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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
main air flow - The lack of disclosure on the main air flow additionally creates uncertainty about the frontal areas and the straight passages that may otherwise be apparent.
air flow paths – The indication given by numeral 20 in figure 3 is insufficient for a person having ordinary skill in the art to determine an air flow path.
simply connected region – The lack of disclosure on the simply connected region creates uncertainty about the frontal area of the connected region that may otherwise be apparent.
frontal area of the connected region – The lack of disclosure on the frontal area of the connected region creates uncertainty about the simply connected region, and the main air flow and straight passages that may otherwise be apparent.
frontal area of the indoor heat exchanger – The lack of disclosure on the frontal area of the indoor heat exchanger creates uncertainty about the main air flow and straight passages that may otherwise be apparent.
straight passages – The indication given by numerals 18 and 21 in figures 3-5 are insufficient for a person having ordinary skill in the art to determine the orientation of the straight passages. The lack of disclosure on the straight passages additionally creates uncertainty about the frontal areas and the air flow paths that may otherwise be apparent.
heat isolating surface cover
output plate – Claim 1 recites one of several structures only present in figures 3-5 in geometric relation to the output plate, but the output plate is not disclosed in any of these figures. This lack of disclosure creates uncertainty in the language of the claim that may otherwise be apparent.
the cross-sectional area of the indoor heat exchanger
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 further recites “the main air flow” which lacks antecedent basis and will be interpreted to recite - - a main air flow - -.
Claim 1 further recites “the corresponding part of the indoor heat exchanger”, but it is unclear what the corresponding part is. For examination purposes, “the corresponding part of the indoor heat exchanger” will be interpreted to recite - - the straight passages through the indoor heat exchanger - -.
Claims 1 and 2 recite “the region” which lacks antecedent basis and will be interpreted to recite - - the connected region - -.
Claims 2-15 recite “A room air conditioner”, but refer back to an earlier claim which already establishes an antecedent basis for a room air conditioner. For examination purposes, these limitations will be interpreted to recite - - The room air conditioner - -.
Claim 3 recites “the path wall” which lacks antecedent basis and will be interpreted to recite - - a path wall - -.
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 1-15 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.
Regarding claim 1, the term “its” in "a controller to generate output based on the sensor output and based on a setpoint to set a performance of the thermoelectric heat pump in accordance with its output" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. the term “its” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, as used to qualify the performance of the thermoelectric heat pump with respect to the controller and sensor, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claim indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby. In particular, it is not clear whether "its" refers to the controller, the sensor, or the thermoelectric heat pump, all of which have an output that has some part to play in the performance of the heat pump in the described configuration. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as - - a controller to generate output based on the sensor output and based on a setpoint to set a performance of the thermoelectric heat pump in accordance with the controller’s output - -. Clarity is advised.
Further regarding claim 1, Therefore, the term “simply” in "simply connected area" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. the term “simply” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, as used to qualify the arrangement and alignment of the heat exchange surface, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claim indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby. In particular, it is not clear relative to which other element(s) and/or plane(s) and/or line(s) the heat exchange surface is "arranged vertically". For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as - - the connected region - -. Clarity is advised.
Further regarding claim 1, “the corresponding part of the indoor heat exchanger extends to where a thermal connection to the output plate” is recited, but the claim language is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite. For example, the recitation could be interpreted as either “the corresponding part of the indoor heat exchanger extends to where a thermal connection is made to the output plate” or as “the corresponding part of the indoor heat exchanger extends a thermal connection to the output plate”. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as - - the corresponding part of the indoor heat exchanger extends to where a thermal connection is made to the output plate - -. Clarity is advised.
Regarding claim 5, “its leading edge” is recited, but it is unclear what structure “its” is referring to, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted to recite - - the heat exchanger’s leading edge - -. Clarity is advised.
Further regarding claim 5, “to where it is thermally connected to the output plate” is recited, but it is unclear what structure “it” is referring to, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purpose of the examination, the limitation will be interpreted to recite - - to where the heat exchanger is thermally connected to the output plate - -.
Further regarding claim 5, “gradually decreases with greater distance” is recited, however the terms “gradually” and “greater” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “gradually” and “greater” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, as used to qualify the arrangement and alignment of the heat exchange surface, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claim indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby. In particular, it is not clear relative to which other element(s) and/or plane(s) and/or line(s) the heat exchange surface is "arranged vertically". For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as - - decreases with distance - -. Clarity is advised.
