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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only, and/or, cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, claim 10 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A thermal insulating element in claim 4. For purposes of examination: this term is interpreted as a thermal insulation pad (Applicant Specification Publication [0020]) and its equivalents.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “element” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “thermal insulating”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
A resilient element in claim 6. For purposes of examination: this term is interpreted as a resilient washer (Applicant Specification Publication [0020]) and its equivalents.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “element” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “resilient”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 4, 6, and 10-11 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.
In re claim 4, the phrase "preferably provided with a thermal insulating element to limit the thermal contact between the first heatsink and the spacer" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether this limitation is required by the claims or a possible alternative. For purposes of examination: in order to expedite prosecution, this phrase/term is interpreted as provided with a thermal insulating element to limit the thermal contact between the first heatsink and the spacer.
In re claim 6, the phrase "the screw connection" lacks antecedent basis. For purposes of examination: in order to expedite prosecution, this phrase/term is interpreted as a screw connection.
In re claim 10, the phrase “mounted according to any one of the preceding claims” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which claim and limitations are incorporated to the claims therefrom as the claim requires multiple dependencies. As it is unclear if this is claiming only part of the claims (how the module is mounted) or the entire tempering module. Further, the multiple dependency further confuses the issue. For purposes of examination: this claim is examined as an independent claim.
Claim 11 is rejected at least by virtue of its dependency.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cauchy (US2005126184).
In re Claim 1, Cauchy discloses a tempering module (Figs. 2A, 3, 3A-3B, 4, 6, 8) comprising at least two Peltier elements (two pairs of P/N elements 42a-b),
wherein each Peltier element (two pairs of P/N elements 42a-b) has a first side (towards base 44) and a second side (side connected to base 48a),
wherein said at least two Peltier elements (two pairs of P/N elements 42a-b) are oriented with their first side so as to be in thermal contact with a common shared first heatsink (46) suitable to be heated, and
wherein each Peltier element (two pairs of P/N elements 42a-b) is oriented with its second side so as to be in thermal contact with an individual second heatsink (second side of respective Peltier elements connected to individual second hot, heat sinks 48) suitable to be cooled.
In re Claim 2, Cauchy discloses wherein a spacer (46a) is arranged between the second side of each Peltier element and each corresponding individual second heatsink ([0025]: A metal spacer 28 is often placed between the cold side 14 and cold sink 24, respectively) to allow thermal contact between the Peltier element and the second heatsink.1
In re Claim 7, Cauchy discloses wherein the first and second sides of each Peltier element (side connected to 44 and side connected to 48) as well as both sides of the first and each second heatsink (as indicated supra) in thermal contact with the corresponding Peltier element (42 a-b) are coated with a layer of thermally conductive paste ([0037]: thermally conductive adhesive, i.e., paste).
In re Claim 8, Cauchy discloses wherein the first and/or second heatsink (46) is formed as a finned air heatsink ([0045] and [0049]: Cold sink 46 is an anodized aluminum-finned heat sink).
In re Claim 9, Cauchy discloses wherein the fins of the first heatsink (fins of 46) are oriented parallel to the fins of the second heatsink (fins of 48).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laliberte (US 6463743).
In re Claim 10, Laliberte discloses a tempering chamber (See Fig. 5: cooler 200 with tempering chamber 25) comprising a wall (bottom of wall) with the tempering module (Fig. 5),
wherein the first heatsink (5) is arranged on an outer side of said wall (wall of 25), on which a first fan (6) is arranged for pushing air into the first heatsink in a substantially perpendicular direction to the plane of the first side of the Peltier element (part of thermoelectric unit 100)2,
wherein at least two second heatsinks (See Fig 4B) and a second fan (424) for pushing air into the second heatsinks (8) in a direction substantially parallel to the plane of the second side of the Peltier element are arranged on an inner side of said wall.3
In re Claim 11, Laliberte discloses wherein at least one flow rectifier (24) is arranged on the inner side of said wall (bottom wall).
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 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.
Claims 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cauchy (US2005126184) in view of Cauchy (Fig. 2A).
In re Claim 3, Cauchy does not explicitly teach, wherein the first heatsink and the second heatsink are attached to the spacer.
However, Cauchy (Fig. 2A) teaches wherein the first heatsink (Fig. 2A: 26) and the second heatsink (Fig. 2A: 24) are attached to the spacer (28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Cauchy and to have modified them by having the first heatsink and the second heatsink of Cauchy attached to the spacer.as taught by Cauchy (Fig. 2A), in order to reduce parasitic heat transfer between the hot and cold sinks (See Cauchy [0005]), without yielding unpredictable results.
In re Claim 4, Cauchy does not explicitly teach, wherein the first heatsink is attached to the spacer by means of first screws, preferably provided with a thermal insulating element to limit the thermal contact between the first heatsink and the spacer.
However, Cauchy (Fig. 2A) teaches wherein the first heatsink (Fig. 2A: 26) is attached to the spacer (28) by means of first screws (32), preferably provided with a thermal insulating element (31) to limit the thermal contact between the first heatsink and the spacer.4
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Cauchy and to have modified them by having the first heatsink is attached to the spacer by means of first screws, preferably provided with a thermal insulating element to limit the thermal contact between the first heatsink and the spacer as taught by Cauchy (Fig. 2A), in order to reduce parasitic heat transfer between the hot and cold sinks (See Cauchy [0005]), without yielding unpredictable results.
In re Claim 5, Cauchy does not explicitly teach, wherein the second heatsink is attached to the spacer by means of second screws.
However, Cauchy (Fig. 2A) teaches wherein the second heatsink (Fig. 2A: 24) is attached to the spacer (28) by means of second screws (32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Cauchy and to have modified them by having the second heatsink of Cauchy attached to the spacer by means of second screws as taught by Cauchy (Fig. 2A), in order to reduce parasitic heat transfer between the hot and cold sinks (See Cauchy [0005]), without yielding unpredictable results.
In re Claim 6, Cauchy does not explicitly teach, wherein the screw connection by means of the first and/or second screws comprises a resilient element.
However, Cauchy (Fig. 2A) teaches wherein the screw connection (connection portion of 32) by means of the first and/or second screws (32) comprises a resilient element ([0005]: 34, 36, 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Cauchy and to have modified them by having the screw connection by means of the first screws comprises a resilient element as taught by Cauchy (Fig. 2A), in order to reduce parasitic heat transfer between the hot and cold sinks (See Cauchy [0005]), without yielding unpredictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM M ADENIJI whose telephone number is (571)272-5939. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/IBRAHIM A. MICHAEL ADENIJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 The recitation of "to allow thermal contact between the Peltier element and the second heatsink" recited in the claim has been considered a recitation of intended use. The prior art structure above is capable of performing as intended. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitation. (MPEP 2114).
2 The recitation of "for pushing air into the first heatsink in a substantially perpendicular direction to the plane of the first side of the Peltier element" recited in the claim has been considered a recitation of intended use. The prior art structure above is capable of performing as intended. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitation. (MPEP 2114).
3 The recitation of "for pushing air into the second heatsinks in a direction substantially parallel to the plane of the second side of the Peltier element are arranged on an inner side of said wall" recited in the claim has been considered a recitation of intended use. The prior art structure above is capable of performing as intended. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitation. (MPEP 2114).
4 The recitation of "to limit the thermal contact between the first heatsink and the spacer " recited in the claim has been considered a recitation of intended use. The prior art structure above is capable of performing as intended. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitation. (MPEP 2114).
Prosecution Insights