DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Request
The applicant is requested to provide line numbers to each claim in all future claim submissions to aide in examination and communication with the applicant about claim recitations. The applicant is thanked for aiding examination.
Drawings
The amendment to the drawings dated 8/7/2026 is accepted.
Specification
The amendment to the specification dated 8/7/2026 is accepted.
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(s) 1-8 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “a cooling water flow device comprising a recovery pipe through which the cooling water is configured to be recovered to a storage tank and a discharge pipe through which the cooling water is configured to be discharged from the storage tank” is indefinite as it is not clear if the storage tank is part of the device or not. The applicant argues (REM 8/7/2026) that the specification states that the cooling water flow device includes a storage tank. However, the allegation is unpersuasive since it is improper to import limitations from the specification into the claims. The applicant should amend the claims to remove the ambiguity.
In regard to claim 8, the recitation, “valve spool comprising a flow path…the flow path being selectively connected by means of a connecting hole, and a coupling opening connected to the flow path and extending in a coupling direction different from the flow path;” is indefinite for mis-using the term valve spool; where the applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “valve spool” in claim 8 is used by the claim to mean “valve body” while the accepted meaning is “valve piston”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The applicant alleges (REM 8/7/2026) that there is no evidence that the term is generally understood to be a piston. The applicant fails to overcome the position of the rejection and can merely look at any dictionary definition of valve spool to verify the meaning of the term. For example: https://richconn.com/what-is-a-valve-spool/.
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.
Claim limitation “cooling water flow device” does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, since the claim requires that the device comprises at least a recovery pipe and a discharge pipe and these can perform the functions of recovering and discharging cooling water. The ambiguity explained above still remains.
Claim limitation “drive 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. The disclosure uses the term but never defines what structure is sufficient to meet the recitation. 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.
It is noted that “temperature controller” does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph and is interpreted as any structure that can provide a desired temperature.
It is noted that “flow rate controller” does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph and is interpreted as any structure that can provide a desired flow rate.
It is noted that “cooling controller” does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph and is interpreted as any structure that controls the temperature controller and the flow rate controller.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by You (KR 10-1739369). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 1, You teaches a cooling apparatus (see whole disclosure) comprising: a cooling water flow device (as identified below) comprising a recovery pipe (from 90) through which cooling water (heat medium, water, page 4) is configured to be recovered to a storage tank (at least 20) and a discharge pipe (to 90) through which the cooling water is configured to be discharged from the storage tank (20); a temperature controller (53, 52, 51) disposed on the storage tank (20) and configured to control a temperature (page 3, last line to page 4, line 1) of the cooling water stored in the storage tank (20) (page 6, see thermoelectric module; a flow rate controller (at least 62) disposed on the discharge pipe (to 90) of the cooling water and configured to control a discharge flow rate (page 7, para. 5 “controlling the flow rate”) of the cooling water based on a flow rate control current (valve is controlled by controller and therefore the valve is electric and will have some electric current); and a cooling controller (100) configured to control the discharge flow rate (through at least 62) and a cooling temperature (per cooling with 51, 52, 53) of the cooling water together by driving the flow rate controller (at least 62) and the temperature controller (51, 52, 53) in response to a cooling signal (at least TS3, or target temperature of the load 90).
In regard to claim 7, You teaches that the flow rate controller (at least 62) comprises an electric flow rate control valve (62) configured to control the discharge flow rate (page 7, para. 5) of the cooling water in proportion (page 7, para. 5) “proportional”) to the flow rate control current (valve is electric and will have some electric current).
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 200224479 hereafter KR200. See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 1, KR200 teaches a cooling apparatus (see whole disclosure) comprising: a cooling water flow device (as identified below) comprising a recovery pipe (230) through which cooling water (page 1) is configured to be recovered to a storage tank (301) and a discharge pipe (231) through which the cooling water is configured to be discharged from the storage tank (301); a temperature controller (310) disposed on the storage tank (301) and configured to control a temperature (page 5) of the cooling water stored in the storage tank (301) (page 1, see thermoelectric module; page 3, para. 5); a flow rate controller (200) disposed on the discharge pipe (231) of the cooling water and configured to control a discharge flow rate (page 3, para. 7) of the cooling water based on a flow rate control current (is electric and will have some electric current); and a cooling controller (500) configured to control the discharge flow rate (through at least 200) and a cooling temperature (per cooling with 310) of the cooling water together by driving the flow rate controller (200) and the temperature controller (301) in response to a cooling signal (at least 320, 321).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR200 in view of Kim (US 2012/0049316). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claims 2-5, KR200 teaches that the temperature controller (310) comprises: a cooling plate (311, 313) configured to cover (see that when viewed from side the plate 311, 313 covers an outer surface from view) an outer surface (see outer surface) of the storage tank (301); a thermoelectric device (312; page 3, para. 5), comprising a top portion (left side of 312) in contact with a bottom portion (right part of 311, 313) of the cooling plate (311, 313) and configured to cool the cooling water by Peltier effect (per thermoelectric device) via the cooling plate (311, 313); and a heat dissipation plate (plate with 314) in contact with the bottom portion (right part of 312) of the thermoelectric device (312) to dissipate heat absorbed from the cooling water (page 3, para. 5). KR200 does not explicitly teach that a plurality of thermoelectric devices as claimed. However, employing plural thermoelectric devices is routine and ordinary as taught by Kim. Kim teaches a thermoelectric module (100) comprising a plurality of thermoelectric devices (130; para. 30, 37). In addition, Kim teaches that each of the plurality of thermoelectric devices comprises: a pair of semiconductor elements (132, 134) having different polarities (fully capable thereof, see para. 7, 71, 48); individual conductors (124) provided as electrodes (para. 30) in contact with the pair of semiconductor elements (132, 134), respectively; and a bridge conductor (122) in simultaneous contact with the pair of semiconductor elements (132, 134) to be provided as a bridge electrode (para. 46), and in contact with a cooling plate (112). In addition, Kim teaches that the pair of semiconductor elements (132, 134) comprises p-type and n-type semiconductors (para. 46) connected in series (see Fig. 1). In addition, Kim teaches that the individual conductors (124) are plates (see figures) and official notice is taken that electrodes are routinely made from copper and that p-type and n-type semiconductors routinely comprise bismuth telluride (Bi2Te3) or lead telluride (PbTe). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the thermoelectric controller (310) of KR200 to comprise a plurality of thermoelectric devices as claimed for the purpose of providing greater cooling capacity and to form the conductors (124) from copper plate for the purpose of employing a well known and electrically efficient material for electrodes and to employ bismuth telluride (Bi2Te3) or lead telluride (PbTe) in the semiconductor materials for the purpose of employing efficient and well known semiconductor materials providing desired Peltier cooling operation.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR200 in view of Kim (US 2012/0049316) and Bhavsar (US 2012/0047911). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
KR200, as modified, teaches most of the claim limitations but does not appear to explicitly teach that a first power supply of the temperature controller (310) configured to generate a direct current in a switching mode. However, Bhavsar teaches that direct current in a switch mode is routine and ordinary (para. 18-19, 26, 36, see direct current that is selectively connected or disconnected by a controllable relay). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the power supply of KR200 with the direct current mode switching power supply of Bhavsar for the purpose of providing well controlled and modulated power to the thermoelectric device to achieve flexible operational levels of cooling depending on the specific operational goals at hand.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You (KR 10-1739369) in view of Jeon (KR 102021072) provided by the applicant and with an English interpretation attached to this action. See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
You teaches most of the claim limitations, but does not explicitly teach a valve body, valve piston, drive unit, and second power supply as claimed. However, Jeon teaches a flow rate controller comprising: a valve body (350) comprising a flow path (through 360 and 354) the flow path (through 360 and 354) being selectively connected by a connecting hole (inside 350), and a coupling opening (inner opening of 350 above 360) connected to the flow path (through 360 and 354) and extending in a coupling direction (up and down in fig. 4, in axis direction of 350) different from the flow path (see flow path goes off to side with 360); a valve piston (340) inserted in and rotatably coupled to the coupling opening (inner opening above 360), and configured to move linearly (up and down) in the coupling direction (axis direction) by rotational movement (para. 73, 74) in the coupling opening (inner opening above 360), thereby changing an open area (area for flow) of the connecting hole (inner opening above 360); a drive unit (solenoid; para. 80) configured to drive the valve piston (340); and a second power supply (para. 18 providing power to coil) configured to supply the flow rate control current (para. 18 “current”) as a direct current to the drive unit (solenoid). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify You with the valve features of Jeon for the purpose of providing flow control valving that is compact, easily actuatable, and able to provide precise control.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments (page 11) are an allegation that the 112, sixth paragraph rejection should be withdrawn merely because the application uses the terms recited. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive as mere use of the terms does not sufficiently define the necessary structure of the drive unit. Therefore the allegation is unpersuasive.
Applicant's arguments (page 12) are an allegation that You “does not appear to control the flow rate of cooling water” and “does not appear to disclose control the temperature of the cooling water” and allegedly only teaches controlling a mixing ratio.
In response, the allegation is fully unpersuasive since teachings about a mixing ratio are nothing but supportive of the fact that You indeed teaches the claimed temperature controller (53, 52, 51) that does control a temperature of the cooling water (page 6 see heating medium cooling means) and You teaches a flow controller (at least 62) that controls a discharge flow rate (page 7, para. 5 “controlling the flow rate” see that amount is controlled). It is not persuasive to ignore the teachings of the prior art.
Applicant's arguments (page 12-13) are an allegation that KR200 does not teach “use of the pump in conjunction with temperature control.”
In response, the allegation is fully unpersuasive since the claimed structure of the temperature controller, flow rate controller, and cooling controller is taught by KR200 and therefore the claim limitations are met. There are no claim limitations to method steps of use and therefore whatever use step alleged is not relevant to the claimed structure of the apparatus as the prior art is fully capable of performing all of the recited functional language as recited.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the 892 form and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
