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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-9, 12-14, 22, and 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claims 1, 5, 7-8, 12-14, and 22, the recited limitation “mounting aperture” does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. There is no description disclosed for a component labeled mounting aperture.
As to claims 2, 7, 9, and 22, the recited limitation “extending through the peripheral edge in a fill direction” does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. There is no description disclosed for a fill direction.
As to claims 23, the recited limitation “the weldment structure is heat sealed to itself” does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. There is no description disclosed where the weldment structure is heat sealed to itself.
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 3, 7, 10, and 22 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 3, 7, 10, and 22 recite the limitation "first direction." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sawafta (US 2022/0217875).
Regarding claim 1, Sawafta teaches a cooling cell (100, Fig. 1c, [0048]), comprising
a body (101, Fig. 1c, [0048]) having a central cavity (101, [0048]), the body having generally rectangular configuration with a predetermined length, width and thickness (101, Fig. 1, [0048]), the body having first and second opposing substantially flat surfaces (102, 103, Fig. 1c, [0049]) and a peripheral edge defining four corners which are radiused (104, Fig. 1c, [0049]);
a mounting aperture (109, Fig. 1c, [0053], [0075]) disposed through the body which is sealed from the central cavity, the mounting aperture adapted to receive an external mount for coupling the cooling cell to one or more separate cooling cells (109, [0075]);
at least two spacers disposed on each flat surface of the body (108, Fig. 1c, Fig. 6, [0057], [0069]; in order to have 108 extend from the front side when the side from which 108 extend is the back side, there has to be one set of 108 on a first side as the back side, and another set of 108 on a second side as the front side), the spacers extending from a flat surface of the body a predetermined distance, the spacers being adapted to separate the flat surfaces of the body from flat surfaces of adjacent separate cooling cells (108, Fig. 6, [0069]);
and a phase change material disposed in the central cavity of the body ([0076]).
Regarding claim 2, in light of the 112(a) rejection above, the examiner is taking the broadest reasonable interpretation that Sawafta teaches a fill aperture (111, Fig. 1c, [0060]) extending through the peripheral edge and providing access to the central cavity (Fig. 1c, [0060]), the fill aperture being adapted to admit the phase change material to the central cavity and then be sealed (111, Fig. 1c, [0060], [0071]).
Regarding claim 6, Sawafta teaches the spacers are unitary with the body (108, Fig. 1c, [0058]) and communicatively connected to the central cavity (108, [0058]).
Regarding claim 8, Sawafta teaches a cooling system (100(6), Fig. 6, [0069]), comprising
a. a first plurality of cooling cells (100, Fig. 6, [0069]), each cooling cell comprising
i. a body (101, Fig. 1c, Fig. 6, [0048]) having a central cavity (101, [0048]), the body having generally rectangular configuration with a predetermined length, width and thickness (101, Fig. 1c, Fig. 6, [0048]), the body having opposing substantially flat surfaces (102, 103, Fig. 1c, Fig. 6, [0049]) and a peripheral edge defining four corners which are radiused (104, Fig. 1c, Fig. 6, [0049]);
ii. a mounting aperture disposed through the body which is sealed from the central cavity (109, Fig. 1c, [0053]), the mounting aperture being adapted to couple the cooling cell to one or more separate cooling cells (109, [0075]);
iii. at least two spacers disposed on each flat surface of the body (108, Fig. 1c, Fig. 6, [0057], [0069]; in order to have 108 extend from the front side when the side from which 108 extend is the back side, there has to be one set of 108 on a first side as the back side, and another set of 108 on a second side as the front side), spaced from and between the mounting aperture and the peripheral edge (See annotated Fig. 1D below),
PNG
media_image1.png
641
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the spacers extending from a flat surface of the body a predetermined distance, the spacers being adapted to separate the flat surfaces of the body from flat surfaces of adjacent, separate cooling cells (108, Fig. 6, [0069]); and
iv. a phase change material disposed in the central cavity of the body ([0076]); and
b. a mount (mounting bracket, [0075]) for coupling the cooling cells, the mount being disposed through the mounting aperture of each of the cooling cells ([0075]).
Regarding claim 9, in light of the 112(a) rejection above, the examiner is taking the broadest reasonable interpretation that Sawafta teaches each cooling cell further comprises a fill aperture (111, Fig. 1c, [0060]) extending through the peripheral edge and providing access to the central cavity (Fig. 1c, [0060]), the fill aperture being adapted to admit the phase change material to the central cavity and then be sealed (110 and 111, Fig. 1c, [0060], [0071]).
Regarding claim 12, Sawafta teaches
a. the mounting aperture is disposed longitudinally centrally with respect to the body (109, Fig. 1c, [0064]);
b. wherein the mounting aperture has a predetermined geometric configuration (109, Fig. 1c, [0059]); and
c. wherein the mount has a geometric configuration complementary with the geometric configuration of the mounting aperture, and in use, the mount is disposed through the mounting aperture of the plurality of cooling cells to couple the cooling cells ([0075]).
Regarding claim 13, Sawafta teaches the mounting aperture has a predetermined internal dimension and the mount has a predetermined external dimension which is less than the internal dimension of the mounting aperture ([0075]).
Regarding claim 15, Sawafta teaches the spacers are unitary with the body (108, Fig. 1c, [0058]) and communicatively connected to the central cavity (108, [0058]).
Regarding claim 16, Sawafta teaches the mount is elongated and has a predetermined length, whereby the cooling cells and the mount form a cooling array ([0075]; a group of cooling cells is reasonably interpreted as a cooling array).
Regarding claim 18, Sawafta teaches the mount is adapted to connect the cooling array to a flat, external ceiling or wall surface ([0075], [0098]).
Claim(s) 1, 8, 16, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cutting (US 2023/0030092).
Regarding claim 1 and 8, Cutting teaches a cooling system (200, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0088]), comprising
a. a first plurality of cooling cells (100, Fig. 1, [0076]), each/a cooling cell comprising
i. a body (110, Fig. 1, [0076]) having a central cavity (140, Fig. 1, [0076]), the body having generally rectangular configuration with a predetermined length, width and thickness (110, Fig. 1, [0076]), the body having opposing substantially flat surfaces (113, 117, Fig. 1, [0079]; 113 and 117 are first and second flat surfaces for claim 1) and a peripheral edge defining four corners which are radiused (110, Fig. 1, [0076]);
ii. a mounting aperture disposed through the body which is sealed from the central cavity (hole of 132, Fig. 1, [0088]), the mounting aperture being adapted to couple the cooling cell to one or more separate cooling cells (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0088]) or receive an external mount (210, [0088]) for coupling the cooling cell to one or more separate cooling cells (Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0088]);
iii. two spacers disposed on each flat surface of the body (for claim 8: 134, 136, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0088], [0089]; for claim 1: 132, 134, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0088]), spaced from and between the mounting aperture and the peripheral edge (claim 8 only: See annotated Fig. 1 below), the spacers extending from a flat surface of the body a predetermined distance, the spacers being adapted to separate the flat surfaces of the body from flat surfaces of adjacent, separate cooling cells (for claim 8: 134, 136, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0088], [0089]; for claim 1: 132, 134, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0088]); and
PNG
media_image2.png
348
794
media_image2.png
Greyscale
iv. a phase change material (150, Fig. 1, [0076]) disposed in the central cavity of the body (140, Fig. 1, [0076]); and
b. a mount (210, [0088]) for coupling the cooling cells, the mount being disposed through the mounting aperture of each of the cooling cells (Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0088]).
Regarding claim 16, Cutting teaches the mount is elongated and has a predetermined length, whereby the cooling cells and the mount form a cooling array (210, 220, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0088]; a group of cooling cells is reasonably interpreted as a cooling array)).
Regarding claim 20, Cutting teaches at least one temperature sensing unit, the temperature sensing unit being constructed and arranged to be disposed proximate a cooling array, the temperature sensing unit having at least one temperature sensor for sensing a temperature of the material being cooled by the cooling system (122, Fig. 1, [0084]).
Regarding claim 21, Cutting teaches the spacers extending from the first flat surface are arranged in a mirrored orientation from the spacers extending from the second flat surface (132 and 134, Fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawafta (US 2022/0217875) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Moses (EP 0126248).
Regarding claim 3, in light of the 112(b) rejection above, the examiner is taking the broadest reasonable interpretation that Sawafta teaches the body is constructed of a polymeric material (101, [0050]) and the fill aperture is surrounded by a structure (110, Fig. 1c, [0061]) having an oblong cross-section taken perpendicular to a first direction ([0061], first direction is the direction of the fill spout cylinder height).
Sawafta does not teach the polymeric material is amenable to heat sealing and wherein the structure is a weldment structure.
However, Moses teaches a PCM container made of a polymeric material (10, Fig. 1, [0016]) having a fill opening (28, Fig. 1, [0016]) that is closed with a closure member. The closure member is welded to the container to hermetically seal the PCM within the container.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to seal the cap of Sawafta by welding to prevent evaporation of the PCM (Moses, [0016]) because Sawafta mentioned the cap may further comprise a seal or closure to securely seal or close off the opening from the environment (Sawafta: [0071]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand from Moses’ disclosure that the polymeric material would be amenable to heat sealing as welding was performed on the closure member and the container, which were both polymeric (Moses: [0016]).
Regarding claim 4, Sawafta teaches the body is constructed of a polymeric material (101, [0050]) and wherein the fill aperture is surrounded by a generally round, tubular structure (110, Fig. 1c, [0060], fill spout is generally cylindrical in shape), the structure being adapted to be filled, plugged with an external stop member, and sealed (110 and 111, Fig. 1c, [0060], [0071]).
Sawafta does not teach the polymeric material is amenable to heat sealing and wherein the structure is a weldment structure and also being adapted to be heated.
However, Moses teaches a PCM container made of a polymeric material (10, Fig. 1, [0016]) having a fill opening (28, Fig. 1, [0016]) that is closed with a closure member. The closure member is welded to the container to hermetically seal the PCM within the container.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to seal the cap of Sawafta by welding to prevent evaporation of the PCM (Moses, [0016]) because Sawafta mentioned the cap may further comprise a seal or closure to securely seal or close off the opening from the environment (Sawafta: [0071]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand from Moses’ disclosure that the polymeric material would be amenable to heat sealing as welding was performed on the closure member and the container, which were both polymeric (Moses: [0016]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawafta (US 2022/0217875).
Regarding claim 5, Sawafta teaches the mounting aperture is disposed longitudinally centrally with respect to the body (109, Fig. 1c, [0064]).
Sawafta does not teach the aperture has a rectangular configuration adapted to receive and couple with a rectangular external mount.
However, Sawafta teaches the channel (109, Fig. 1c, [0075]) can have any shape not inconsistent with the objectives of the present disclosure, and the shape can also be a polygonal shape having sharp or rounded corners (109, [0059]). Also, pegs or arm extensions of the mounting bracket ([0075]) would not have affected the pegs’ or arm extensions’ function of securing one or more plates ([0075]).
Therefore, the shapes of the aperture (Sawafta: channel, 109, Fig. 1c, [0075]) and external mount (Sawafta: pegs or arm extensions of mounting bracket, [0075]) are a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shapes of the aperture and external mount were significant and the cooling cell having the claimed shapes would perform differently than the prior art thermal management plate (See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawafta (US 2022/0217875) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moses (EP 0126248).
Regarding claim 7, in light of the 112(a) rejection above, the examiner is taking the broadest reasonable interpretation that Sawafta teaches the cooling cell of claim 1:
a. further comprising a fill aperture (111, Fig. 1c, [0060]) extending through the peripheral edge and providing access to the central cavity (Fig. 1c, [0060]), the fill aperture being adapted to admit the phase change material to the central cavity and then be sealed (110 and 111, Fig. 1c, [0060], [0071]);
b. wherein the body is constructed of a polymeric material (101, [0050]) and wherein the fill aperture is surrounded by a structure (110, Fig. 1c, [0061]) having an oblong cross-section taken perpendicular to a first direction ([0061], first direction is the direction of the fill spout cylinder height), structure being adapted to be filled and sealed (110 and 111, Fig. 1c, [0060], [0071]);
c. wherein the mounting aperture is disposed longitudinally centrally with respect to the body (109, Fig. 1c, [0064]); and
d. wherein the spacers are unitary with the body (108, Fig. 1c, [0058]) and communicatively connected to the central cavity (108, [0058]).
Sawafta does not teach the polymeric material is amenable to heat sealing and wherein the structure is a weldment structure and also being adapted to be clamped and heated. Additionally, Sawafta does not teach the aperture has a rectangular configuration adapted to receive and couple with a rectangular external mount.
However, Moses teaches a PCM container made of a polymeric material (10, Fig. 1, [0016]) having a fill opening (28, Fig. 1, [0016]) that is closed with a closure member. The closure member is welded to the container to hermetically seal the PCM within the container.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to seal the cap of Sawafta by welding to prevent evaporation of the PCM (Moses, [0016]) because Sawafta mentioned the cap may further comprise a seal or closure to securely seal or close off the opening from the environment (Sawafta: [0071]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand from Moses’ disclosure that the polymeric material would be amenable to heat sealing as welding was performed on the closure member and the container, which were both polymeric (Moses: [0016]). One of ordinary skill in the art would also understand that clamping can be done on the fill spout structure shown (Sawafta: 110, Fig. 1c).
Additionally, the shape of the channel (109, Fig. 1c, [0075]) and pegs or arm extensions of the mounting bracket ([0075]) would not have affected the pegs’ or arm extensions’ function of securing one or more plates (100, Fig. 1c, [0075])
Therefore, the shapes of the aperture (Sawafta: channel, 109, Fig. 1c, [0075]) and external mount (Sawafta: pegs or arm extensions of mounting bracket, [0075]) are a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shapes of the aperture and external mount were significant and the cooling cell having the claimed shapes would perform differently than the prior art thermal management plate (See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawafta (US 2022/0217875) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Moses (EP 0126248).
Regarding claim 10, Sawafta teaches the body is constructed of a polymeric material (101, [0050]) and the fill aperture is surrounded by a structure (110, Fig. 1c, [0061]) having an oblong cross-section taken perpendicular to a first direction ([0061], first direction is the direction of the fill spout cylinder height), the fill aperture being adapted to be filled and sealed (110 and 111, [0060], Fig. 1c, [0071]).
Sawafta does not teach the polymeric material is amenable to heat sealing and wherein the structure is a weldment structure and also being adapted to be clamped and heated.
However, Moses teaches a PCM container made of a polymeric material (10, Fig. 1, [0016]) having a fill opening (28, Fig. 1, [0016]) that is closed with a closure member. The closure member is welded to the container to hermetically seal the PCM within the container.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to seal the cap of Sawafta by welding to prevent evaporation of the PCM (Moses, [0016]) because Sawafta mentioned the cap may further comprise a seal or closure to securely seal or close off the opening from the environment (Sawafta: [0071]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand from Moses’ disclosure that the polymeric material would be amenable to heat sealing as welding was performed on the closure member and the container, which were both polymeric (Moses: [0016]). One of ordinary skill in the art would also understand that clamping can be done on the fill spout structure shown (Sawafta: 110, Fig. 1c).
Regarding claim 11, Sawafta teaches the body is constructed of a polymeric material (101, [0050]) and the fill aperture is surrounded by a generally round, tubular structure (110, Fig. 1c, [0060], fill spout is generally cylindrical in shape) disposed on a peripheral edge of the body, the fill aperture being adapted to be filled, plugged with an external stop member, and sealed (110 and 111, Fig. 1c, [0060], [0071]).
Sawafta does not teach the polymeric material is amenable to heat sealing and wherein the structure is a weldment structure and also being adapted to be heated.
However, Moses teaches a PCM container made of a polymeric material (10, Fig. 1, [0016]) having a fill opening (28, Fig. 1, [0016]) that is closed with a closure member. The closure member is welded to the container to hermetically seal the PCM within the container.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to seal the cap of Sawafta by welding to prevent evaporation of the PCM (Moses, [0016]) because Sawafta mentioned the cap may further comprise a seal or closure to securely seal or close off the opening from the environment (Sawafta: [0071]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand from Moses’ disclosure that the polymeric material would be amenable to heat sealing as welding was performed on the closure member and the container, which were both polymeric (Moses: [0016]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawafta (US 2022/0217875) as applied to claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 14, Sawafta does not teach the geometric configuration of the mounting aperture of each cooling cell and the geometric configuration of the mount are rectangles.