Regarding claim 9, the term “it” in "A room air conditioner according to claim 1, wherein the sensor or the controller includes a module in the main body of the room air conditioner configured to receive data from a remote part of it" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. the term “its” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, as used to qualify the relationship of the remote part to the rest of the room air conditioner, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claim indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby. In particular, it is not whether "it" refers to the room air conditioner, the sensor or controller, the module, or the main body of the air conditioner. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as - - A room air conditioner according to claim 1, wherein the sensor or the controller includes a module in the main body of the room air conditioner configured to receive data from a remote part of the room air conditioner - -. Clarity is advised.
Regarding claim 10, the term “its” in "A room air conditioner according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured at times to amend its output for restricting the temperature difference between the output plate and the input plate of the thermoelectric heat pump" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. the term “its” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, as used to qualify the subject of the amended output, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claim indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby. In particular, it is not whether "it" refers to the room air conditioner, the controller, or the thermoelectric heat pump. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as - - A room air conditioner according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured at times to amend the controller’s output for restricting the temperature difference between the output plate and the input plate of the thermoelectric heat pump - -. Clarity is advised.
Regarding claim 11, “to a maximum below 35ºC” is recited, however the term “maximum” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “maximum” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, as used to define a required temperature range for heating the output plate, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claim indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to recite - - to below 35°C - -.
Regarding claim 12, the term “its” in “The room air conditioner according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured at times to amend its output” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “its” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, as used to qualify the output amended by the controller, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claim indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby. In particular, it is not clear whether "its" refers to the room air conditioner, or the controller, both of which have an output that can be amended by the controller in the described configuration. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as - - The room air conditioner according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured at times to amend the controller’s output - -. Clarity is advised.
Regarding claim 15, the term “its” in “The room air conditioner according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured at times to amend its output” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “its” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, as used to qualify the output amended by the controller, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claim indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby. In particular, it is not clear whether "its" refers to the room air conditioner, or the controller, both of which have an output that can be amended by the controller in the described configuration. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as - - The room air conditioner according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured at times to amend the controller’s output - -. Clarity is advised.
Further regarding claim 15, “temporarily above” is recited, however the term “temporarily” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “temporarily” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, as used to quantify the activation time for heating the output plate, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claim indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to recite - - above - -.
Further regarding claim 15, “a minimum that is above 60ºC” is recited, however the term “minimum” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimum” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, as used to define a required temperature range for heating the output plate, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claim indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to recite - - above 60°C - -.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 12-14 are rejected based on a dependency from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2023/0089873 A1), and further in view of Nikolaevich et al. (RU 152048 U1), Paudel et al. (Multi-Objective Topology Optimization of Additively Manufactured Heat Exchangers, 2019 International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium), Park et al. (Unusually high ratio of shear modulus to Young’s modulus in a nano-structured gyroid metamaterial, 2017, Scientific Reports vol. 7), and Schoen (Infinite periodic minimal surfaces without self-intersections, 1970, NASA Technical Note TN D-5541).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches: A room air conditioner (“air-conditioning device”, paragraph 0001) comprising: a thermoelectric heat pump (“thermoelectric element 15”) including an output plate (“indoor heat exchange surface 151a”) and an input plate (“outdoor heat exchange surface 152a”); an indoor heat exchanger (“indoor heat exchanger 151”) with air flow paths therethrough (air flow paths, annotated fig. below, thermally connected to the output plate (“Like a typical thermoelectric element, the first thermoelectric element 15 may include an n-type semiconductor (not shown) and a p-type semiconductor (not shown). The n-type semiconductor (not shown) and the p-type semiconductor (not shown) may be connected to the first indoor heat exchanger 151 and the first outdoor heat exchanger 152 that are conductors”, paragraph 0060) and configured in operation to exchange heat with indoor air (“Air of an indoor space (hereinafter referred to as “indoor air”) is sucked into the case 11 through the indoor inlet 13”, paragraph 0050, “air is introduced, through the indoor inlet 13, into the first area S1”, paragraph 0069, “a first indoor heat exchanger 151 disposed in the first area S1 to exchange heat with air passing through the first area”, paragraph 0059); an outdoor heat exchanger (outdoor heat exchanger 152) thermally connected to the input plate (“Like a typical thermoelectric element, the first thermoelectric element 15 may include an n-type semiconductor (not shown) and a p-type semiconductor (not shown). The n-type semiconductor (not shown) and the p-type semiconductor (not shown) may be connected to the first indoor heat exchanger 151 and the first outdoor heat exchanger 152 that are conductors”, paragraph 0060) and configured to exchange heat with an outdoor environment (Outdoor air may be introduced into the case 11 through the outdoor inlet 13′“, paragraph 0089, ”“The outdoor inlet 13′ may be formed at the upper part of the case 11 in the second area S2”, paragraph 0056, “a first outdoor heat exchanger 152 disposed in the second area S2 to exchange heat with air passing through the second area”, paragraph 0059).
PNG
media_image1.png
987
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1: Kim, Figure 4, air-conditioning device
Kim fails to teach: a sensor to sense a measurand for a cooling or a heating demand; a controller to generate output based on the sensor output and based on a setpoint to set a performance of the thermoelectric heat pump in accordance with the controller’s output.
However, Nikolaevich teaches: a sensor (“bimetallic temperature sensors”, paragraph 5) to sense a measurand for a cooling or a heating demand; a controller (“control unit”, paragraph 5) to generate output based on the sensor output (“When the set temperature is exceeded, a signal is received from the unit to increase the current passed through thermoelectric modules”, paragraph 20) and based on a setpoint (“set temperature”, paragraph 20) to set a performance of the thermoelectric heat pump in accordance with the controller’s output (“If the room temperature drops below the set one, for example, below 22 ° C, the signal from the control unit enters the electric power source and the current passing through the thermoelectric modules decreases (4), which ensures a corresponding automatic increase in the temperature of the conditioned air.”, paragraph 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined teachings to include: a sensor to sense a measurand for a cooling or a heating demand; a controller to generate output based on the sensor output and based on a setpoint to set a performance of the thermoelectric heat pump in accordance with the controller’s output in view of the teachings of Nikolaevich in order to “to reduce energy consumption during operation of a thermoelectric air conditioner” (paragraph 22).
The teachings fail to teach: wherein in a connected region on the indoor heat exchanger, straight passages through the indoor heat exchanger in line with the main air flow towards them in operation contribute less than 44% to the frontal area of the connected region.
However, the combined teachings teach wherein in a connected region on the indoor heat exchanger, straight passages through the indoor heat exchanger in line with the main air flow towards them in operation contribute less than 44% to the frontal area of the connected region
Schoen teaches that the axis being viewed in Paudel’s gyroid heatsink is the (111) axis, as denoted by the hexagonal pattern of through-holes (Annotated Figure 2A of Schoen, Figure 7h), which match the hexagonal pattern of through holes in Paudel (Annotated Figure 2C of Paudel, Figure 10). Schoen further teaches that “the gyroid belongs to the cubic crystal system” (page 48, VIII. THE GYROID, paragraph 1), so the axis of fluid flow through the heat sink must be along the (100) axis (Annotated Figure 2B of Schoen, Figure 7a). Park teaches that “the area fractions occupied by constituent atoms are the same regardless of the plane” where the plane is one of “the planes parallel to (001), (100), (110), and (111)” (Park Figure 2 caption). Further, it can be seen by a person having ordinary skill in the art that Paudel’s gyroidal heatsink has lost less than 44% of its frontal area on the (111) axis due to the inclusion of the straight passages. Using this observation and the (111) and (100) area fraction equivalency given by Park, it can be said that Paudel’s gyroidal heatsink has lost less than 44% of its frontal area on the fluid flow (100) axis due to the inclusion of the straight passages.
PNG
media_image2.png
251
253
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
356
352
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A: Schoen, Figure 7h, gyroid, (111) axis view
B: Schoen, Figure 7a, gyroid, (100) axis view
PNG
media_image4.png
811
850
media_image4.png
Greyscale
C: Paudel, Figure 10, optimized gyroid heat sink
Annotated Figure 2: Gyroid axis views
Thus, together with Schoen and Park, Paudel teaches: wherein in a connected region (Region, Annotated Figure 2C of Paudel, Figure 10) on the indoor heat exchanger (“optimized gyroid heat sink”, Results and discussion, final paragraph), straight passages through the indoor heat exchanger (Straight passages, Annotated Figure 2B of Schoen, Figure 7a) in line with the main air flow (“air flow”, Results and discussion, paragraph 1, Annotated Figure 2C of Paudel, Figure 10) towards them in operation contribute less than 44% to the frontal area of the connected region (see above teachings by Schoen and Park).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined teachings to include: wherein in a connected region on the indoor heat exchanger, straight passages through the indoor heat exchanger in line with the main air flow towards them in operation contribute less than 44% to the frontal area of the connected region in view of the teachings of Schoen, Park, and Paudel in order to “provide a higher surface area to volume ratio resulting in higher heat transfer rates” (page 2).
The teachings fail to teach: the straight passages through the indoor heat exchanger extends to where a thermal connection is made to the output plate.
Schoen teaches that the axis being viewed in Paudel’s gyroid heatsink is the (111) axis (Annotated Figure 2A of Schoen, Figure 7h) and that the axis of fluid flow through the heat sink is along the (100) axis (Annotated Figure 2B of Schoen, Figure 7a).
Thus, together with Schoen, Paudel teaches the straight passages through the indoor heat exchanger (Annotated Figure 2B of Schoen, Figure 7a) extends to where a thermal connection is made to the output plate (“base plate (i.e. substrate)”, Method, paragraph 3). It can be seen from Paudel’s optimized gyroid heatsink (Annotated Figure 2C of Paudel, Figure 10) that the air flow is in the (100) direction and that the base plate is at the far end of the heatsink, and perpendicular to the direction of air flow. It can further be seen from Schoen’s depiction of the gyroid in the (100) direction (Annotated Figure 2B of Schoen, Figure 7a) that the straight passages go entirely through the gyroid structure, extending to where the base plate where the thermal connection is made to the output plate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings to include: the straight passages through the indoor heat exchanger extends to where a thermal connection is made to the output plate in view of the teachings of Paudel to provide “increased surface area” (results and discussion, final paragraph).
The teachings fail to teach: the frontal area of the connected region is at least half the frontal area of the indoor heat exchanger; at least some air flow paths through the indoor heat exchanger do not include such a straight passage.
Schoen teaches that the holes through a gyroid are “quasi-helical” (page 50, final paragraph). Thus, not all air flow paths go straight through the circular holes (Annotated Figure 2B of Schoen, Figure 7a), but can follow the quasi-helical paths through the gyroid.
Thus, together with Schoen, Paudel teaches: the frontal area of the connected region (frontal area (100), Annotated Figure 2C of Paudel, Figure 10) is at least half the frontal area of the indoor heat exchanger (frontal area (100), Annotated Figure 2C of Paudel, Figure 10); at least some air flow paths (“air flow”, Results and discussion, paragraph 1, Annotated Figure 2C of Paudel, Figure 10) through the indoor heat exchanger (“optimized gyroid heat sink”, Results and discussion, final paragraph) do not include such a straight passage (see above teachings by Schoen).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings to include: the frontal area of the connected region is at least half the frontal area of the indoor heat exchanger; at least some air flow paths through the indoor heat exchanger do not include such a straight passage. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the teachings of Kim in view of the teachings of Paudel in this way because “the optimal design performed significantly better than the conventional heat exchanger in terms of thermal efficiency per unit mass” (abstract).
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach the invention of claim 1 as described above, but fails to teach: wherein the straight passages contribute less than 36% to the frontal area of the connected region.
Schoen teaches that the axis being viewed in Paudel’s gyroid heatsink is the (111) axis, as denoted by the hexagonal pattern of through-holes (Annotated Figure 2A of Schoen, Figure 7h), which match the hexagonal pattern of through holes in Paudel (Annotated Figure 2C of Paudel, Figure 10). Schoen further teaches that “the gyroid belongs to the cubic crystal system” (page 48, VIII. THE GYROID, paragraph 1), so the axis of fluid flow through the heat sink must be along the (100) axis (Annotated Figure 2B of Schoen, Figure 7a). Park teaches that “the area fractions occupied by constituent atoms are the same regardless of the plane” where the plane is one of “the planes parallel to (001), (100), (110), and (111)” (Park Figure 2 caption). Further, it can be seen by a person having ordinary skill in the art that Paudel’s gyroidal heatsink has lost less than 36% of its frontal area on the (111) axis due to the inclusion of the straight passages. Using this observation and the (111) and (100) area fraction equivalency given by Park, it can be said that Paudel’s gyroidal heatsink has lost less than 36% of its frontal area on the fluid flow (100) axis due to the inclusion of the straight passages.
Thus, Paudel teaches: wherein the straight passages (Annotated Figure 2B of Schoen, Figure 7a) contribute less than 36% (see above) to the frontal area (Annotated Figure 2C of Paudel, Figure 10) of the connected region (Annotated Figure 2C of Paudel, Figure 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined teachings to include: wherein the straight passages contribute less than 36% to the frontal area of the connected region in view of the teachings of Paudel in order to “provide a higher surface area to volume ratio resulting in higher heat transfer rates” (page 2).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach the invention of claim 1 as described above, but fails to teach: wherein the surface of the indoor heat exchanger is uneven over at least 40% of its area.
However, Shoen teaches: wherein the surface of the indoor heat exchanger is uneven over at least 40% of its area (“[the gyroid] contains neither straight lines nor plane lines of curvature”, VIII. THE GYROID, paragraph 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined teachings to include: wherein the surface of the indoor heat exchanger is uneven over at least 40% of its area in view of the teachings of Shoen in order to “provide a higher surface area to volume ratio resulting in higher heat transfer rates” (Paudel, page 2).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach the invention of claim 1 as described above, but fails to teach: wherein the cross-sectional area of the indoor heat exchanger in line with the main air flow towards the heat exchanger’s leading edges at a shared distance to where the heat exchanger is thermally connected to the output plate decreases with distance.
However, Paudel teaches: wherein the cross-sectional area of the indoor heat exchanger (“optimized gyroid heat sink”, Results and discussion, final paragraph) in line with the main air flow (“air flow”, Results and discussion, paragraph 1, Annotated Figure 2C of Paudel, Figure 10) towards the heat exchanger’s leading edges at a shared distance to where the heat exchanger is thermally connected to the output plate (“base plate (i.e. substrate)”, Method, paragraph 3) decreases with distance. This is interpreted to be the inverse of the statement made in claim 6. In claim 6 the solid material is described to be tapering away as the distance from the thermal connection to the heat source increases, whereas in claim 5 the free flow area for the fluid medium is described to be tapering away as the distance from the leading edges of the heat sink increases. This tapering effect can be clearly seen in Paudel’s “pin-fin” optimization (Annotated Figure 3A of Paudel, Figure 7), and although the effect is more subtle, the same effect can be seen in Paudel’s “optimized gyroid heatsink” (Annotated Figure 3B of Paudel, Figure 9).
PNG
media_image5.png
602
1549
media_image5.png
Greyscale
A: Paudel, Figure 7, Pin-fin heat sink before (left) and after (right) optimization
PNG
media_image6.png
569
1538
media_image6.png
Greyscale
B: Paudel, Figure 9, Gyroid heat sink before (left) and after (right) optimization
Annotated Figure 3: Paudel’s heat sinks annotated to show tapered mass reduction
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined teachings to include: wherein the cross-sectional area of the indoor heat exchanger in line with the main air flow towards the heat exchanger’s leading edges at a shared distance to where the heat exchanger is thermally connected to the output plate decreases with distance in view of the teachings of Paudel in order to “achieve mass reduction and maximization of heat transfer efficiency” (abstract).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach the invention of claim 1 as described above, but fails to teach: wherein a shape of the indoor heat exchanger tapers away from a thermal connection to the output plate of the thermoelectric heat pump.
However, Paudel teaches: wherein a shape of the indoor heat exchanger (“optimized gyroid heat sink”, Results and discussion, final paragraph) tapers away from a thermal connection to the output plate (“base plate (i.e. substrate)”, Method, paragraph 3) of the thermoelectric heat pump. This tapering effect can be clearly seen in Paudel’s “pin-fin” optimization (Annotated Figure 3A of Paudel, Figure 7), and although the effect is more subtle, the same effect can be seen in Paudel’s “gyroid” optimization (Annotated Figure 3B of Paudel, Figure 9). Additionally, although Paudel does not teach a thermoelectric heat pump, Kim does, and Paudel teaches a structure equivalent to the thermal connection of the current art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined teachings to include: wherein a shape of the indoor heat exchanger tapers away from a thermal connection to the output plate of the thermoelectric heat pump in view of the teachings of Paudel in order to “achieve mass reduction and maximization of heat transfer efficiency” (abstract).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach the invention of claim 1 as described above, but fails to teach: wherein the indoor heat exchanger comprises a heat isolating surface cover adjacent to a thermal connection to the output plate of the thermoelectric heat pump.
However, Kim teaches: wherein the indoor heat exchanger (“first indoor heat exchanger 151”) comprises a heat isolating surface cover (“barrier 12”, Annotated Figure 1 of Kim, Figure 4) adjacent to a thermal connection to the output plate (“first indoor heat exchange surface 151a”) of the thermoelectric heat pump (“first thermoelectric element 15”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined teachings to include: wherein the indoor heat exchanger comprises a heat isolating surface cover adjacent to a thermal connection to the output plate of the thermoelectric heat pump in view of the teachings of Kim because “The barrier 12 may separate the first area S1 and the second area S2” (paragraph 0057).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Kim (US 2023/0089873 A1), Nikolaevich et al. (RU 152048 U1), Paudel et al. (Multi-Objective Topology Optimization of Additively Manufactured Heat Exchangers, 2019 International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium), Park et al. (Unusually high ratio of shear modulus to Young’s modulus in a nano-structured gyroid metamaterial, 2017, Scientific Reports vol. 7), and Schoen (Infinite periodic minimal surfaces without self-intersections, 1970, NASA Technical Note TN D-5541) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hart et al. (US 2022/0174840 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings of Kim, Nikolaevich, Paudel, Park, and Schoen teach the invention of claim 1 as described above, but fails to teach: wherein along most air flow paths through the indoor heat exchanger a path wall, by protruding or receding transversally, changes the air flow path cross sectional area locally by more than 2% of the previous air flow path cross sectional area at least 20 times.
However, Hart teaches: wherein along most air flow paths (red line, Annotated Figure 4 of Hart, Figure 7) through the indoor heat exchanger (“heatsink”, paragraph 0005) a path wall (“array of pin fins (140)”), by protruding or receding transversally (staggered arrangement, Annotated Figure 4 of Hart, Figure 7), changes the air flow path cross sectional area locally by more than 2% of the previous air flow path cross sectional area at least 20 times (Annotated Figure 4 of Hart, Figure 7). A person having ordinary skill in the art can see, from the path taken by the red line (Annotated Figure 4 of Hart, Figure 7), that the cross sectional area changes by more than 2% as it passes each new horizonal row or vertical column of pin fins, and that it crosses such a new arrangement far more than 20 times.
PNG
media_image7.png
817
1107
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4: Hart, Figure 7, heatsink, annotated to show cross sectional area change
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined teachings of Kim, Nikolaevich, Paudel, Park, and Schoen to include: wherein along most air flow paths through the indoor heat exchanger a path wall, by protruding or receding transversally, changes the air flow path cross sectional area locally by more than 2% of the previous air flow path cross sectional area at least 20 times in view of the teachings of Hart in order to be “capable of cooling the devices better or more efficiently” (paragraph 0041).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Kim (US 2023/0089873 A1), Nikolaevich et al. (RU 152048 U1), Paudel et al. (Multi-Objective Topology Optimization of Additively Manufactured Heat Exchangers, 2019 International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium), Park et al. (Unusually high ratio of shear modulus to Young’s modulus in a nano-structured gyroid metamaterial, 2017, Scientific Reports vol. 7), and Schoen (Infinite periodic minimal surfaces without self-intersections, 1970, NASA Technical Note TN D-5541) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yun et al. (US 2023/0235976 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings of Kim, Nikolaevich, Paudel, Park, and Schoen teach the invention of claim 1 as described above, but fails to teach: further comprising an indoor heat exchanger holder to hold the indoor heat exchanger.
However, Yun teaches: further comprising an indoor heat exchanger holder (coupling member 272a, figure 9) to hold the indoor heat exchanger (cold sink 22, figure 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined teachings of Kim, Nikolaevich, Paudel, Park, and Schoen to include: further comprising an indoor heat exchanger holder to hold the indoor heat exchanger in view of the teachings of Yun so that “the components constituting the thermoelectric module 20 are assembled as a single body” (paragraph 0254).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Kim (US 2023/0089873 A1), Nikolaevich et al. (RU 152048 U1), Paudel et al. (Multi-Objective Topology Optimization of Additively Manufactured Heat Exchangers, 2019 International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium), Park et al. (Unusually high ratio of shear modulus to Young’s modulus in a nano-structured gyroid metamaterial, 2017, Scientific Reports vol. 7), and Schoen (Infinite periodic minimal surfaces without self-intersections, 1970, NASA Technical Note TN D-5541) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kamiya (US 2021/0239343 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings of Kim, Nikolaevich, Paudel, Park, and Schoen teach the invention of claim 1 as described above, but fails to teach: wherein the sensor or the controller includes a module in the main body of the room air conditioner configured to receive data from a remote part of the room air conditioner and to act in accordance therewith.
However, Kamiya teaches: wherein the sensor or the controller (indoor side control device 23, figure 3) includes a module in the main body of the room air conditioner (indoor side receiving part 22, figure 3) configured to receive data from a remote part of the room air conditioner (“The indoor side transmitting and receiving unit 20 is configured to transmit and receive information to and from the remote control 1”, paragraph 0023, figure 3) and to act in accordance therewith (“The remote control 1 and the indoor unit 2 communicate using signals relating to air conditioning. By the air-conditioning-related signals, for example, an operation switching command for switching between the cooling operation and the heating operation, air conditioning-related information such as information of the set temperature and the temperature of the room measured by the air-conditioning apparatus 100 are transmitted. For example, if the heating operation is performed, when the user presses the operation switching button of the remote control 1, the remote control 1 transmits the indoor unit 2 the operation switching command for switching from the heating operation to the cooling operation as an air conditioning-related signal. The indoor unit 2 receives the air conditioning-related signal of the operation switching command, the air-conditioning apparatus 100 switches from the heating operation to the cooling operation.”, paragraph 0022, figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined teachings of Kim, Nikolaevich, Paudel, Park, and Schoen to include: wherein the sensor or the controller includes a module in the main body of the room air conditioner configured to receive data from a remote part of the room air conditioner and to act in accordance therewith in view of the teachings of Kamiya to “provide a remote control for an air-conditioning apparatus” (paragraph 0005).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Kim (US 2023/0089873 A1), Nikolaevich et al. (RU 152048 U1), Paudel et al. (Multi-Objective Topology Optimization of Additively Manufactured Heat Exchangers, 2019 International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium), Park et al. (Unusually high ratio of shear modulus to Young’s modulus in a nano-structured gyroid metamaterial, 2017, Scientific Reports vol. 7), and Schoen (Infinite periodic minimal surfaces without self-intersections, 1970, NASA Technical Note TN D-5541) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pacilli et al. (US 2021/0370746 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings of Kim, Nikolaevich, Paudel, Park, and Schoen teach the invention of claim 1 as described above, but fails to teach: wherein the controller is configured at times to amend the controller’s output for restricting the temperature difference between the output plate and the input plate of the thermoelectric heat pump.
However, Pacilli teaches: wherein the controller (controller 460) is configured at times to amend the controller’s output for restricting the temperature difference between the output plate (main-side 122) and the input plate (waste side 124) of the thermoelectric heat pump (thermoelectric device (TED) 120) ("In another aspect, a temperature differential between the main side and the waste side is measured and operation changes from the first mode to the second mode based on detecting the measured temperature differential.", paragraph 0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined teachings of Kim, Nikolaevich, Paudel, Park, and Schoen to include: wherein the controller is configured at times to amend the controller’s output for restricting the temperature difference between the output plate and the input plate of the thermoelectric heat pump in view of the teachings of Pacilli so that “power to the TED can be decreased” (paragraph 0097).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach the invention of claim 10 as described above, but fails to teach: wherein the amendment restricts the difference to below 35°C.
However, Pacilli teaches: wherein the amendment restricts the difference to below 35°C ("In certain implementations of the High Delta T Mode, the dT (temperature differential between the main and waste-side flow paths 432, 434) can be approximately between 25° C. and 12° C", paragraph 0085).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined teachings to include: wherein the amendment restricts the difference to below 35°C in view of the teachings of Pacilli so that “power to the TED can be decreased” (paragraph 0097).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Kim (US 2023/0089873 A1), Nikolaevich et al. (RU 152048 U1), Paudel et al. (Multi-Objective Topology Optimization of Additively Manufactured Heat Exchangers, 2019 International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium), Park et al. (Unusually high ratio of shear modulus to Young’s modulus in a nano-structured gyroid metamaterial, 2017, Scientific Reports vol. 7), and Schoen (Infinite periodic minimal surfaces without self-intersections, 1970, NASA Technical Note TN D-5541) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Skinner et al. (US 2023/0008604 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings of Kim, Nikolaevich, Paudel, Park, and Schoen teach the invention of claim 1 as described above, but fails to teach: wherein the controller is configured at times to amend the controller’s output for restricting condensation at the output plate of the thermoelectric heat pump or on the indoor heat exchanger.
However, Skinner teaches: wherein the controller (controller 22) is configured at times to amend the controller’s output for restricting condensation at the output plate of the thermoelectric heat pump (“a cooling coil 32 (acting as a heat exchanger)”, paragraph 0066, “heat exchanger may be a thermoelectric device or a Peltier device”, paragraph 0021) or on the indoor heat exchanger ("the temperature of the heat exchanger may be increased above the dew point of the air", paragraph 0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined teachings of Kim, Nikolaevich, Paudel, Park, and Schoen to include: wherein the controller is configured at times to amend the controller’s output for restricting condensation at the output plate of the thermoelectric heat pump or on the indoor heat exchanger in view of the teachings of Skinner “to ensure that condensation does not occur on the heat exchanger” (paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teach the invention of claim 12 as described above, but fails to teach: wherein the controller is configured to calculate the performance of the thermoelectric heat pump at which condensation would occur.
However, Skinner teaches: wherein the controller is configured to calculate the performance of the thermoelectric heat pump (“a cooling coil 32 (acting as a heat exchanger)”, paragraph 0066, “heat exchanger may be a thermoelectric device or a Peltier device”, paragraph 0021) at which condensation would occur ("The controller may use the temperature and relative humidity of the air as determined by the one or more sensors to calculate the dew point of the air entering the inlet", paragraph 0030, "the temperature of the heat exchanger may be increased above the dew point of the air", paragraph 0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined teachings to include: wherein the controller is configured to calculate the performance of the thermoelectric heat pump at which condensation would occur in view of the teachings of Skinner “to ensure that condensation does not occur on the heat exchanger” (paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings of Kim, Nikolaevich, Paudel, Park, and Schoen teach the invention of claim 1 as described above, but fails to teach: wherein the controller is configured at times not to make the thermoelectric heat pump cool the output plate even though the sensor output and the setpoint would require doing so.
However, Skinner teaches: wherein the controller (controller 22) is configured at times not to make the thermoelectric heat pump (“a cooling coil 32 (acting as a heat exchanger)”, paragraph 0066, “heat exchanger may be a thermoelectric device or a Peltier device”, paragraph 0021) cool the output plate even though the sensor output and the setpoint would require doing so ("a target temperature, a target humidity and a target pressure are set for the vertical growth tower. The dew point for the air passing entering the inlet is determined by the controller 22 from the measured relative humidity and temperature recorded by the temperature sensor 40a and humidity sensor 40b at the inlet 18. During normal operation, the temperature of air entering the inlet 18 is higher than the target temperature for the tower 1, and therefore, the fan 30 urges the air through the conditioning unit 28 to contact the cooling coil 32 to thereby reduce the temperature of the air to the target temperature. The humidity of the air entering the inlet 18 is also often higher than the target humidity, and therefore the temperature of the cooling coil 32 is set to be below the determined dew point for the air entering the inlet 18 such that water condenses out of the air upon contact with the surface of the cooling coil 32 to thereby reduce the humidity of that air. However, if the air entering the inlet 18 has a humidity that is approximately equal to the target humidity, the cooling coil temperature is maintained above the determined dew point for the air such that substantially no condensation occurs, and therefore the humidity level of the conditioned air is thereby maintained.", paragraphs 0070-0071).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined teachings of Kim, Nikolaevich, Paudel, Park, and Schoen to include: wherein the controller is configured at times not to make the thermoelectric heat pump cool the output plate even though the sensor output and the setpoint would require doing so in view of the teachings of Skinner “to ensure that condensation does not occur on the heat exchanger” (paragraph 0015).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Kim (US 2023/0089873 A1), Nikolaevich et al. (RU 152048 U1), Paudel et al. (Multi-Objective Topology Optimization of Additively Manufactured Heat Exchangers, 2019 International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium), Park et al. (Unusually high ratio of shear modulus to Young’s modulus in a nano-structured gyroid metamaterial, 2017, Scientific Reports vol. 7), and Schoen (Infinite periodic minimal surfaces without self-intersections, 1970, NASA Technical Note TN D-5541) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sato et al. (US 2022/0357085 A1 and Kerner et al. (US 4833888 A).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings of Kim, Nikolaevich, Paudel, Park, and Schoen teach the invention of claim 1 as described above, but fails to teach: wherein the controller is configured at times to amend the controller’s output for heating the output plate above 60°C.
However, Sato teaches: wherein the controller (controller 301) is configured at times to amend the controller’s output for heating the output plate ("heating-defrosting operation", paragraph 0091).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined teachings of Kim, Nikolaevich, Paudel, Park, and Schoen to include: wherein the controller is configured at times to amend the controller’s output for heating the output plate above 60ºC in view of the teachings of Sato because “when frost forms on the outdoor heat exchanger, the heat exchange efficiency of the outdoor heat exchanger decreases, and the heating efficiency of the air-conditioning apparatus decreases” (paragraph 0003).
The combined teachings teach the invention of claim 15 as described above, but fails to teach: above 60°C.
However, Kerner teaches: above 60°C. Kerner teaches a device that reaches 190 degrees Fahrenheit or
87
.
7
¯
º
C
(“Field effect transistor 71, being connected in series with thermoelectric module 43, acts as a linear control element to regulate the flow of current through thermoelectric module 43 when the temperature of absolute temperature sensor 37 gets close to the preselected temperature, which is 42 degrees Fahrenheit for the cooling mode and 190 degrees Fahrenheit for the heating mode”, paragraph 27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined teachings of Kim, Nikolaevich, Paudel, Park, and Schoen to include: above 60°C in view of the teachings of Kerner “to rapidly heat the water” (paragraph 17).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA M STICKEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm (9-5-4).
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.
/J.M.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights