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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure (emphasis by examiner).
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract does not describe what is considered to be the invention, but merely a structure which “one embodiment relates to”, providing one example without identifying the underlying invention that this embodiment is an example of. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3 of claim 9, the word “large” should be replaced with “larger” as it refers to a comparison (i.e. “a large flow cross-sectional area than other flow paths”).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 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 teaches in lines 6-7 that “the refrigerant inlet and the refrigerant outlet of the heat exchanger are disposed at one end or the other end of the manifold plate”. It is not clear from this language whether the claim requires that both of the inlet and the outlet are disposed at one end or the other end or if it allows that each of them is disposed individually at one end or the other end. For this reason, it is unclear what arrangements of positions for the inlets and outlets, for example including an arrangement with the ports arranged at opposite ends of the manifold plate, would or would not fall within the scope of the claim and claim 1 is thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and the inlet and outlet are each individually interpreted as being at one or the other end of the manifold plate so that they are not required to be at the same end.
Claim 2 teaches in lines 1-10 that “the heat exchanger [taught in claim 1] include” a first heat exchanger and a second heat exchanger, with the first heat exchanger taught to include “a first refrigerant inlet and a first refrigerant outlet” and the second heat exchanger taught to include “a second refrigerant inlet and a second refrigerant outlet”. Claim 1 upon which claim 2 depends teaches in lines 4-5 that the heat exchanger “has a refrigerant inlet and a refrigerant outlet”. Claim 2 does not clearly identify the relationship between the “first refrigerant inlet” and “second refrigerant inlet” and the “refrigerant inlet” or between the “first refrigerant outlet” and “second refrigerant outlet” and the “refrigerant outlet” so that it is not clear if the “refrigerant inlet” and “refrigerant outlet” are required to include the first and second inlet and outlet, to be among the group of the first and second inlet and outlet, or to be included in addition to the first and second inlet and outlet. For this reason, the scope of the claim as it pertains to the first and second refrigerant inlet and outlet of claim 2 in relation to the refrigerant inlet and outlet of claim 1 cannot be positively ascertained and claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claim 7 teaches that “a distance between the first coolant inlet and the first coolant outlet, and the second coolant inlet and the second coolant outlet is greater than a distance between the first refrigerant inlet and the first refrigerant outlet, and the second refrigerant inlet and the second refrigerant outlet”. It is unclear from this recitation how “a distance” is defined “between the first coolant inlet and the first coolant outlet, and the second coolant inlet and the second coolant outlet” or “between the first refrigerant inlet and the first refrigerant outlet, and the second refrigerant inlet and the second refrigerant outlet”, for example whether this represents the greatest distance between any two of these ports, a distance between any two of the four, a distance within which all of the ports must fall, or some other single distance defined by the four points. For this reason, the distances required by claim 7 and thus the configurations of inlets and outlets which would fall within the scope of the claims cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claim 9 teaches that “a flow path through which the refrigerant flows into the second heat exchanger and a flow path through which refrigerant discharged from the second heat exchanger have a large[r] flow cross-sectional area than other flow paths.” The recitation of “other flow paths” does not clearly identify what flow paths do or do not fall within the scope of the claim, or how they must relate to the claimed flow paths. For example, it is not clear whether all flow paths of the system must be smaller than those into and out of the second heat exchanger or if the claim only requires that there exist some subset which are smaller. Further, as “other flow paths” does not clearly define flow paths of the claimed automotive thermal management fluid module, it appears that the “other flow paths” could include any flow paths in any devices or systems rather than merely those within the claimed module, further making it unclear what sizes and structures of flow paths would fall within the scope of the claim. For this reason, the scope of claim 9 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claims 3-6, 8, and 10-14 are rejected as depending upon a base claim which has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2019/0039440 A1 to Calderone.
Calderone teaches limitations from claim 1 in figs. 12, 13, 14, and 15, shown below, an automotive thermal management fluid module (assembly 700) comprising:
a manifold plate (702) having a flow path through which refrigerant flows formed therein (as shown in fig. 13); and
PNG
media_image1.png
350
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
252
452
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
310
422
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
320
424
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a heat exchanger (at least the lower heat exchanger 706b as shown in fig. 12) which is coupled to one surface of the manifold plate (as shown in figs. 12, 13, 14, and 15), in which the refrigerant and coolant exchange heat while flowing, and which has a refrigerant inlet (inlet 716a of the upper heat exchanger 706a and inlet 718b of the lower heat exchanger 706b) and a refrigerant outlet (outlet 718a of the upper heat exchanger 706a and outlet 716b of the lower heat exchanger 706b) through which the refrigerant is introduced and discharged (as illustrated in fig. 13 by the arrows indicating refrigerant flow through the heat exchangers), and
the refrigerant inlet (specifically the inlet 718b of the lower heat exchanger 706b) and the refrigerant outlet (specifically the outlet 716b of the lower heat exchanger 706b) of the heat exchanger (706b) are disposed at one end (the left end regarding the inlet 718b in the orientation of fig. 13) or the other end (the right end regarding the outlet 716b in the orientation of fig. 13) of the manifold plate (702), and the refrigerant inlet (718b) is disposed above the refrigerant outlet (716b, the inlet 718b having a greater vertical height as shown in fig. 13, according to the direction of gravity as labeled in fig. 12).
Calderone teaches limitations from claim 2 in figs. 12-15, shown above, the automotive thermal management fluid module of claim 1, wherein the heat exchanger includes:
a first heat exchanger (the liquid-cooled condenser 730 shown in fig. 15 and taught in ¶¶ 46 and 70) which is coupled to one surface of the manifold plate (as shown in fig. 15), in which high-temperature refrigerant and coolant exchange heat while flowing (thus functioning as a “liquid-cooled condenser”), and which is provided with a first refrigerant inlet and a first refrigerant outlet through which the high-temperature refrigerant is introduced and discharged (although these connections are not shown, ¶ 70 teaches that the condenser is of similar structure to the condenser 206 of an earlier embodiment of Calderone and ¶ 46 teaches that the condenser 206 is fluidly coupled to the manifold to receive refrigerant from a compressor through the manifold both inbound and outbound); and
a second heat exchanger (the heat exchanger 706b) which is coupled to one surface of the manifold plate (as shown in fig. 12), in which low-temperature refrigerant and coolant exchange heat while flowing (the refrigerant flowing from expansion valves at points 726 as taught in ¶ 69 and the heat exchanger thus functioning as an evaporator or chiller), and which is provided with a second refrigerant inlet (718b) and a second refrigerant outlet (716b) through which the refrigerant is introduced and discharged (as shown in fig. 13), and
the first refrigerant inlet and the first refrigerant outlet (of the condenser 730) are disposed to be spaced apart from the second refrigerant inlet and the second refrigerant outlet (718b and 716b) (at least being disposed on opposite sides of the manifold 702).
Calderone teaches limitations from claim 4 in figs 12, 13, 14, and 15, shown above, and fig. 4, shown below, the automotive thermal management fluid module of claim 2, wherein the first heat exchanger (730) is provided with a first coolant inlet and a first coolant outlet (not shown with regard to the condenser 730 but shown as ports 228 on the condenser 206 in fig. 4) through which the coolant is introduced and discharged (as taught in ¶¶ 46 and 49 with regard to the ports 228 of the condenser 206, for inbound and outbound fluid communication), and
the second heat exchanger (706b) is provided with a second coolant inlet (714b) and a second coolant outlet (720b) through which the coolant is introduced and discharged (as shown in fig. 13).
PNG
media_image5.png
328
434
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Calderone teaches limitations from claim 7 in figs. 4, 12, 13, 14, and 15, the automotive thermal management fluid module of claim 4, wherein a distance between the first coolant inlet and the first coolant outlet (formed in the face of the condenser 730 which is opposite the manifold 702, based on the arrangement shown for the embodiment of fig. 4 and the teachings of equivalency in ¶ 70), and the second coolant inlet and the second coolant outlet (formed on the face of the heat exchanger 706 which is adjacent to the manifold 702 as shown in fig. 13, communicating with the openings 728 shown in fig. 14) is greater than a distance between the first refrigerant inlet and the first refrigerant outlet (adjacent to the manifold to receive refrigerant therefrom as taught in ¶ 46), and the second refrigerant inlet and the second refrigerant outlet (formed on the face of the heat exchanger 706 which is adjacent to the manifold 702 as shown in fig. 13, communicating with the openings 728 shown in fig. 14) (such that the coolant inlets are spaced by a distance equal to the combined thickness of the manifold and the thickness of the condenser and the refrigerant inlets are spaced by only a distance equal to the thickness of the manifold).
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.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calderone.
PNG
media_image6.png
322
460
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
308
432
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Calderone teaches a plate-shaped manifold for connecting refrigerant passages of a plurality of heat exchangers, compressors, and other refrigeration equipment, including a heat exchanger having both refrigerant and coolant ports coupled to the manifold and a condenser having refrigerant ports coupled to the manifold and water ports disposed on an opposite face from the position of the manifold. Calderone does not teach the flow paths through which refrigerant flows into and out of the second heat exchanger (the heat exchanger 706b of Calderone) having “a large [or larger] flow cross-sectional area than other flow paths” as taught in claim 9. One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed would have recognized that the relative cross-sectional areas of various refrigerant flow paths of the systems determines both the amount of refrigerant and thus the cooling capacity delivered to a connected heat exchanger and the pressure drop produced by refrigerant flowing through those passages and thus the compressor power required to drive refrigerant flow. It has been held that determining an optimum or workable value for a result effective variable by routine experimentation is a matter of routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 and MPEP 2144.05 II. Obviousness of Ranges.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, Calderone teaches in figs. 12, 13, 14, and 15, a plate-shaped manifold for connecting refrigerant passages of a plurality of heat exchangers, compressors, and other refrigeration equipment, including a heat exchanger having both refrigerant and coolant ports coupled to the manifold and a condenser having refrigerant ports coupled to the manifold and water ports disposed on an opposite face from the position of the manifold. Calderone does not teach the embodiment of figs. 12-15 of his invention including a sensor configured to measure a temperature and pressure of the refrigerant coupled to a refrigerant outlet flow path of the manifold as taught in claim 10, or this sensor being coupled to the same surface of the manifold plate as the heat exchanger as taught in claim 12. Calderone teaches in fig. 5, shown above, and in ¶ 55 an alternate embodiment of his invention in which a manifold plate (202) is provided with a fluid port (250) through which refrigerant flows out of a chiller (226, equivalent to one of the heat exchangers 706 of the embodiment of figs. 12-15) to a compressor (204) in communication with a sensor (232) via “low pressure fluid routes”, the sensor taught in ¶ 42 to be a sensor which “senses at least one of a fluid temperature or a fluid pressure” as taught in claim 10. Further, as shown in fig. 3, the sensor (232) is disposed on the same side of the manifold plate (202) as the compressor (204), this side being the same side which, in the embodiment of figs. 12-15 would be the location of the heat exchangers (706) so that, in modifying the embodiment of figs. 12-15 with the sensor taught for the embodiment of figs. 3 and 5, the sensor would be placed as taught in claim 12. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the embodiment of Calderone’s figs. 12-15 with the sensor taught in an alternate embodiment of figs. 3 and 5 of Calderone in order to allow the instant operating conditions of the system to be monitored and used in controlling the system to ensure effective, efficient, and reliable operations tailored to the instant conditions of the system.
Calderone as modified as discussed above teaches the limitations of claim 11, the automotive thermal management fluid module of claim 10, wherein an inlet hole of the refrigerant inlet (718b), an outlet hole of the refrigerant outlet (716b), and a sensor insertion hole into which the sensor is inserted (for the sensor 232 as discussed in the above rejections of claims 10 and 12), which are formed in the manifold plate (as shown in fig. 13 regarding the inlet and outlet and fig. 5 regarding the sensor), are disposed in [the same direction] (as shown in the figures.)
Regarding the recitation that this direction is “a direction of gravity”, examiner notes that although fig. 12 shows an arrow labeled “gravity”, the teachings of Calderone do not require any particular directionality with regard to the manifold plate to be “a direction of gravity” so that the orientation with which the system is placed can cause any given direction to be “a direction of gravity”. For this reason, the orientation of the claimed invention is found to be a matter of intended use which does not affect the structure beyond the structure already recited elsewhere in the claim.
Claims 1-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calderone in view of Chinese Publication No. 113650528 A to Xia et al.
An English translation of Xia has been provided with this Office Action and citations to specific passages and paragraphs of this reference are directed to this translation rather than to the Chinese-language original document.
The following additional ground of rejection of claim 1 does not indicate any deficiency in the rejection set forth above but is presented to demonstrate that, even under an interpretation in which both the refrigerant inlet and the refrigerant outlet are required to be at the same end of the manifold, the invention of this claim would remain unpatentable, in this case as being obvious over Calderone in view of Xia.
Calderone teaches limitations from claim 1 in figs. 12, 13, 14, and 15, shown below, an automotive thermal management fluid module (assembly 700) comprising:
a manifold plate (702) having a flow path through which refrigerant flows formed therein (as shown in fig. 13); and
a heat exchanger (at least the lower heat exchanger 706b as shown in fig. 12) which is coupled to one surface of the manifold plate (as shown in figs. 12, 13, 14, and 15), in which the refrigerant and coolant exchange heat while flowing, and which has a refrigerant inlet (inlet 716a of the upper heat exchanger 706a and inlet 718b of the lower heat exchanger 706b) and a refrigerant outlet (outlet 718a of the upper heat exchanger 706a and outlet 716b of the lower heat exchanger 706b) through which the refrigerant is introduced and discharged (as illustrated in fig. 13 by the arrows indicating refrigerant flow through the heat exchangers), and
the refrigerant inlet (specifically the inlet 718b of the lower heat exchanger 706b) and the refrigerant outlet (specifically the outlet 716b of the lower heat exchanger 706b) of the heat exchanger (706b) are disposed at one end (the left end regarding the inlet 718b in the orientation of fig. 13) or the other end (the right end regarding the outlet 716b in the orientation of fig. 13) of the manifold plate (702), and the refrigerant inlet (718b) is disposed above the refrigerant outlet (716b, the inlet 718b having a greater vertical height as shown in fig. 13, according to the direction of gravity as labeled in fig. 12).
Calderone does not teach the refrigerant inlet and outlet both being disposed at one end or the other end, teaching instead in fig. 13 that the inlet 718b of the lower heat exchanger 706b is disposed at a left end of the manifold 702 and the outlet 716b of the lower heat exchanger 706b at the right end of the manifold 702 according to the orientation shown in fig. 13. Xia teaches in figs. 3 and 5, shown below, and in ¶ 71, a base (10) formed of first and second portions (11 and 12) for forming a manifold plate and mounting components including a condenser (24) in a thermal management system of an automobile. The base plate (as shown in fig. 5) includes ports (4206 and 4305) arranged at one end (the left end, from the perspective of fig. 5) of the base (10) for communicating with the condenser (24) and so that the inlet port (“third heat exchange interface 4206 for connecting the inlet of the condenser”) is arranged above the outlet port (“fourth heat exchange interface 4305 for connecting the outlet of the condenser”) as shown in fig. 5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Calderone with the two heat exchangers arranged along one end of the manifold plate in order to provide simpler visual layout and correspondence between communicating ports in order to simplify and avoid errors in installation, service, and maintenance and because MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale states in subsection (VI)(C) that the mere rearrangement of the working parts of a system is a matter of obvious design choice where it does not modify the operation of the system. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
PNG
media_image8.png
580
480
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
566
478
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitations of claim 2, refer to the above rejection of the claim as being anticipated by Calderone.
Regarding claim 3, Calderone does not teach the first inlet and outlet of the first heat exchanger being disposed at one end of the manifold plate while the second inlet and outlet of the second heat exchanger are disposed at the other end of the manifold plate. As discussed above with regard to claim 1, Xia teaches an inlet (4206) and an outlet (4305) of a condenser (24) arranged at a single edge (the left edge in the view of fig. 5) of a manifold plate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Calderone so that the two heat exchangers (730 and 706b) each have the two edge-positioned ports as taught for the condenser (24) of Xia in order to provide simpler visual layout and correspondence between communicating ports, spaced from other ports to prevent misidentification, in order to simplify and avoid errors in installation, service, and maintenance and because MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale states in subsection (VI)(C) that the mere rearrangement of the working parts of a system is a matter of obvious design choice where it does not modify the operation of the system. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding the limitations of claim 4, refer to the above rejection of the claim as being anticipated by Calderone.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, as discussed in the above rejections of claims 2 and 4, Calderone teaches the first refrigerant inlet and outlet (of the condenser 730) and the second refrigerant inlet and outlet (718b and 716b of the heat exchanger 706b) to be arranged in a surface of the manifold plate (702) but Calderone does not teach that the first coolant inlet and outlet are disposed adjacent to the second cooling inlet and outlet as taught in claim 5, or that these coolant inlets and outlets are disposed between the first refrigerant inlet and outlet and the second refrigerant inlet and outlet as taught in claim 6. Xia teaches in figs. 3 and 5, shown above, and in ¶ 71, a base (10) formed of first and second portions (11 and 12) for forming a manifold plate and mounting components including a condenser (24) in a thermal management system of an automobile. Xia particularly teaches in fig. 5 and ¶¶ 63-64 that ports (4203 and 4301, equivalent to the first coolant inlet and outlet of claims 5 and 6 and the water ports of the condenser 730 of Calderone) which connect cooling water (for “hydrocooling”) to the condenser (24) are formed in the surface of the base plate (as shown in fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Calderone with the coolant ports for the condenser formed as openings in the manifold plate to allow the flow of both refrigerants and coolants to be controlled by the singular manifold plate, reducing the need for external hoses and pipes which must be routed within the vehicle’s constructions and which may be exposed to damage.
Neither Calderone nor Xia teaches the various refrigerant and coolant ports of their respective manifold plates are disposed in the manner taught in claims 5 and 6, particularly that the first coolant inlet and outlet are disposed adjacent to the second cooling inlet and outlet as taught in claim 5, or that these coolant inlets and outlets are disposed between the first refrigerant inlet and outlet and the second refrigerant inlet and outlet as taught in claim 6. One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed would have found arranging the ports on the manifold plate in this manner to be a matter of obvious design choice in order to provide simpler visual layout and correspondence between communicating ports in order to simplify and avoid errors in installation, service, and maintenance and because MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale states in subsection (VI)(C) that the mere rearrangement of the working parts of a system is a matter of obvious design choice where it does not modify the operation of the system. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding the limitations of claim 7, refer to the above rejection of the claim as being anticipated by Calderone.
Calderone teaches limitations from claim 8 in fig. 14, the automotive thermal management fluid module of claim 4, wherein the manifold plate (702) at the locations at which the second coolant inlet, and the second coolant outlet (714b and 720b) are disposed is formed to be open (in order to communicate between the manifold plate 702 and the heat exchanger 706b).
Calderone does not teach equivalent openings being formed in the surface of the manifold plate to communicate coolant to the condenser (730), teaching such inlets to be disposed on a surface of the condenser opposite the manifold plate as discussed above in the rejection of claim 4. Xia teaches in figs. 3 and 5, shown above, and in ¶ 71, a base (10) formed of first and second portions (11 and 12) for forming a manifold plate and mounting components including a condenser (24) in a thermal management system of an automobile. Xia particularly teaches in fig. 5 and ¶¶ 63-64 that the base plate (as shown in fig. 5) includes ports (4203 and 4301) connecting cooling water (for “hydrocooling”) to the condenser (24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Calderone with the coolant ports for the condenser formed as openings in the manifold plate to allow the flow of both refrigerants and coolants to be controlled by the singular manifold plate, reducing the need for external hoses and pipes which must be routed within the vehicle’s constructions and which may be exposed to damage.
Regarding the limitations of claim 9, refer to the above rejection of the claim as being obvious over Calderone.
Regarding the limitations of claim 10, refer to the above rejection of the claim as being obvious over Calderone.
Regarding the limitations of claim 11, refer to the above rejection of the claim as being obvious over Calderone.
Regarding the limitations of claim 12, refer to the above rejection of the claim as being obvious over Calderone.
Calderone teaches limitations from claim 14 in figs. 12, 13, 14, and 15, the automotive thermal management fluid module of claim 2, wherein the first heat exchanger is a [liquid]-cooled condenser (the liquid-cooled condenser 730 shown in fig. 15 and taught in ¶¶ 46 and 70), and the second heat exchanger is a chiller (the heat exchanger 706b).
Calderone does not teach that the condenser is “a water-cooled condenser”. Xia teaches in ¶¶ 12 and 63 that the condenser (24) of their invention is subject to “hydrocooling”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Calderone to use water specifically as the “fluid” which cools the condenser because water is inexpensive, readily available, and effective for use as a cooling fluid.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calderone as applied to claims 1 and 10, with or without the additional teachings of Xia as discussed above, and further in view of WIPO Publication No. 2022/245155 A1 to Rhee et al.
An English translation of Rhee has been provided with this Office Action and citations to specific passages and paragraphs of this reference are directed to this translation rather than to the Korean-language original document.
Calderone teaches limitations from claim 13 in figs. 12, 13, 14, and 14, shown above, the automotive thermal management fluid module of claim 10, wherein the heat exchanger (706b) is coupled to the one surface of the manifold plate (as shown in figs. 12 and 13).
PNG
media_image10.png
330
440
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Although Calderone teaches (as discussed in the above rejection of claim 10) the inclusion of a sensor on such a manifold plate for sensing the temperature and pressure of refrigerant, Calderone does not teach that such a sensor is coupled to a side surface of the plate. Rhee teaches in fig. 2, shown above, a cooling module (10) for a vehicle cooling system (¶ 1) in which a manifold (100) is provided for mounting a first heat exchanger (a condenser as shown in fig. 2 and taught in ¶ 21) on one surface (an upper surface as shown in fig. 2) and for mounting a number of second heat exchangers (chillers as shown in fig. 2 and taught in ¶ 21) on an opposite surface (a lower surface as shown in fig. 2) and having a side surface between the upper and lower surfaces on which is provided a pressure and temperature sensor (labeled “PT Seonsor” [sic.] in fig. 2 and taught in ¶¶ 26 and 34) for sensing the pressure and temperature of the refrigerant. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Calderone with the side-mounting of the sensor as taught by Rhee in order to prevent the sensor from taking up surface area on one of the surfaces of the manifold plate on which heat exchangers are mounted, thus increasing the area these heat exchangers may be disposed in and the overall size and heat exchange efficiency they may provide and because MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale states in subsection (VI)(C) that the mere rearrangement of the working parts of a system is a matter of obvious design choice where it does not modify the operation of the system. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Publication No. 2023/0141829 A1 to Busch et al. teaches in figs. 3 and 4, shown below, an HVAC system for a vehicle in which a holding element (14) is provided with an upright portion (wall section 15) which may be taken as “plate shaped” and to which are attached a compressor (10), condenser (11), and evaporator (13), communicating via through-holes (17, 18, 19, and 20) to permit the passage of refrigerant between the various HVAC components but does not teach the openings pertaining to either of the heat exchangers (11 and 13) being arranged “at one end or another end”) of the wall section (15) or this wall section including similar through holes to serve as inlet or outlet ports for coolants in addition to the refrigerant of the circuit as taught in the instant independent claims. It is particularly noted that both of the heat exchangers (11 and 13) are illustrated in fig. 3 having ports on a side opposite the wall section (15) so that a coolant exchanging heat in either exchanger will not pass through the wall portion as taught with regard to the instant invention.
PNG
media_image11.png
444
581
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
360
382
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C COMINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM to 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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)270-5054. 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.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights