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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 14 August, 2024 and 5 January, 2026 are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being UNPATENTABLE over CALDERONE et al (US-20190039440-A1 – published 7 February, 2019), in view of THOMAS et al (WO-2021048095 – A1 – published 18 March, 2021).
As to claim 1, CALDERONE discloses a coolant module comprising: a coolant manifold (202), wherein the coolant manifold comprises: a base plate having a plate shape (Paragraph 35); and a reservoir tank (208, Coolant Container) provided at one side of the base plate and having therein a hollow structure to store the coolant (Paragraph 49 mentions that the coolant container is physically and fluidly coupled to the manifold whether directly or indirectly, See Annotated Figure Below).
[AltContent: textbox (Reservoir tank at one side of the base plate and having therein a hollow structure to store the coolant )][AltContent: textbox (Coolant Manifold comprising a Base Plate having a plate shape)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
528
773
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure (CALDERONE)
However, CALDERONE does not disclose a flow path plate coupled to one surface of the base plate and having a coolant flow path in which a coolant flows.
THOMAS, However, teaches flow path plate (82, Channel Plate) that is coupled to one surface of the base plate and having a coolant flow path in which a coolant flows (Summary of the Invention: Paragraphs 4 and 5 mention that modules or systems with a large number of pipe sections or hose sections can be reduced by the channel plate, See Annotated Figure Below).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Coolant flow paths in which a coolant flow )][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
511
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Flow Path Plate having coolant flow path in which a coolant flow )]
Annotated Figure (THOMAS)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify CALDERONE, in view of THOMAS, to incorporate a flow path plate to reduce the number of pipe sections or hose sections to achieve a compact design reducing overall weight of the module and to arrive at the claimed invention as specified in claim 1.
As to claim 2, CALDERONE, as modified by THOMAS teaches the limitations of claim 1, wherein CALDERONE further teaches that the reservoir tank is formed by coupling a first tank part and the base plate (Paragraph 49 mentions that the coolant container is physically and fluidly coupled to the manifold whether directly or indirectly).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being UNPATENTABLE over CALDERONE et al (US-20190039440-A1 – published 7 February, 2019), in view of THOMAS et al (WO-2021048095 – A1 – published 18 March, 2021), and KADLE et al (US- 20120216562-A1- published 30 August, 2012).
As to claim 3, CALDERONE, as modified by THOMAS teaches the limitations of claim 2, however, CALDERONE does not teach the coolant module, wherein the base plate comprises a second tank part made by concavely recessing a predetermined region of the base plate, and the first tank part and the second tank part define one reservoir tank.
KADLE, However, teaches the base plate (128) comprises a second tank part made by concavely recessing a predetermined region of the base plate (169), and the first tank part (166a) and the second tank part define one reservoir tank (Column 4, Paragraph 31).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First tank part )][AltContent: textbox (Base plate )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second tank part made by concavely recessing a predetermined region of the base plate)]
PNG
media_image3.png
521
678
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify CALDERONE as modified by THOMAS, in view of KADLE, to incorporate a second tank made by concavely recessing a predetermined region of the base plate, and the first tank part and the second tank part define one reservoir tank so that the two tank parts define one reservoir tank while cooling different components based on cooling requirements and to arrive at the claimed invention as specified in claim 3.
As to claim 4, CALDERONE, as modified by THOMAS and KADLE teaches the limitations of claim 3, however, CALDERONE as modified by THOMAS and KADLE does not teach the coolant module, wherein a degree to which the first tank part protrudes is larger than a degree to which the second tank part protrudes.
While, CALDERONE as modified by THOMAS and KADLE, as stated does not provide the degree to which the first tank part protrudes than the second tank part, one having ordinary skill within the art would have found providing the degree to which the first tank part protrudes larger than the second tank part protrusion entirely obvious, as it has been held the shape of an object is a matter of choice which one having ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. See MPEP § 2144.04 – IV (b). Looking at the specification of the present invention, in particular paragraph 74, it is recited, “In addition, as illustrated in FIG. 9, a degree (300A P) to which the first tank part 300A protrudes forward from the base plate 100 by a height of the internal space of the first tank part 300A in the forward/rearward direction may be larger than a degree to which the second tank part 300B protrudes rearward from the base plate 100 by a height of the internal space of the second tank part 300B in the forward/rearward direction, i.e., a degree (300BP) to which the recessed groove 310 is recessed rearward from the base plate 100. That is, an internal volume surrounded by the first tank part 300A may be larger than an internal volume surrounded by the second tank part 300B. Because the second tank part 300B is formed by recessing the base plate 100, there is a constraint in increasing a size of the second tank part 300B. In contrast, the first tank part 300A is manufactured to be larger than the second tank part 300B and coupled to the base plate 100 by thermal bonding, thereby overcoming the constraint and ensuring the sufficient storage capacity.” The shapes are a result of design constraints and are not held critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify CALDERONE, as modified by THOMAS and KADLE and incorporate a coolant module, wherein a degree to which the first tank part protrudes is larger than a degree to which the second tank part protrudes, as the change in form or shape of reservoir tanks is an obvious engineering design, which the Applicant, without any new or unexpected results directed to an outcome of the claimed shape, has not placed any criticality thereon.
As to claim 5, CALDERONE, as modified by THOMAS and KADLE teaches the limitations of claim 3, however, CALDERONE as modified by THOMAS and KADLE does not teach the coolant module, wherein an internal volume surrounded by the first tank part is larger than an internal volume surrounded by the second tank part.
While, CALDERONE as modified by THOMAS and KADLE, as stated does not provide the coolant module, wherein an internal volume surrounded by the first tank part is larger than an internal volume surrounded by the second tank part. The limitation is not critical because looking at the specification of the claimed invention it does not disclose that the invention only works with the first tank part being larger and having internal volume larger than the internal volume surrounded by the second tank part. See MPEP 2144.04 - IV(A), specifically, In 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), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify CALDERONE, as modified by THOMAS and KADLE and incorporate a coolant module, wherein an internal volume surrounded by the first tank part is larger than an internal volume surrounded by the second tank part, as the change in form or shape of internal volume of the reservoir tanks is an obvious engineering design, which the Applicant, without any new or unexpected results directed to an outcome of the claimed shape, has not placed any criticality thereon.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being UNPATENTABLE over CALDERONE et al (US-20190039440-A1 – published 7 February, 2019), in view of THOMAS et al (WO-2021048095 – A1 – published 18 March, 2021), and KIM et al (KR-20210109072-A – published 6 September, 2021, See Attached English Translated Version furnished with this Office Action).
As to claim 6, CALDERONE, as modified by THOMAS teaches the limitations of claim 1, however, CALDERONE does not teach the coolant module, wherein an internal space of the reservoir tank is divided into two or more spaces by a partition wall.
KIM, however, teaches that the internal space of the reservoir tank is divided into two or more spaces by a partition wall (Paragraphs 37 and 38 mention the motivation for the internal space of the reservoir tank being divided into multiple spaces by a partition wall. It is so that the coolant having different temperatures do not mix with each other and may be separated and stored independently).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify CALDERONE as modified by THOMAS, in view of KIM, to incorporate the reservoir tank that is divided into two or more spaces by a partition wall to house fluids at different temperature and to arrive at the claimed invention as specified in claim 6.
Claim(s) 7-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being UNPATENTABLE over CALDERONE et al (US-20190039440-A1 – published 7 February, 2019), in view of THOMAS et al (WO-2021048095 – A1 – published 18 March, 2021).
As to claim 7, CALDERONE, as modified by THOMAS teaches the limitations of claim 1, and CALDERONE further teaches at least one through portion, which is formed through the base plate, is formed in the base plate (See Annotated Figure Below).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Through hole formed through the base plate that communicates with the coolant flow path)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Through portion formed through the base plate )][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
370
491
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure (CALDERONE)
As to claim 8, CALDERONE, as modified by THOMAS teaches the limitations of claim 1, and CALDERONE further teaches at least one through-hole, which is formed through the base plate and communicates with the coolant flow path in the flow path plate, is formed in the base plate (See Annotated Figure Above).
As to claim 9, CALDERONE, as modified by THOMAS teaches the limitations of claim 8, and CALDERONE further teaches at least some of the through-holes are formed at a lower side of the reservoir tank and communicate with an internal space of the reservoir tank (Paragraph 49 mentions that the coolant container is physically and fluidly coupled to the manifold whether directly or indirectly).
As to claim 10, CALDERONE, as modified by THOMAS teaches the limitations of claim 8, and CALDERONE further teaches at least one coolant inlet /outlet pipe (224,236), through which the coolant is introduced and discharged, is provided on the base plate, and the coolant pipe communicates with at least one of the through-holes and communicates with the coolant flow path in the flow path plate (Paragraph 39-41 mentions that the inlet/outlet pipe can be physically coupled to the manifold and Paragraph 49 mentions that the coolant container is physically and fluidly coupled to the manifold whether directly or indirectly, See Annotated Figure Above).
As to claim 11, CALDERONE, as modified by THOMAS teaches the limitations of claim 1, and CALDERONE further teaches the coolant module, wherein at least one coolant inlet/outlet pipe (224,236), in which the coolant flow path in the flow path plate extends to allow the coolant to be introduced or discharged, is provided on the flow path plate (Paragraphs 39-41).
As to claim 12, CALDERONE, as modified by THOMAS teaches the limitations of claim 1, However, CALDERONE further teach the coolant module, wherein at least one coolant inlet/outlet port, which penetrates an outer surface of the flow path plate and communicates with the coolant flow path in the flow path plate to allow the coolant to be introduced or discharged, is formed in the flow path plate. CALDERONE teaches multiple ports that extend from the manifold and fluidly communicate with the manifold (Paragraphs 39-41).
As to claim 13, CALDERONE, as modified by THOMAS teaches the limitations of claim 1, and CALDERONE further teaches the flow path plate comprises: a first unit flow path plate having a first coolant flow path therein; and a second unit flow path plate having a second coolant flow path therein, and wherein the first coolant flow path and the second coolant flow path are separated from each other (Paragraphs 54-55 mentions that the manifold includes coolant flow paths such as high pressure routes and low pressure routes).
As to claim 14, CALDERONE, as modified by THOMAS teaches the limitations of claim 1, and CALDERONE further teaches the coolant module, wherein a mounting structure, on which a heat exchange component is mounted, is provided on at least one of the base plates and the flow path plate (Paragraph 39-40, The manifold 202 includes a first side and a second side on opposite sides of the manifold. For example, the first side can include a first major surface and the second side can include a second major surface. The first side faces or is exposed to the compressor 204, the ports 224 etc. The second side faces or is exposed to the liquid-cooled condenser, the evaporator, the chiller etc., The manifold 202 defines the slot 240, which may be used for mounting). While, CALDERONE, does not specifically provide that there are mounting structures on the base plates and the flow path plate, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that parts that are physically and fluidly coupled to the manifold whether directly or indirectly would imply coupling techniques such as mounting structures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify CALDERONE, as modified by THOMAS and incorporate a coolant module, wherein a mounting structure, on which a heat exchange component is mounted, is provided on at least one of the base plates and the flow path plate, as mounting feature is an obvious engineering design, which the Applicant, without any new or unexpected results directed to an outcome of the claimed shape, has not placed any criticality thereon.
As to claim 15, CALDERONE, as modified by THOMAS teaches the limitations of claim 1, and CALDERONE further teaches the coolant module comprising: heat exchange components (Paragraph 39) and a coolant control module mounted in the coolant manifold in which the coolant flows (Paragraph 50 mentions coolant control module mounted in the coolant manifold).
As to claim 16, CALDERONE, as modified by THOMAS teaches the limitations of claim 15, and CALDERONE further teaches the coolant control module comprises: at least one coolant pump; a coolant valve; and a controller configured to control the coolant pump and the coolant valve (Paragraph 50 mentions that fluid handlers are physically and fluidly coupled to the coolant container and each of the fluid handlers includes a fluid pump, and a multi-way valve for fluid pumping into the coolant container).
As to claim 17, CALDERONE, as modified by THOMAS teaches the limitations of claim 16, and CALDERONE further teaches the heat exchange components comprise a chiller (226) and a condenser (206, Paragraph 39).
As to claim 18, CALDERONE, as modified by THOMAS teaches the limitations of claim 17, However, CALDERONE does not teach the coolant module, wherein the coolant control module is mounted at a front side of the coolant manifold by means of a mounting structure provided on the base plate, and wherein the chiller and the condenser are mounted at a rear side of the coolant manifold by means of a mounting structure provided on the flow path plate.
While, CALDERONE, as stated above, does not teach the limitation, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found this arrangement entirely obvious. The arrangement of control module to be disposed at a front side of the manifold and heat exchange components into the rear side of the manifold is not considered inventive if the specification does not provide why the positioning is critical and that the invention would not work in any other arrangement. See MPEP § 2144.04 (C), In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
As to claim 19, CALDERONE, as modified by THOMAS teaches the limitations of claim 18,
However, CALDERONE does not teach the coolant module, wherein the coolant control module communicates directly with the coolant flow path in the flow path plate through a through-hole that is formed through the base plate and communicates with the coolant flow path, and wherein the chiller and the condenser communicate directly with the coolant flow path in the flow path plate through a coolant inlet/outlet port that penetrates an outer surface of the flow path plate and communicates with the coolant flow path to allow the coolant to be introduced or discharged.
CALDERONE, However, teaches wherein a manifold (702) includes multiple plates (702a-702c) stacked on each other; and multiple heat exchangers (706) are installed on one side of the manifold and fluid handler (734) and a condenser (730) are installed on the other side of the manifold, so as to be fluidly connected to channels (722,724,738) of the manifold (Paragraphs 62-69)). The coolant control module communicating directly with the coolant flow path in the flow path plate through a through-hole that is formed through the base plate and the chiller and the condenser communicating directly with the coolant flow path in the flow path plate through the inlet/outlet is a fluid circuit configuration that is entirely obvious to one skilled in the art in light of teachings from CALDERONE.
The control module communicating directly to the coolant flow path and with the chiller and the condenser holds no criticality and are engineering design choices which one having skill in the art would have recognized. Reading through the specification, there is no mention to why this configuration holds criticality and is inventive or advantageous.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIGYAN BHATTACHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8767. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 5 PM.
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.
/BIGYAN BHATTACHAN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763