However, Sawafta teaches the channel (109, Fig. 1c, [0075]) can have any shape not inconsistent with the objectives of the present disclosure, and the shape can also be a polygonal shape having sharp or rounded corners (109, [0059]). Also, pegs or arm extensions of the mounting bracket ([0075]) would not have affected the pegs’ or arm extensions’ function of securing one or more plates ([0075]).
Therefore, the shapes of the mounting aperture (Sawafta: channel, 109, Fig. 1c, [0075]) and external mount (Sawafta: pegs or arm extensions of mounting bracket, [0075]) are a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shapes of the aperture and external mount were significant and the cooling cell having the claimed shapes would perform differently than the prior art thermal management plate (See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawafta (US 2022/0217875) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Ansted (US 2017/0321912).
Regarding claim 17, Sawafta does not teach the mount has a connector at each end, the connectors being adapted to connect the cooling array to a shelf of a rack.
However, Ansted teaches rack mounting rails (500, Fig. 5A, Fig. 5B, [0054]) to attach a PCM module (132, Fig. 5A, Fig. 5B, [0054]) to a rack and adapters (505, Fig. 5A, Fig. 5B, [0054]) that mount the PCM module to the rack mounting rails.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the mounting bracket securing one or more plates of Sawafta (Sawafta: 100, [0075]) to the adapter and rack mounting rails of Ansted in order to regulate the temperature of a facility of arbitrary size and to enable an existing facility to be retrofitted by the rack mounting rails and adapters (Ansted: [0113]). For example, the rack mounting rails and adapters would enable a facility using racks to be able to attach the mounting bracket containing plates of Sawafta to the rack to use the plates for cooling.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawafta (US 2022/0217875) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Imbrecht (US 2014/0190976).
Regarding claim 19, Sawafta teaches the cooling system of claim 8, further comprising:
a. two groups of cooling cells (100(6), [0069], See annotated figure below), each group comprising a mount with plural cooling cells ([0075]), the at least two groups of cooling cells being stacked vertically upon each other (See annotated figure below);
PNG
media_image3.png
688
512
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Sawafta does not teach b. a movable pallet adapted to be disposed on a floor of a compartment of a building, a vehicle trailer, an aircraft, or a vessel, or a shelf of a rack; the pallet having:
i. a substantially flat base of a predetermined outer dimension at least large enough to hold a group of cool cells; and
ii. a cage coextensive with an outer periphery of the base and extending upwardly from the base a predetermined height, the cage having an open upper end;
iii. the cage holding the at least two stacked groups of cooling cells while permitting ingress and egress of groups of cooling cells to and from the pallet.
However, Imbrecht teaches a shipping pallet movable with a pallet truck or forklift ([0007]) being a load bearing structure ([0100]), where an enclosure encloses a cargo loaded onto the load bearing structure ([0101]) and PCMs may be packed into the cargo container at various times ([0061]). Imbrecht teaches the enclosure may be made of container (800, Fig. 8, [0128]) having a base (812, Fig. 8, having a flat surface), four walls (801, 802, 803, 804, Fig. 8), and a top panel (816, Fig. 8, when the top is removed with the four walls and base still assembled, the structure anticipates the cage having an open end).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the PCM stack of Sawafta into the container of Imbrecht because Imbrecht teaches the advantage of using PCMs as being able to pack the PCM into the container for any temperature requirement needed at various times ([0061]). Sawafta also describes a method of cooling pallet or shipping container using the PCM described by Sawafta (Sawafta, [0105], [0106], [0107]), and Imbrecht teaches such pallet or shipping container.
Claim(s) 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawafta (US 2022/0217875) and further in view of Moses (EP 0126248).
