DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention (combination/sub combination)/Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/22/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I/Species A in the reply filed on 6/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is overlapping subject matter between Groups and therefore there would be no serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the serious burden exists as explained in the combination/sub combination outlined in the restriction requirement mailed on 4/22/2026, applicant’s arguments are not responsive since no argument has directly addressed the combination/sub combination but merely stated that some overlapping matter in the claims are present. The burdensome search is outlined in the restriction requirement mailed on 4/22/2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HERRICK-KAISER US 2012/0073785 Al.
Re claim 1, HERRICK-KAISER teach an environmental control module (ECM) for an enclosed space (para 19), comprising: a heat exchanger (fig 3) comprising: a cooling airflow inlet (26, 27); a plurality of cold side channels (72) fluidly connected to the cooling airflow inlet to direct the cooling airflow through the enclosed space; and a cooling airflow outlet (28, 29) to remove the cooling airflow from the heat exchanger;
a hot side impeller (20) configured to rotate about a drive axis and disposed in fluid communication with the cooling airflow outlet to urge the cooling airflow out of the enclosed space and through the cooling airflow outlet; a cold side impeller (18) operably connected to and coaxial with the hot side impeller, the cold side impeller rotatably secured to the heat exchanger and disposed in fluid communication with the cooling airflow inlet to urge the cooling airflow into the heat exchanger via the cooling airflow inlet;
and a drive (14) secured to the enclosed space and operable connected to the hot side impeller to drive rotation of the hot side impeller and the cold side impeller.
Re claim 5, HERRICK-KAISER teach wherein the cold side impeller is rotatably secured to the heat exchanger via a cold side bearing (38).
Re claim 7, HERRICK-KAISER teach wherein both the cold side impeller and the hot side impeller are rotatably secured to the heat exchanger (para 20).
Re claim 8, HERRICK-KAISER teach wherein the cold side impeller and the hot side impeller are disposed on a common impeller shaft (16).
Re claim 10, HERRICK-KAISER teach further comprising a hot side bearing (38) disposed at the heat exchanger to rotatably secure the hot side impeller to the heat exchanger.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HERRICK-KAISER in view of Broili US 20120002368 A1.
Re claim 2, HERRICK-KAISER teach a drive coil at least partially disposed in a drive pocket (52 portion figs).
HERRICK-KAISER fail to teach brushless, however Broili teach wherein the drive is a brushless drive coil (claim 9) at least partially disposed in a drive pocket (in the instant combination interior to the 52 portion) defined in the hot side impeller; wherein energizing of the brushless drive coil urges rotation of at least the hot side impeller about the drive axis to provide a substitute for the known element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a brushless drive coil taught in Broili for the drive in HERRICK-KAISER for the predictable result of providing airflow for heat exchange by driving the impellers.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HERRICK-KAISER in view of Chang et al. US 9,636,779 B2.
Re claim 3, HERRICK-KAISER, as modified, fail to explicitly teach extends through the hot side impeller.
Chang et al. teach the brushless drive coil (84) extends through the hot side impeller (813) and at least partially through the cold side impeller (83); wherein energizing of the brushless drive coil directly urges rotation of both the hot side impeller and the cold side impeller about the drive axis to provide the stator internal to the impellers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include extends through the hot side impeller as taught by Chang et al. in the HERRICK-KAISER, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for structure applied to the fan can lower cost.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HERRICK-KAISER in view of CN’ 053 CN 204758053 U.
Re claim 4, HERRICK-KAISER fail to explicitly teach magnetic coupling.
CN’ 053 teach the hot side impeller is operably connected to the cold side impeller via a magnetic coupling such that rotation of the hot side impeller about the drive axis urges rotation of the cold side impeller about the drive axis to connect impellers with magnetic transmission plates
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include magnetic coupling as taught by CN’ 053 in the HERRICK-KAISER invention in order to advantageously allow for the number of revolutions of the rotating impeller is transmitted to the main control board, and the main control board is rotated according to the rotating impeller for advanced controls.
Claim(s) 6, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HERRICK-KAISER in view of Noren US 4600050 A.
Re claim 6, HERRICK-KAISER fail to explicitly teach configured to be removed.
Noren teach wherein the heat exchanger and the cold side impeller are configured to be removed from the enclosed space as a single unit (noting 95,100 using 98/96/94 attachment to 90 is equivalent to outer 30 of primary reference which attaches to 12; and in the instant combination removing the two sided heat exchanger removes parts of the unit exchanger naturally) to attach a two sided exchanger to a sealed housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include configured to be removed as taught by Noren in the HERRICK-KAISER invention in order to advantageously allow for various means of connecting with gaskets and epoxies.
Re claim 9, HERRICK-KAISER fail to explicitly teach configured to be removed.
Noren teach the cold side impeller and the hot side impeller are configured to be removed from the drive as a single unit (noting 95,100 using 98/96/94 attachment to 90 is equivalent to outer 30 of primary reference which attaches to 12; and in the instant combination removing the two sided heat exchanger removes parts of the unit exchanger naturally) to attach a two sided exchanger to a sealed housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include configured to be removed as taught by Noren in the HERRICK-KAISER invention in order to advantageously allow for various means of connecting with gaskets and epoxies.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HERRICK-KAISER in view of Kok US 8743542 B2.
Re claim 11, over HERRICK-KAISER fail to explicitly teach a filter.
Kok teach one or more of a filter, a particulate getter, and a desiccant disposed at the heat exchanger to condition the cooling airflow to filter airflow.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a filter as taught by Kok in the over HERRICK-KAISER invention in order to advantageously allow for removing particulates and reduces maintenance costs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 6023117 A, US 2022/0381248 Al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/GORDON A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights