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 .
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.
“a fixing means” in claim 1, is understood to be any fastening mechanism including, but not limited to, bolts, screws, clamps, adhesives, or equivalents thereof.
This application also 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:
“an elastic member” in claim 7, it is structurally unclear what constitute an elastic member (see 112b rejection below).
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.
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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “zigzag shape” in line 3 renders the scope of the claim unclear because it does not define a particular structure and encompasses an indeterminate range of geometries.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a thermoelectric element” in line 5 renders claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates with the previously cited limitation “a thermoelectric element” in line 2 of the claim. The limitation should read –the thermoelectric element--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the cooled surface” in line 6 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “closely adhered” in line 8 of claim 1 and in line 5 of claim 4 is a relative term which does not provide a standard for determining the required degree of contact.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the heat dissipation surface” in line 8-9 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a gasket (5) that is made of a non-conductive material, and is sandwiched between the heat exchange block (2) and the heat dissipation block (4) while housing the thermoelectric element 3 therein” in line 12-14 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the gasket structurally relates to the recited components. Specifically, the claim states that the gasket is sandwiched between the heat exchange block (2) and the heat dissipation block (4), while also stating that the thermoelectric element (3) is housed “therein.” However, the thermoelectric element would also necessarily be positioned between the same two blocks. As a result, it is unclear whether the gasket surrounds, encloses, or otherwise contains the thermoelectric element, or how both elements can occupy the same spatial region. Accordingly, the structural relationship between the gasket, the heat exchange block, the heat dissipation block, and the thermoelectric element is ambiguous, such that the metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 1 recite a gasket “made of a non-conductive material" in line 12 renders the claim indefinite. The term "non-conductive" is ambiguous because it can refer to either thermal non-conductivity or electrical non-conductivity, which are distinct physical properties with different material implications. The specification at paragraph [0067] states the gasket should have low thermal conductivity to prevent heat transfer, implying thermal non-conductivity. However, the claim language itself does not specify which type of non-conductivity is intended. A POSITA could read this claim to require either an electrically insulating material (e.g., a ceramic), a thermally insulating material (e.g., a plastic or rubber), or both.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “non-conductive material” in line 12 is ambiguous as it is unclear whether electrical conductivity or thermal conductivity is intended.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the working fluid” in line 18 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the temperature” in line 20 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the outlet” in line 21 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the inlet” in line 22-23 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a plurality of flow paths” in line 2-3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates with the previously cited limitation “a flow path” in line 3 of claim 1. For examination purposes, the examiner read the limitation as –the flow path comprises a plurality of flow paths--. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 2 recites that the U-turn connected flow paths "have one row flow path shape" renders the claim indefinite because this term is unclear. The specification at paragraph [0057] states that flow paths are arranged "in two stages" yet the calls the resulting configuration a "one row flow path shape." A POSITA cannot determine whether "one row" means that the flow paths collectively form a single continuous fluid path (as opposed to parallel fluid circuits), or whether the flow paths are physically arranged in a single row. The two-stage arrangement described in the specification appears to contradict a "one row" characterization, creating ambiguity as to the spatial arrangement required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the longitudinal direction” in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the body” in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear which body it referring to.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the respective flow paths” in line 4 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 2 recites the phrase “one row flow path shape” in line 6 renders the claim indefinite because the phrase is unclear and lacks structural definition.
Claim 2 recites that "both outer side openings of the flow path (21) are closed by a cover (23)" in line 6-7 renders the claim indefinite. The plural "both outer side openings" is ambiguous. Each flow path has two ends; accordingly, with multiple parallel flow paths, there are multiple openings on each side. It is unclear whether "both" refers to the two longitudinal ends of the heat exchange block (i.e., one cover on each end), or to the two outer lateral faces of the block. The specification at paragraph [0056] clarifies that covers close the side surfaces of the flow paths, but the claim language itself does not make this clear. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the inlet flow path” in line 8 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the outlet flow path” in line 8 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the exposed surface” in line 4 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the head of the first bolt” in line 6 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 3 recites the phrase “buried so as not to protrude” in claim 6 renders the claim indefinite because fails to provide clear boundaries of the claimed structure.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “it” in line 7 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the word “it” referring to.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the housing” in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the cool block” in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear if it is referring to the heat exchange block, the heat dissipation block or an entirely different block.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the cooling surface” in line 4 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the longitudinal direction” in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the body” in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the passage” in line 4 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the transverse direction” in line 5 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the edge of the body” in line 7 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the second bolt” in line 8 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the first bolt” in line 4 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 6 recites "a plurality of fastening holes (51) for housing the first bolts (B1) fastened to the heat exchange block" in line 3-4 renders the claim indefinite because the word "housing" in this context is ambiguous- it could mean (a) receiving/accommodating the bolt shank as the bolt passes through the hole, or (b) fully enclosing the bolt head within the gasket thickness. The distinction is material because claim 3, which depends from claim 1, specifies that "the head of the first bolt (B1) is buried so as not to protrude outside the exposed surface of the gasket." If "housing" in claim 6 does not capture this head-burial feature, then claim 6's fastening holes may be broader than what is actually disclosed. This renders claim 6 indefinite as to the function and depth of the fastening holes.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the periphery” in line 9 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the position” and “the tab” in line 2-3 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7 limitation “an elastic member” 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. Because it is unclear from the drawing or the specification what structure constitute “an elastic member”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 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, 2, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wright et al. (US 5,584,183).
In regard to claim 1, Wright discloses a cooling device using a thermoelectric element (Abstract; col. 1, ll. 60–67) comprising:
a heat exchange block (1st channel 14) that is cooled by a thermoelectric element (12) and cools a working fluid (liquid coolant such as water/ethylene glycol) flowing through a flow path (flow channels inside 14, see fig. 1, 3) formed in a zigzag shape therein (Col. 2, ll. 20–55; col. 3, ll. 15–53; FIG. 1; FIG. 3: Wright expressly teaches that the channels contain internal heat transfer fins (16) that form a turbulent/wave like geometry/tortuous, back-and-forth flow path);
a thermoelectric element (12) that is fixed to either one side surface or both side surfaces of the heat exchange block (14) so that the cooled surface cools the heat exchange block (14) when electric power is supplied (FIG. 1; col. 3, ll. 1–15; col. 2, ll. 55–65: Wright explicitly discloses a series of thermoelectric units (12) sandwiched between and in direct thermal contact with both sides of the channels (14));
a heat dissipation block (a second channel 14 on the hot/dissipation side of the thermoelectric units (12)) that is closely adhered to the heat dissipation surface (22) of the thermoelectric element (12) and is cooled by cooling water circulating through an internal passage to cool the heat dissipation surface (22) of the thermoelectric element (12) (col. 3, ll. 40–55; col. 4, ll. 1–10); and
a gasket (26) that is made of a non-conductive material, and is sandwiched between the heat exchange block (14) and the heat dissipation block (22) while housing the thermoelectric element (12) therein, so that the heat exchange block (14) is fixed to one side surface by a fixing means (24), and the heat dissipation block (22) is fixed on the other side surface (col. 4, ll. 37 to col. 5, II 5),
wherein the heat exchange block (14) cooled by the thermoelectric element (12) cools the working fluid flowing through the flow path (flow channels inside 14), the heat dissipation block (14) through which the cooling water flows inside dissipates heat from the heat dissipation surface (22) of the thermoelectric element (12), so that the temperature of the working fluid discharged to the outlet of the heat exchange block (14) is cooled to a temperature lower than the temperature of the working fluid supplied to the inlet of the heat exchange block (14) (Abstract, col. 4, ll. 15-36; col. 5, II. 21-35; see also the 112b rejection above). Wright discloses cooling the liquid coolant in one channel while dissipating the rejected heat via the second channel. The working fluid exits the outlet of the cooling channel at a temperature lower than the inlet temperature.
In regard to claim 2, Wright discloses the cooling device using a thermoelectric element according to claim 1, wherein the heat exchange block (14) has a structure in which a plurality of flow paths (flow channels inside 14) are arranged in parallel along the longitudinal direction of the body so that the working fluid can flow (fig. 1: see the flow paths extends towards fluid distribution manifolds 32), the respective flow paths are mutually communicated with adjacent paths at one end or both ends through a U-turn groove to have one row flow path shape (the channels communicate with each other at their ends through the manifold/header arrangement, causing the working fluid to flow through successive paths in a back-and-forth (U-turn) fashion), both outer side openings of the flow path (flow channels inside 14) are closed by a cover, and the inlet and outlet mounted on the cover are communicated with the inlet flow path and the outlet flow path corresponding thereto (See fig. 1: see also the 112b rejection above). Wright discloses parallel flow channels (14) arranged along the longitudinal direction of the body. The channels communicate with each other at their ends through the manifold/header arrangement, causing the working fluid to flow through successive paths in a back-and-forth (U-turn) fashion ( col. 3, ll. 15–45; FIG. 1). The ends of the channels are closed by end plates/covers (not separately numbered but shown in the figures), with inlet and outlet fittings communicating with the terminal flow paths (col. 3, ll. 44-64).
In regard to claim 5, Wright discloses the cooling device using a thermoelectric element according to claim 1, wherein the heat dissipation block (14) has a structure in which a plurality of passages (see the passages inside 14) are penetrated inside the body along the longitudinal direction, both ends of the passage are closed by a cover (32), both sides of the body in the transverse direction are formed with an inlet passage and an outlet passage so as to be in communication with the passage so that cooling water can enter and exit the passage (col. 3, ll. 20–56; FIG. 1: Wright discloses a heat dissipation channel (14) that has a plurality of passages running along its longitudinal direction, ends closed by end pieces, and inlet/outlet fittings on the sides), and the edge of the body is fastened to the gasket (26) so that a fastening hole (the hole that bolt 28 passes through) is penetrated through which the second bolt (28) for fastening and fixing the heat dissipation block (14) to the gasket (26) is fastened (fig. 1; col. 4, ll. 8–20: Wright discloses the channels include fastening holes through which the clamping bolts pass).
In regard to claim 6, Wright discloses the cooling device using a thermoelectric element according to claim 1, wherein the gasket is “configured in a ring shape so as to have a space for housing the thermoelectric element therein,” with “a plurality of fastening holes for housing the first bolts,” “a tab to which a second bolt for fixing the heat dissipation block is fastened,” and “adhesive receiving grooves for bonding the heat exchange block and the heat dissipation block concavely formed in the periphery of both side surfaces.” Wright discloses an insulating frame/spacer (26) surrounding the thermoelectric units (12), defining a space that houses the thermoelectric elements and is flanked by the two channel blocks (col. 4, ll. 64 to col. 5, II. 7; fig. 1). The insulating frame includes penetrations for the clamping bolts, which corresponds to the fastening holes recited in Claim 3 (see also col. 5, ll. 8–20). The adhesive or bonding function is provided by Wright’s foam insulation (26), which is described as serving a bonding/sealing function on both sides (col. 4, ll. 35 to col. 5, II. 7; fig. 1). While Wright does not expressly use the word “tab” for the second bolt feature, the load distribution pad (30) with its bolt holes serves the same structural and functional role (see also the 112b rejection above).
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) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 5,584,183) in view of Koslow et al. (US 4,829,771).
In regard to claim 3, Wright discloses the cooling device using a thermoelectric element according to claim 1, wherein a first bolt (28) is fastened to the heat exchange block (14) to fasten and fix the gasket (26) to the heat exchange block (14), and a second bolt (B2) is fastened to the exposed surface of the gasket (26) to fasten and fix the heat dissipation block (14) to the gasket (26) (see fig. 1 of Wright), but does not explicitly teach the head of the first bolt is buried so as not to protrude outside the exposed surface of the gasket, so that it does not come into contact with the heat dissipation block that is closely fixed to the exposed surface of the gasket.
However, Koslow discloses a thermal barrier coupling member (36) with a first set of threaded fasteners (37) on one side and a second set (38) on the other, arranged so that neither set of fasteners bridges to the opposite-side block (See Koslow, fig. 1; col. 4, ll. 20–45). The coupling member seats the bolt heads below the exposed face of the coupling member so that they do not contact the opposing thermal block. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling device of Wright by burring the head of the first bolt so as not to protrude outside the exposed surface of the gasket, as taught by Koslow, in order to reduce thermal losses through the fasteners.
Claim(s) 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 5,584,183) in view of Budde et al. (US 7,964,785).
In regard to claims 4 and 7, Wright discloses the cooling device using a thermoelectric element according to claim 1, wherein the thermoelectric element be housed inside a housing with a cool block mounted on the cooling surface, such that the housing is fixed to the heat dissipation block with the heat dissipation surface closely adhered thereto, and when the heat dissipation block is fixed to the gasket, the cool block protruding outside the housing closely adheres with the heat exchange block, and Claim 7 depends from Claim 4 and adds that the housing has an elastic member built therein that pushes the cool block toward the thermoelectric element, increasing adhesion between the cool block and the cooling surface. Wright teaches thermoelectric units (12) sandwiched between two channels but does not expressly disclose a separate housing enclosing each thermoelectric module with an independently spring-loaded cool block protruding therefrom.
However, Budde discloses a thermoelectric module (100) mounted between a hot-side housing (second housing 16) and a cold-side heat exchanger, wherein the thermoelectric module is supported via an elastic connection — specifically cup springs — that pushes the thermoelectric module’s cold plate toward the cold-side surface (col. 2, ll. 45 to col. 3, ll. 18: “the thermoelectric module to be supported on the second housing via a heat exchanger and a plate supporting the heat exchanger and equipped with elastic means… the elastic connection comprises cup springs”). Budde further discloses that the mechanical connection between the housing and the heat exchanger comprises a heat-insulating material, preventing undesired temperature equalization (col. 2, ll. 45 to col. 3, ll. 18). Budde further discloses elastic member (cup springs) as the elastic means pushing the cold-side heat exchanger/plate toward the thermoelectric module surface, explicitly teaching that the spring increases the adhesion/contact force between the cool block and the thermoelectric cooling surface (col. 2, ll. 45 to col. 3, ll. 18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling device of Wright by incorporating a separate housing enclosing each thermoelectric module with an independently spring-loaded cool block protruding therefrom, as taught by Budde, in order to maintain consistent thermal contact between the thermoelectric element and the cold-side block to achieve a predictable result of improving and maintaining thermal contact and preventing thermal losses through conductive connections.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright and Budde as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kelada (US 6,370,884).
In regard to claim 8, the modified Wright in view of Budde discloses the cooling device using a thermoelectric element according to claim 4, wherein the modified Wright disclose the base assembly (see the rejection of claim 4), but does not explicitly teach a nut for fastening the second bolt is inserted at the position of the tab, or a helicoil is built in. However, the use of a nut insert or a helicoil threaded insert at a bolt-fastening tab in a metal or plastic housing is a purely conventional mechanical fastening technique with no novelty as discloses in Kelada, wherein Kelada discloses a thermoelectric fluid cooler assembly in which a water flow pipe (cold block) and heat sink (hot block) are assembled with bolts and threaded fastener inserts, and the insulating material between the hot and cold blocks includes a mounting structure with threaded fastening positions (see col. 9, II. 47 to col. 10, ll. 21). The use of helicoil-type threaded inserts in soft or plastic structural members of thermoelectric assemblies to provide stronger bolt engagement (see Kelada, col. 11, ll. 19–43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling device of Wright by assembling the gasket structure of Wright with the spring-loaded housing of Budde would routinely select between a nut insert and a helicoil for the second bolt tab based solely on the material of the gasket/tab and the torque requirements of the fastener, as taught by Kelada, as a routine skill in the art, in order to provide a standard fastening technique.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEBESHET MENGESHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1793. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7-4, alternate Fridays, 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 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 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.
/W.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763