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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is 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 2 recites the limitation "the angle of incidence between the two streams of fluid " inline 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, the angle of incidence is defined in terms of the flow of fluid streams which are inherently themselves dynamic and capable of changing depending on the flow rates and the pressures that the system is operated at. Since the angles are only tied to the flow of fluid within the structure an and not to any specific structure itself, it is difficult to tell which structures would or would not meet this limitation. The same structure could potentially both meet and not meet this limitation depending on how it was operated which leads to uncertainty on where the meets an bounds of this claim limitation lie.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1-6 and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2018/0241102 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses (Figure 1-2 and 6-11) a device for thermal regulation (at one of cooling plates 110, 122, 124, or 126) for a component which can release heat during its operation, the device comprises a circulation network (in the flow channel within the plates such as flow channel 230 seen within plate 124 in figure 7 or a similar flow channel seen within plate 122 in figure 9) for a heat-transfer fluid (per paragraph 0164), wherein the circulation network comprises at least one area for mixing of fluid into which at least two separate streams of fluid open (where fluids on two different sides of protrusions 222 or 224 mix downstream of the protrusion as seen by the arrows in in figure 7) according to respective angles selected to generate a mixture of a parietal layer of fluid and an internal layer of fluid in the mixing area (this appears to be function of mixing two streams in a confined space, which the prior art of Kim does). Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 above and Kim further discloses the angle of incidence between the two streams of fluid which open into the mixing area is between 45° and 90° (as the angle is only generally defined as in relation to the two streams in some way, not necessarily limited to a main flow direction or a wall confining the streams any portion of the steams that runs at an angle to any portion of the other steam that falls in the range could meet the claimed imitation) .
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 above and Kim further discloses wherein the circulation network (in the flow channel within the plates such as flow channel 230 seen within plate 124 in figure 7 or a similar flow channel seen within plate 122 in figure 9) for a heat-transfer fluid (per paragraph 0164) further comprising an area of separation of fluid which is designed to separate a stream of fluid into two separate streams (where fluids separate into flow paths on two different sides of protrusions 222 or 224 as seen by the arrows in in figure 7); and the mixing area, into which the separate streams of fluid open in order to permit the mixing (where fluids on two different sides of protrusions 222 or 224 mix downstream of the protrusion as seen by the arrows in in figure 7) .
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses the claim limitations of claim 3 above and Kim further discloses the area of separation comprises an obstacle placed in a channel of the circulation network (at the protrusions 222 or 224) , wherein the obstacle is designed to separate the stream of fluid into two flows (as seen by the flow arrows in figure 7),
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses the claim limitations of claim 4 above and Kim further discloses the obstacle (222 or 224) extends along the entire height of the channel (per paragraph 0154), wherein the obstacle having a polygonal form, which is substantially rectangular (the protrusions are seen as rectangular shapes with streamlined shorter ends in figure 7 and 9).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses the claim limitations of claim 4 above and Kim further discloses the channel (230) within which the obstacle (222 or 224) is placed has lateral walls stream (walls at protrusion 226 and the walls of flow channel 230 on the opposite side of protrusions 222 and 224 from protrusion 226 in figure 7) with a form selected to participate in the separation of the, and, downstream from the obstacle, in a joining of the separate streams in the mixing area (as seen in figure 7 and 9).
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 above and Kim further discloses the network for circulation of fluid comprises a section of stream of fluid downstream from the mixing area (any area downstream of the area where fluids on two different sides of protrusions 222 or 224 mix downstream of the protrusion as seen by the arrows in in figure 7), such that the fluid which flows in this section of stream of fluid has a relatively homogeneous temperature as a result of the mixing in the mixing area (this limitation appears to be functional only and regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.)), and the section of stream has a transverse cross-section for a passage of fluid which is larger than each of the transverse cross-sections of the separate streams of fluid (a seen in figure 7 where the divided steams on either side of protrusions 222 and 224 have a smaller cross section that the area in which the two streams join back together).
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 above and Kim further discloses the circulation network comprises a plurality of elementary patterns, each formed by an area of separation of fluid and the mixing area which is associated with it (areas around each of the protrusions 222 and 226 which can form repeating patters as seen in figure 9).
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 above and Kim further discloses the separate flows of fluid which open into the mixing area are arranged on different planes as the planes are not further defined; planes parallel to the protrusion 226 but running through the center of the flow passage on either side of the protrusions 222 or 224 would meet this limitation).
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 above and Kim further discloses the circulation network is formed between a lower plate (base plate 220) and an upper plate (cover plate 210 as seen in figure 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses the claim limitations of claim 11 above and Kim further discloses at least one of the plates (base plate 220) comprises regions in relief, in order to form a channel(s) of the circulation network and/or the mixing area(s) (as seen in figure 7 and 9, where the plate 220 has ana area in relief that forms the flow channel 230).
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 above and Kim further discloses the network for circulation of fluid comprises one or more tubes, within which the heat-transfer fluid circulates, and this tube or these tubes are designed to define the area(s) for mixing of the separate streams (plates 210 and 220 form a flat tube for the flow channels 230).
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 above and Kim further discloses a component which can release heat during its operation, and the device for thermal regulation as claimed in claim 1, in contact with which the component is cooled (a battery module is in contact with the cover plate 210 to conduct heat into the flow channel 230 per paragraph 0156).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Kim does not clearly disclose the lateral walls of the channel each have an elbow, with an angle of between 45° and 90°, in order to force the separate streams to follow bends, with an angle of between 45° and 90°, around the obstacle. While Kim discloses that some of the lateral walls may have a structure that bends near the obstacle at protrusions 222 or 224 in figure 7 and 251 in figure 9, they are not around the same obstacle/protrusion as claimed. None of the additionally cited prior art below appears to cure this deficiency. Therefore for at least this reason claim 7 appears to present grounds for potentially allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Vakilimoghaddam et al. (US 20210254895 A1), Ogino et al. (US 20210167443 A1), Koyama (US 20210066770 A1), Gehringhoff et al. (US 20190283627 A1), Masuda et al. (US 20140220404 A1) and Ippoushi et al. (US 20090114372 A1) all disclose relevant cooling structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANS R. WEILAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-3 EST and alternating Fridays.
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.
/HANS R WEILAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights