 4 line 49-60 states that “The profile of the cooling-unit elements 30, 40 is such that, while forming the wall of the ventilation conduit 21, the elements 30, 40 also bear cooling fins 36, 46 that project into the conduit 21” thus the cooling fins are interpreted as heat exchange elements) are arranged on opposing sides of the wall (wall of ventilation conduit 21. Examiner’s note: a wall here is interpreted to be entirety of the walls of 21. Applicant might consider to clarify this limitation as it appears that multiple walls form the air channel in the instant application) of the air channel (shown in fig. 16, heat sink 40, an offset can be seen between the cooling fins extending into the ventilation conduit 21) and wherein the inner heat exchange elements extending towards each other are arranged with an offset to each other in a circumferential direction of the air channel.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 20220201901 A1) in view of Gandre et al. (US5828549A).
For claim 26, Gupta does not teach additional claim limitations of claim 26.
Regarding claim 26, Gandre teaches wherein the air channel (shown in fig. 3 heat sink side walls 46a, 48a) comprises a plurality of outer heat exchange elements (fig. 2 column 3 line 55-56 “the cooling fins 76a, 80a project opposite from the passage.” thus the cooling fins are interpreted as heat exchange elements) on the wall (wall of passage 52a. Examiner’s note: a wall here is interpreted to be entirety of the walls of passage 52a. Applicant might consider to clarify this limitation as it appears that multiple walls form the air channel in the instant application) of the air channel, wherein the plurality of outer heat exchange elements protrude into the housing interior (shown in figure 1 a chassis 12). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the air channel of Gupta, to be the heat sink design of Gandre, the motivation to provide a large amount of exposed surface area for heat convection (Abstract [57]).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 20220201901 A1) in view of Gandre et al. (US5828549A) as applied to claim 26 above and further in view of Hutchison et al. (US6404637B2).
For claim 27, Gupta does not teach additional claim limitations of claim 27.
Regarding claim 27, Hutchison teaches wherein the plurality of outer heat exchange elements (fig. 1 Abstract “Cooling fins (16) operable to conduct and dissipate heat are attached to the exterior of the housing (12)” thus the cooling fins are interpreted as heat exchange elements) extend circumferentially on the wall (wall of housing (12). Examiner’s note: a wall here is interpreted to be entirety of the walls of housing (12). Applicant might consider to clarify this limitation as it appears that multiple walls form the air channel in the instant application) of the air channel (shown in fig. 1 housing (12) column 3 line 44-46 “Preferably, the fins 16 are formed of a plurality of W-shaped segments arranged adjacent to one another about the housing’s exterior.” Hence, the fins are spaced apart in one direction around the cylindrical housing) and are spaced apart from each other in a longitudinal direction. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the air channel of Gupta, to be the single passage design of Hutchison, the motivation to naturally conduct heat away (column 3 line 39-41)
Claim(s) 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 20220201901 A1) in view of Allgeyer et al. (US 7233159 B2).
For claim 28, Gupta does not teach additional claim limitations of claim 28.
Regarding claim 28, Allgeyer teaches further comprising a nozzle adapted to direct and/or accelerate the first air flow (column 4 line 62-65 “Thus, using the structure illustrated in FIG. 6, directable air purge 48 provides a mechanism for directing a stream of dry air to any desired portion of a component under test.”) provided in the inner cavity (shown in fig. 1, test chamber 40) at the air outlet (fig. 6, air outlet 50). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the air inner cavity of Gupta, to be the spray nozzle design of Allgeyer, the motivation to spot cool electrical components (column 4 line 62-97).
For claim 29, Gupta does not teach additional claim limitations of claim 29.
Regarding claim 29, Allgeyer teaches wherein the nozzle is tiltable relative to the housing wall (As illustrated in FIG. 6, column 4 line 54-55 “an air outlet 50 mounted on a base including a rotating member 52 and a pivoting member 54”).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 20220201901 A1) in view of Allgeyer et al. (US 7233159 B2) in further view of Hoglund et al. (US8161997B2).
For claim 30, Gupta and Allgeyer does not teach additional claim limitations of claim 30.
Regarding claim 30, Hoglund teaches wherein a diameter of the nozzle is variable (shown in fig. 23, column 7 line 13-14 states “To increase flow through one nozzle it's possible to make a larger hole or to make more holes through the nozzle” thus, the adjustable diameter can be seen looking velocity changing with the pressure difference out of the nozzle). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the air inner cavity of Gupta, to be the nozzle design of Hoglund, the motivation to control the flow (column 7 line 5).
Claim(s) 32-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 20220201901 A1) in view of Wild et al. (US 12268801 B2).
For claim 32, Gupta does not teach additional claim limitations of claim 32.
Regarding claim 32, Wild teaches further comprising a control unit (control unit 7 column 14 line 55-61 states “Accordingly, the control unit 7 is configured to receive an operation parameter from the medical treatment device. This at least has the advantage that the control unit 7 receives information regarding the operation mode, such that the control of the ventilators 3, 6 not only occurs based on the measured temperature, but also dependent on the determined operation mode.” thus the airflow can be controlled based on the operation mode) adapted to receive an operating condition of a medical treatment device (shown in fig. 1, a medical treatment device 4) cooled by the cooling device (shown in fig. 1, the air conditioning device 10) and to control the first air flow provided by the at least one first fan (shown in fig. 1, ventilator 3) in the air channel (shown in fig. 1, exhaust air channel 2) based on the operating condition. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the control unit of Gupta, to be the control unit design of Wild, the motivation to cool the medical treatment device during disinfection (column 14 line 62-65).
Regarding claim 33, Gupta teaches
a cooling device configured to cool the medical treatment device, the cooling device (cooling assembly, for example, fig. 9 shows a cooling assembly for an electronic device 260) comprising:
a housing (shown in annotated fig. 9 above) having an air inlet (fig. 9, inlet for air flow 460), an air outlet (fig. 9, outlet for air flow 460), and a housing interior (annotated above in fig. 9) defined by a housing wall (annotated above in fig. 9),
an air channel (shown in fig. 9, air channel within 210) arranged in the housing interior (shown in fig. 9, 210 is in the housing interior), wherein a wall (wall of 210. Examiner’s note: a wall here is interpreted to be the entirety of the walls of 210. Applicant might consider to clarify this limitation as it appears that multiple walls form the air channel in the instant application) of the air channel defines a continuous inner cavity fluidically connected to the air inlet and the air outlet (shown in fig. 9, air flow 460 flows in the inner cavity of 210 continuously from the air inlet to the air outlet), and wherein the inner cavity, the air inlet and the air outlet are hermetically sealed from the housing interior by the air channel (in fig. 9, it is shown that 210 is not sealed from the housing interior as recirculation flow 700 within the housing interior flows through 210, however, para. graph 0053 states that “in some embodiments, the heat exchanger 210 may include one or a plurality of channels for the ambient airflow path 460, and omit channels for the recirculating airflow path 450; instead allowing the recirculating airflow path 450 to be propelled around the heat exchanger 210 to transfer heat through the external surfaces of the heat exchanger 210 rather than via internal ducting or channels”, thus an alternative option of fig. 9 is disclosed (which is not show in figs.) such that the recirculating airflow path 450 is not going through 210 but going around 210, thus it is inherent that the inner cavity, the air inlet, and the air outlet (of 210) are hermetically sealed from the housing interior by the air channel);
at least one first fan (not shown in figs. however, para. 0077 states “In other embodiments there may be additional removable fan assemblies 220 (not depicted) mounted at any of the various locations along the ambient airflow path 460 to affect the airflow rate along the ambient airflow path 460.”, thus at least one fan could be arranged in the inner cavity along the air flow 460 to control the airflow rate), arranged in the inner cavity and adapted to provide a first air flow from the air inlet to the air outlet, and
at least one second fan (annotated above in fig. 9) arranged in the housing interior and adapted to provide a second air flow at least partially flowing around the air channel.
Gupta does not teach A medical treatment device comprising:
Wild teaches A medical treatment device (shown in fig. 4, a medical treatment device 4) comprising: It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the cooling device design of Gupta, to thermally connect to the medical treatment design of Wild, the motivation the heat dissipation of the medical treatment device would further be improved (column 8 line 40-44).
For claim 34, Gupta does not teach additional claim limitations of claim 34.
Regarding claim 34 Wild teaches, comprising an extracorporeal blood treatment device (Per abstract, a medical treatment device) and/or extracorporeal circulatory support device (Technical Field states “for example for supplying an extracorporeal blood treatment device with a dialysis medium.”).
For claim 35, Gupta does not teach additional claim limitations of claim 35.
Regarding claim 35 Wild teaches, further comprising a housing (shown in fig. 4, media supply arrangement 1, “The media supply arrangement 1 may also be formed with its own housing, in which the components of the media supply arrangement 1 are arranged and which may be attached to a wall surface.” column 14 line 16-19), wherein the housing of the cooling device is integrated in the housing of the medical treatment device (shown in fig. 4, the medical treatment device 4), wherein the housing of the cooling device is thermally coupled (Shown in fig. 4, ventilators 6 column 8 line 36-38 “In some embodiments, the air conditioning device may be directly thermally coupled to the medical treatment device, preferably via a heat conducting element.” Column 8 line 38-41 “For example, the heat conducting element may be provided at a first end of the exhaust air channel. The thermal coupling may hence occur via the provided air flow” The ventilator is a heat conducting element transferring heat from the medical device through the air flow) to the housing of the medical treatment device, or wherein the housing of the cooling device is formed at least as part of the housing of the medical treatment device.
Regarding claim 36, Gupta teaches wherein the at least one second fan (annotated above in fig. 9 para. 0076 states “In some embodiments, the first removable fan assembly 220a is mounted inside of cooling chassis 140 at various other locations along the recirculating airflow path 450.”) of the housing interior (annotated above in fig. 9) is spaced apart from the wall (wall of 210. Examiner’s note: a wall here is interpreted to be the entirety of the walls of 210. Applicant might consider to clarify this limitation as it appears that multiple walls form the air channel in the instant application) of the air channel (shown in fig. 9, air channel within 210 para. 0070 states “the electronic device 260 and the heat exchanger 210 can be located in opposite sections, or both located in the lower section.”) and/or wherein the at least one second fan of the housing interior and the air channel are arranged at opposing end portions of the housing (see annotated fig. 9 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY FRANCIS CANOVA whose telephone number is (571)272-5795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at (571) 270-7740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HENRY FRANCIS CANOVA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights