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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species 9.10 (Fig. 9 modified with Fig. 10) and Subspecies A (Fig. 5a and 6) in the reply filed on 6/10/2026 without traverse is acknowledged. No claims are withdrawn at this time. The traversal is on the ground(s) of several allegations that will be treated in turn:
First (p. 1-2) are an allegation that there is no evidence that “a device” cannot have cooling and heating modes along with a dehumidification mode. This is not found persuasive because the allegation ignores the disclosure and alleges mere theories about what is possible with “a device”. In response, the allegation ignores that the disclosure describes the several distinct embodiments that perform operating states as disclosed. The election of species requirement does not have to show that the embodiments are not able to be combined, only that the species are alternatives of one another. For example, the system of Species 2 does not have a switching part and sends all fluid to the apparatus (10). This is a feature that is explicitly mutually exclusive from the other species and therefore the allegation that the embodiments do not have mutually exclusive features, is false and ignores the specification and disclosure.
Second (p. 2) are an allegation that there is no evidence that the features of species 9.10 “cannot be used in conjunction with, for instance, dehumidification”. In response the allegation is fully unpersuasive as again, there is no requirement that features of the different species must be unable to be used together. Rather, the specification discloses that the species 9.10 has structure that is not present in the other alternatives and these are mutually exclusive. It is not persuasive to make false allegations and ignore the statements of the specification.
Third (p. 3) are an allegation that there are no claims drawn to the alternative fin structures. In response, providing election before examination is part of providing compact prosecution to the applicant and the public. Supposing that generic features are allowable the applicant may rejoin such subject matter if desired.
Fourth (p.4) are a mere allegation that there is no burden. In response, searching for the alternative disclosed operations and circuits would require a different field of search and therefore the allegation is unpersuasive and mere gainsaying.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 auxiliary pump 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.
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.
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) 3, 6-7 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 3, the recitation, “the temperature of the heating medium” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis for “the temperature”.
In regard to claim 6, the recitation, “the auxiliary thermoelectric element is fixed” is indefinite since it is not clear what structure is being required of the thermoelectric element.
In regard to claim 7, the recitation, “the temperature of the thermoelectric element of the temperature of the heating medium” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis for --the temperature-- as recited.
The recitation, “control such that the heating medium cooled through heat exchange” is indefinite since it is not clear what heat exchange is being referenced and there have already been several heat exchanges already described and therefore it is not clear which is being referenced.
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.
All of the claims have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, and it is considered that none of the claim recitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR 2019-0080528). 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, Lee teaches a heating medium temperature control device (see whole disclosure including Fig. 1-4) having a dehumidification function (fully capable thereof) connected to a temperature regulating apparatus (40) provided with a tube (41) and controlling a temperature of the heating medium circulating through the tube (41), the heating medium temperature control device (Fig. 1-4) comprising:
a main tank (10) accommodating the circulating heating medium (page 2 “water”);
a heat exchange part (at least 21, 30) including a thermoelectric element (21) and a heating medium block (at least 30) disposed on one side (211) of the thermoelectric element (21) and provided with a flow path (flow path through 13) through which the heating medium (water) returned from the temperature regulating apparatus (40) is transferred to the main tank (10);
a switching part (63, 64; or 62, 611, 612) including a bypass inlet (inlet thereto) through which the heating medium (water) is supplied from the main tank (10), a first bypass outlet (outlet of 63 toward 55) and a second bypass outlet (outlet of 63 toward 53) selectively opened and closed (page 7) to discharge the heating medium (water); and
a heating medium circulation part (51-56) including an inflow line (52) connecting the temperature regulating apparatus (40) and the heating medium block (at least 30), a discharge line (55) connecting the first bypass outlet (outlet of 63 toward 55) and the temperature regulating apparatus (40), and a bypass line (53, 54) connecting the second bypass outlet (outlet of 63 toward 53) and the heating medium block (at least 30).
In regard to claim 8, Lee teaches that a circulation pump (71) for inducing circulation of the heating medium (water).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 2019-0080528) in view of Joo Jae (KR 2017-0134084). 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 2, Lee teaches a controller (80) configured to selectively control the thermoelectric element (21) and the switching part (63, 64; or 62, 611, 612) in response to a cooling mode, a heating mode but does not teach a dehumidification mode nor controlling the switching part to open the second bypass outlet. However, Joo Jae explicitly teaches a heating and cooling system for a mat (page 2) that has a controller (control unit, page 4) operating a dehumidification mode (page 3) and further teaches that the dehumidification can be performed regardless of whether water is supplied to the mat (page 3, via supply member 120). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Lee with the dehumidification control functions and features of Joo Jae for the purpose of obtaining useful water from the air using operations and energy that are already being employed to heat water and cool air, thus improving the utility of Lee and to further open the second bypass outlet (outlet of 63 towards 53) of the switching part (63, 64) for the purpose of not unnecessarily heating the mat during the dehumidification operation.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo Jae (KR 2017-0134084) in view of Tasaka (JP 2000310429).
In regard to claim 1-2, 8, Joo Jae teaches a heating medium (“medium” is water, page 3) temperature control device (see whole disclosure and all figures) having a dehumidification function (page 3) connected to a temperature regulating apparatus (200; page 3) provided with a tube (conduit in 200) and controlling a temperature (page 4; “target temperature value”) of the heating medium (medium) circulating through the tube (in 200), the heating medium temperature control device comprising: a main tank (120B) accommodating the circulating heating medium (medium); a heat exchange part (120A) including a thermoelectric element (122) and a heating medium block (121) disposed on one side of the thermoelectric element (122) and provided with a flow path (flow path through 121) through which the heating medium (medium) returned from the temperature regulating apparatus (200) is transferred to the main tank (120B); a heating medium circulation part (101, 101) including an inflow line (101) connecting the temperature regulating apparatus (200) and the heating medium block (121), a discharge line (101) providing fluid connection from the main tank (120B) to the temperature regulating apparatus (200); a controller (control unit, page 4) configured to selectively control the thermoelectric element (122) and configured to provide a cooling mode (“cooling” page 3), heating mode (“heating” page 3), and a dehumidification mode (page 3 “dehumidifying function”); a temperature sensor (implicit to page 4 and reaching “a target temperature value” with the control unit) configured to sense a temperature of the heating medium (medium); a circulation pump (120C) for inducing circulation of the heating medium (medium).
Joe Jae does not explicitly teach a switching part and controller temperature controls as claimed. However, it is routine and ordinary to provide a switching part and bypass to provide greater temperature control and flexibility. Tasaka teaches a heating medium temperature control device (see whole disclosure, “supply device” page ) connected to a temperature regulating apparatus (1) provided with a tube (inside 1), the heating medium temperature control device (supply device) having a switching part (10, 11), the switching part (10, 11) including a bypass inlet (inlet from 2) through which the heating medium (medium) is supplied from a main tank (2), a first bypass outlet (to 1) and a second bypass outlet (to 9 or 8) selectively opened and closed to discharge the heating medium (medium); a heating medium circulation part (5, 6, 9) including an inflow line (6) connecting the temperature regulating apparatus (1) and a heating block (in 2), a discharge line (5) connecting the first bypass outlet (to 1) and the temperature regulating apparatus (1), and a bypass line (9 or line with 8) connecting the second bypass outlet (to 8 or 9) and the heating medium block (in 2); a controller (15) configured to selectively control the switching part (11, 10). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Joo Jae with the switching part and heating medium circulation part as identified above from Tasaka for the purpose of providing greater temperature control capability and provide the ability to perform the operational modes with greater options and more independence of the temperature regulating apparatus (200).
In regard to claim 3, Joe Jae, as modified, teaches most of the claim limitations, but does not explicitly teach that in the dehumidification mode that the controller (Tasaka-15) maintains the second bypass outlet (Tasaka-to 8 or 9) in an opened state when a temperature value sensed by a temperature sensor (Tasaka -at least 12, 13, 14) is less than a preset temperature value and opens the first bypass outlet when the temperature value is greater than or equal to the preset temperature value. However, when heating is desired at the temperature regulating apparatus during the operating in the dehumidification mode of Joe Jae, the heating medium is heated at the heating medium block and the humid air is cooled. Therefore, in situations where heating is demanded at a certain value but a temperature level of the heating medium is initially too low to provide the heating at the certain value and the dehumidification mode is operating, it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify to bypass the temperature regulating apparatus (200) and send the heating medium back for further heating until the certain value of temperature is reached for the purpose of more quickly providing the desired temperature heating level, while the dehumidification operation is occurring.
In regard to claim 5-6, Joe Jae, as modified, teaches that the bypass line (Tasaka-9, 8) includes a first bypass line (Tasaka-line to 8) connecting the second bypass outlet (Tasaka-outlet to 8) and an auxiliary block inlet (Tasaka-inlet to 8), and a second bypass line (Tasaka-after 8) connecting the auxiliary block outlet (Tasaka-outlet of 8) and the heating medium block (Joe Jae-121) but does not teach that the cooling means (8) is an auxiliary heat dissipation part including an auxiliary thermoelectric element, and an auxiliary heating medium block disposed on one side of the auxiliary thermoelectric element, wherein the auxiliary heating medium block includes a flow path for the heating medium. However, official notice is taken that thermoelectric devices are known as obvious variants of cooling fluids and further Joe Jae already teaches the recited structure of a heating medium block and thermoelectric element for cooling the heating medium, therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the heating medium block and thermoelectric element to provide a thermoelectric cooling means on the bypass line of for the purpose of providing a heat exchange system thereon that is efficient and merely needs electricity and does not require additional tempered fluids. It is noted that the auxiliary thermoelectric element is fully capable of the functional language of performing a cooling action.
In regard to claim 7, Joe Jae, as modified, teaches most of the claim limitations, but does not explicitly teach that in the dehumidification mode that the controller (Tasaka-15) does not operate the auxiliary thermoelectric element when a temperature value sensed by the temperature sensor is less than a preset temperature value and does operate the auxiliary thermoelectric element when the temperature value is greater than or equal to the preset temperature value.
However, during the dehumidification operation of Joe Jae as already outlined above, the heating medium is heated at the heating medium block and the air is cooled and in situations where the temperature regulating apparatus (200) does not require much heat from not being used or only needing a low level of heat, then the circulated heating medium would continue to rise due to the dehumidification operation and therefore when the temperature of the heating medium circulated rises above a desired level (greater than some preset temperature level), then it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to operate the auxiliary thermoelectric element to reject the heat from the heating medium, while still permitting the dehumidification operation to continue. Likewise, when a temperature of the heating medium is below this desired level preset temperature level, it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to not operate the auxiliary thermoelectric element to save energy and operate more efficiently.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo Jae (KR 2017-0134084) in view of Tasaka (JP 2000310429) and Waite (US 2013/00220905).
In regard to claim 4, Joo Jae teaches an auxiliary tank (111) for receiving condensed water (page 4 moisture) generated in the dehumidification mode (dehumidification function, page 4); an auxiliary line (line from 111 to 120B) connecting the auxiliary tank (111) and the main tank (120B);
Joo Jae does not explicitly teach an auxiliary pump and water sensor configured to sense a water level of the auxiliary tank, the controller determining whether to operate the auxiliary pump based on water level information from the water level sensor. However, it is well known to employ pumps and water level sensing for the purpose of providing automated flow control of the supply of the condensed water into the main tank and provide the ability to ensure water is supplied efficiently and when desired. Waite teaches an auxiliary tank (11112) receiving condensed water, an auxiliary pump (11116) for supplying the condensed water from the auxiliary tank (11112) to a main tank (storage C, 11119 or 1123) through an auxiliary line (line from 11112 to 1119; and a water level sensor (para. 58) configured to sense a water level of the auxiliary tank (11112), wherein a controller (para. 58 control system) determines whether to operate the auxiliary pump (11116) based on water level information from the water level sensor (para. 58). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Joo Jae with the water sensor, auxiliary pump and operation thereof as identified in Waite for the purpose providing automated control of the water level in the auxiliary tank of Joe Jae and for the purpose of providing the ability to arrange the auxiliary tank and main tank in various locations and for the purpose of providing automatic use of the condensed water as needed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the 892 form and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 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
Prosecution Insights