Regarding claim 22, in light of the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above, the examiner is taking the broadest reasonable interpretation that Sawafta teaches a cooling cell (100, Fig. 1c, [0048]), comprising
a body (101, Fig. 1c, [0048]) having a central cavity (101, [0048]), the body having generally rectangular configuration with a predetermined length, width and thickness (101, Fig. 1, [0048]), the body having opposing substantially flat surfaces (102, 103, Fig. 1c, [0049]) and a peripheral edge defining four corners which are radiused (104, Fig. 1c, [0049]);
a mounting aperture (109, Fig. 1c, [0053], [0075]) disposed through the body which is sealed from the central cavity, the mounting aperture adapted to receive an external mount for coupling the cooling cell to one or more separate cooling cells (109, [0075]);
at least two spacers disposed on each flat surface of the body (108, Fig. 1c, Fig. 6, [0057], [0069]; in order to have 108 extend from the front side when the side from which 108 extend is the back side, there has to be one set of 108 on a first side as the back side, and another set of 108 on a second side as the front side), the spacers extending from a flat surface of the body a predetermined distance, the spacers being adapted to separate the flat surfaces of the body from flat surfaces of adjacent separate cooling cells (108, Fig. 6, [0069]);
a fill aperture (111, Fig. 1c, [0060]) extending through the peripheral edge and providing access to the central cavity (Fig. 1c, [0060]).
wherein the body is constructed of a polymeric material (101, [0050]) and the fill aperture is surrounded by a structure (110, Fig. 1c, [0061]) having an oblong cross-section taken perpendicular to a first direction ([0061], first direction is the direction of the fill spout cylinder height);
wherein the mounting aperture is disposed longitudinally centrally with respect to the body (109, Fig. 1c, [0064]); and
wherein the weldment structure and spacers are unitary with the body (108, Fig. 1c, [0058]).
Sawafta does not teach the polymeric material is amenable to heat sealing and wherein the structure is a weldment structure.
However, Moses teaches a PCM container made of a polymeric material (10, Fig. 1, [0016]) having a fill opening (28, Fig. 1, [0016]) that is closed with a closure member. The closure member is welded to the container to hermetically seal the PCM within the container.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to seal the cap of Sawafta by welding to prevent evaporation of the PCM (Moses, [0016]) because Sawafta mentioned the cap may further comprise a seal or closure to securely seal or close off the opening from the environment (Sawafta: [0071]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand from Moses’ disclosure that the polymeric material would be amenable to heat sealing as welding was performed on the closure member and the container, which were both polymeric (Moses: [0016]).
Also, Sawafta does not teach the aperture has a rectangular configuration adapted to receive and couple with a rectangular external mount.
However, Sawafta teaches the channel (109, Fig. 1c, [0075]) can have any shape not inconsistent with the objectives of the present disclosure, and the shape can also be a polygonal shape having sharp or rounded corners (109, [0059]). Also, pegs or arm extensions of the mounting bracket ([0075]) would not have affected the pegs’ or arm extensions’ function of securing one or more plates ([0075]).
Therefore, the shapes of the aperture (Sawafta: channel, 109, Fig. 1c, [0075]) and external mount (Sawafta: pegs or arm extensions of mounting bracket, [0075]) are a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shapes of the aperture and external mount were significant and the cooling cell having the claimed shapes would perform differently than the prior art thermal management plate (See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 23, Sawafta teaches a phase change material disposed in the central cavity of the body (Sawafta: [0076]), the phase change material having been received through the fill aperture (Sawafta: [0060]);
wherein the weldment structure is heat sealed to itself to close the fill aperture (Moses: [0016]; if welding is performed to seal the structure 110, the structure is now a weldment structure including the closure member and is heat sealed to itself by welding 110 with the closure member to form a seal).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 8, and 12-14, the amendment was considered to have changed the scope of the claim. A “mounting aperture” has a different scope than an “aperture” because “mounting” indicates the aperture is currently mounting an object or is able to be obstructed in order to mount an object, which could limit otherwise reasonable interpretations, such as an “unfilled/unfillable aperture,” “unblocked/unblockable aperture,” “uncovered/uncoverable aperture,” “unobstructed/unobstructable aperture,” or some apertures, such as a capillary opening, which fluids flow through but are too small to be mounting a large solid object, that could apply to an aperture without “mounting” as a limitation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 An Bach Phan whose telephone number is (571)272-7244. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3 ET.
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.
/A.B.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
