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 .
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.
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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a storage unit configured to store a container storing a liquid” (claims 1 and 9). “Unit” is a generic placeholder substituting for “means”; it is modified by functional language; and the claim recites no structure for performing the storing function. The corresponding structure is any art recognized storage or container and equivalents thereof.
“a control unit configured to control the electrothermal devices such that a difference in power consumed by the electrothermal devices falls within a predetermined range” and “the control unit sets a target temperature of each of the electrothermal devices based on a flow rate ratio of the circulating air flowing into and cooled by the fins” (claim 1). “Unit” is a generic placeholder modified by functional language, with no structure recited for performing the recited functions.
“a control unit configured to control the plurality of electrothermal devices such that a power consumed by the electrothermal device arranged most upstream among the plurality of electrothermal devices arranged along the flow of the air is maximized” (claim 9). The same analysis applies.
The specification discloses the control unit 107 as “a computer” (¶ [0022]). Where the disclosed structure for a computer-implemented function is a general purpose computer, the corresponding structure under § 112(f) is the computer programmed with the disclosed algorithm. See MPEP § 2181(II)(B); Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008); EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As set forth in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a) and 112(b) below, no algorithm for either recited control function is disclosed, and the corresponding structure is therefore not adequately disclosed.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a control unit configured to control the electrothermal devices such that a difference in power consumed by the electrothermal devices falls within a predetermined range” and “the control unit sets a target temperature of each of the electrothermal devices based on a flow rate ratio of the circulating air flowing into and cooled by the fins.” The supporting disclosure is ¶¶ [0022] and [0034]–[0035] and fig. 1 (control unit 107). Paragraph [0022] discloses the control unit 107 only as a computer that analyzes the specific component contained in the sample from a measurement signal transmitted by the automatic analyzer 101 and that controls the operation of each unit. Paragraph [0035] states that control may be performed so that a difference in power consumed by the electrothermal devices 204 is within a predetermined range; that the electrothermal devices 204 may be controlled so that their consumed power is equal; that a target temperature of each electrothermal device 204 may be set based on a value ΔT/N obtained by dividing a difference ΔT (= Tin − Tset) by the number N of the electrothermal devices 204; and that the target temperature may be set based on a flow rate ratio of the circulating air flowing into and cooled by the heat absorbing fins 206 so that power consumption becomes uniform. The ΔT/N relationship of ¶ [0035] is a different relationship from the flow-rate-ratio relationship recited in the claim; it derives the target temperatures from a temperature difference and a device count, not from any flow rate ratio. Apart from the single conclusory sentence identified above, the specification provides no formula, no flow chart, no prose description of a sequence of steps, and no other disclosure of how a flow rate ratio is determined or of how a target temperature is derived from it. The disclosure recites the desired result without disclosing the means of achieving it.
For a computer-implemented functional limitation, the written description requirement is satisfied only by disclosure of the algorithm that transforms the general purpose computer into the special purpose computer that performs the recited function. See MPEP §§ 2161.01(I) and 2181(IV); Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Because no such algorithm is disclosed, the specification does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.
Claim 9 recites “a control unit configured to control the plurality of electrothermal devices such that a power consumed by the electrothermal device arranged most upstream among the plurality of electrothermal devices arranged along the flow of the air is maximized.” The supporting disclosure is ¶ [0048] and fig. 10. Paragraph [0048] states only that the plurality of electrothermal devices 204 arranged along the flow of the air are controlled so that the power consumption of the most upstream electrothermal device 204 is maximized, which is a restatement of the claimed result. No algorithm, control law, sensor input, or set-point derivation for achieving that result is disclosed. The rejection rests on the same authority set forth in part (A) above.
Claims 2, 3 and 5-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 1-3 and 5-10 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 recites “a flow rate ratio of the circulating air flowing into and cooled by the fins.” The term “the circulating air” lacks proper antecedent basis; claim 1 previously recites only “air aspirated from the storage unit” and “a flow of the air.”
Claim 1 further recites “a flow rate ratio of the circulating air flowing into and cooled by the fins,” renders the claim indefinite because the metes and bounds of which cannot be determined. A ratio is a relationship between two quantities, yet neither the claim nor the specification identifies the two quantities compared. The specification recites the limitation a single time, at ¶ [0035], stating that the target temperature of each electrothermal device 204 may be set based on a flow rate ratio of the circulating air flowing into and cooled by the heat absorbing fins 206 so that power consumption becomes uniform, without defining the numerator, the denominator, or how any such ratio is measured or computed.
Claim 1 further recites “a difference in power consumed by the electrothermal devices falls within a predetermined range” renders the claim indefinite because claim 1 recites a plurality of electrothermal devices, and it is unclear whether “a difference” refers to the difference between each pair of electrothermal devices, the difference between the maximum and minimum power consumed among all of them, or the difference between any one of them and a reference or average value.
Claim 1 further recites “a control unit configured to control the electrothermal devices” and “the control unit sets a target temperature” renders the claim indefinite because as set forth in the Claim Interpretation section above, these limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and are computer-implemented. The specification discloses only that the control unit 107 is a computer (¶ [0022]) and states the results to be achieved (¶¶ [0034]–[0035]) without disclosing any algorithm — in the form of a mathematical formula, prose, a flow chart, or otherwise — by which the target temperature is derived from a flow rate ratio or by which the difference in consumed power is held within a predetermined range. See MPEP § 2181(II)(B); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333–38; Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Claim 2 recites “the fin includes a plurality of plates” renders the claim indefinite because the term “the fin” (singular) lacks proper antecedent basis, claim 1 reciting “a plurality of fins.” It is unclear whether claim 2 requires that one, some, or every one of the plurality of fins include a plurality of plates. For purposes of examination, “the fin” is treated as “each of the plurality of fins.”
Claim 3 recites “a guide inclined with respect to a horizontal plane is provided between the fins on a side surface of the cooling unit” and, in its second recitation, “a side surface of the cooling unit is an obtuse angle” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the phrase “a side surface of the cooling unit” is refers to the same side surface as the first or to a further, different side surface. It is further unclear whether the recited obtuse angle is a limitation on the guide of the first recitation or an independent limitation on the plates of claim 2, the two recitations being joined by “and” without any stated structural relationship.
Claim 6 recites that “the deflection plate is provided at a boundary between the plurality of fins” renders the claim indefinite because where three or more fins are present a plurality of boundaries exists, and the claim does not identify which boundary is intended or whether a deflection plate is required at every boundary.
Claim 7 recites that “the deflection plate is provided in a vicinity of an upstream fin among the plurality of fins” renders the claim indefinite because term “vicinity” is a relative term of degree, and neither the claim nor the specification provides a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of proximity. See MPEP § 2173.05(b). It is further unclear whether “an upstream fin” means the most upstream fin of the plurality or any fin upstream of another.
Claim 8 recites “dew condensation water generated by the fin” renders the claim indefinite because the term “the fin” (singular) lacks proper antecedent basis, claim 1 reciting “a plurality of fins.”
Claim 9 recites “a drain configured to discharge dew condensation water generated by the fin” renders the claim indefinite because the term “the fin” (singular) lacks proper antecedent basis in view of the previously recited “a plurality of fins.”
Claim 9 further recites “a single number of fins and the drain are arranged in a region where the air flows downward.” The expression “a single number of fins” is indefinite: it is unclear whether it requires exactly one fin, a single group of fins, or fins of a single type. The specification uses the same expression at ¶ [0048] without clarification. The limitation is additionally grammatically inconsistent, further obscuring whether the singular or the plural is intended.
Claim 9 further recites “a plurality of fins are arranged in a region where the air flows upward,” renders the claim indefinite because the limitation “a plurality of fins” is unclear whether these are the same fins as the previously recited “a plurality of fins arranged along a flow of the air” or an additional set of fins.
Claim 9 further recites “a region where the air flows downward” and “a region where the air flows upward.” Both lack antecedent basis, claim 9 not previously establishing that the flow of the air has any downward or upward region, and no orientation of the container storage device being recited.
Claim 9 further recites that a power consumed by the most upstream electrothermal device “is maximized.” It cannot be determined with respect to what the recited power is maximized — the power consumed by the other electrothermal devices of the plurality, the rated capacity of the most upstream electrothermal device itself, or an operating envelope of the container storage device. Each reading yields a different claim scope.
Claim 9 further recites “a control unit configured to control the plurality of electrothermal devices.” For the reasons given with respect to claim 1, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and is rendered indefinite by the absence of any disclosed algorithm for achieving the recited maximization; the specification at ¶ [0048] states only the result to be achieved.
Claim 10 recites “the fin is coated with a fungicide” renders the claim indefinite because the term “the fin” (singular) lacks proper antecedent basis, claim 1 reciting “a plurality of fins.”
For purposes of applying the prior art below, the claims are examined as best understood in light of the specification. See MPEP § 2173.06.
Claims 5 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over YI et al. (2018/0283765 A1) in view of Morishita et al. (US 4,586,342) in view of Gwilliam et al. (US 5,431,021) and further in view of Chewter et al. (2024/0140165 A1).
In regard to claim 1, YI teaches a container storage device (refrigerator main body 10 with thermoelectric module assembly 100) comprising:
a storage unit configured to store a container storing a liquid (cryogenic freezing compartment 200 provided in the freezing compartment 40 and defined by the cryogenic case 210 receiving the cryogenic tray, the freezing compartment door 22 carrying a door basket 27 to store containers such as beverage bottles) (¶¶ [0084], [0095], [0119]; figs. 2, 7); and
a cooling unit configured to cool air aspirated from the storage unit and supply the cooled air to the storage unit (thermoelectric module assembly 100 and cooling fan 190 accommodated in the thermoelectric module accommodation part 53; air within the cryogenic freezing compartment drawn through the suction parts 5331 and 5332, heat-exchanged with the cold sink 120, and discharged forward through the grill part 531 into the storage space) (¶¶ [0094], [0129], [0188]; figs. 6–9), wherein
the cooling unit includes a plurality of fins (heat exchange fins 122) arranged along a flow of the air (heat exchange fins 122, each extending lengthily in the vertical direction and continuously without being cut, disposed horizontally spaced apart on the front surface of the cold sink 120, the shape being adopted in consideration of the flow of the air) (¶¶ [0123], [0189]), and an electrothermal device (130) connected to the fins (thermoelectric module 130, a device using a Peltier effect, its heat absorption surface 130a contacted by and stacked with the cold sink 120) (¶¶ [0124], [0128]).
YI does not explicitly teach electrothermal devices respectively connected to the fins.
However, Morishita teaches electrothermal devices respectively connected to the fins (a pair of electronic cooling elements 8 utilizing the Peltier effect, each sandwiched between its own heat-conductive plate 7 and its own set of cooling fins 9, both sets located in vertical ventilation passage 6 of vent guide 3) (figs. 1, 3, 9; claims 4, 16).
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 modified the container storage device of YI to include a pair of electronic cooling elements each sandwiched between its own heat-conductive plate and its own set of cooling fins within the air passage as taught by Morishita, in order to further improve the dehumidifying and cooling capability of the cooling unit (Morishita, description of fig. 9). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because YI states that heat exchange has to be smoothly performed at the heat absorption side of the thermoelectric module and that heat exchange loss and flow loss should not occur (YI, ¶¶ [0009], [0012]). See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
YI as modified by Morishita does not explicitly teach a control unit configured to control the electrothermal devices such that a difference in power consumed by the electrothermal devices falls within a predetermined range.
However, Gwilliam teaches such a control unit (a plurality of regulated power sources each supplying a different amount of power to a corresponding different one of the thermoelectric modules 12 arrayed along first fluid conduit 11, and a controller individually controlling each power source; microprocessor 43 computing an operating current for each module from the common expression I = Iₒₚₜ + β(Iₘₐₓ − Iₒₚₜ) with a single coefficient β iteratively adjusted for all modules together, and current regulator 46 delivering the computed current, the modules being operable at current inputs within a predetermined range about the determined peak value) (figs. 1, 4, 6, 6A, 8, 9; claims 1, 2, 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 modified the container storage device of YI to include a plurality of regulated power sources each supplying a different amount of power to a corresponding different thermoelectric module, together with a microprocessor and current regulator computing each module’s operating current from a common bounded expression, as taught by Gwilliam, in order to restrict the power consumption of the modules to those current levels which yield maximum heat transfer and thereby avoid the inefficiency of supplying a uniform current to every module in the array (Gwilliam, description of figs. 6, 6A, 8, 9).
YI as modified by Morishita does not explicitly teach a control unit that sets a target temperature of each of the electrothermal devices based on a flow rate ratio of the circulating air flowing into and cooled by the fins.
However, Chewter teaches a control unit that sets a device target temperature from an apportionment of the circulating air (flow control valve 140 with flap 144 pivotable about pivot 142 through angle A, dividing the blower 150 airflow between main side flow path 132 across the fins of thermoelectric device 120 and waste side flow path 134; controller 160 computing the main-side mass flow rate ṁ = hₓA duct/2Cₚ, adjusting the flap position and blower speed to match that rate, and then adjusting the power to the thermoelectric device until its sensed temperature Tₙₜᶄ equals the set outlet temperature Tₑₓᵢₜ, the device power being related to the mass flow rate by q = KᶄₐₗᵢᵇṁCₚ(Tₙₜᶄ − Tᶄₐₕᵢₙ)) (¶¶ [0023], [0030], [0035]–[0046]; figs. 1, 3).
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 modified the container storage device of YI to include a flow control valve apportioning the circulating air among the fin paths together with a controller that computes each path’s mass flow rate and sets the corresponding thermoelectric device temperature from it, as taught by Chewter, in order to maximize the heat transfer from the device to the airflow without requiring excess energy (Chewter, ¶¶ [0031], [0046]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because YI draws its circulating air through two separate suction parts 5331 and 5332 into a common cooling passage, so that the air reaching each fin is a portion of the total circulated flow (YI, ¶¶ [0106], [0188]). Apportioning each device’s target temperature according to the flow rate ratio of the air reaching its fin is the optimization of a recognized result-effective variable. See MPEP §§ 2143(I)(C) and 2144.05(II).
In regard to claim 2, YI teaches the container storage device of claim 1 wherein YI teaches the fin includes a plurality of plates arranged in parallel with the flow of the air (heat exchange fins 122 extending lengthily in the vertical direction without being cut and spaced apart horizontally on the front surface of the cold sink 120 by a distance k greater than 2 mm and less than 5 mm, the air suctioned through the vertically spaced suction parts 5331 and 5332 passing between them) (¶¶ [0123], [0188], [0191]).
In regard to claim 5, YI teaches the container storage device of claim 1 wherein YI teaches the cooling unit is provided with a deflection plate that changes a direction of the flow of the air (discharge guide 532 having a partition wall shape provided between the grill part 531 and the suction part 533, protruding about 15 mm to about 30 mm to prevent the discharged cold air from being immediately reintroduced into the adjacent suction part and to enhance the linear fluidity of that air; guide sidewalls 591, 592, 593 and 594, which reduce a flow loss of air and guide a flow direction of the air) (¶¶ [0090], [0095], [0096], [0196]; figs. 4, 6).
In regard to claim 8, YI teaches the container storage device of claim 1 wherein YI teaches the cooling unit is further provided with a drain that discharges dew condensation water generated by the fin (slope 535 for drain provided as the bottom surface of the thermoelectric module accommodation part 53 and inclined downward from the suction part 5332, and drain hole 536 in a center of the lower end of that slope, the water dropping from the cold sink 120 and the heat exchange fin 122 flowing along the downwardly inclined surface to the drain hole 536) (¶¶ [0102]–[0104], [0107]; figs. 9–11).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YI, Morishita, Gwilliam and Chewter as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ito et al. JP (2013-011397 A, see a copy in IDS dated 02/27/2025) and Jahn et al. (US 2018/0347890 A1).
In regard to claim 3, the modified YI teaches the container storage device of claim 2, including the plurality of plates (heat exchange fins 122) and the drain (slope 535, drain hole 536) set forth in the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 8 above.
The modified YI does not explicitly teach (a) a guide inclined with respect to a horizontal plane provided between the fins on a side surface of the cooling unit, or (b) an angle formed between a lower surface of a lowermost plate among the plurality of plates and a side surface of the cooling unit that is an obtuse angle.
However, Ito teaches limitation (a) (bottom surface 20B of heat insulating box 20 inclined low toward drain hole 53, the drain hole 53 being formed to correspond to the lower side of heat absorbing part 32, which is a cooling sink of aluminum fins located in cold air duct 35 and cooled by Peltier element 31) (figs. 8, 12). Jahn likewise teaches limitation (a) (collecting channel 14 within air duct 20, sloped relative to the horizontal 18 by a slope angle G and leading to drainage port 16, upon which thawed water 10 released from the cooling fins 9 of heat exchanger 8 impinges and along which it is drained by gravitational force; a plurality of such collecting channels 14 at different angles and alignments leading to through openings 26 in the walls of air duct 20) (¶¶ [0017], [0019], [0059], [0069]; figs. 1, 3, 5, 6).
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 modified the container storage device of YI to include a collecting channel sloped relative to the horizontal within the wall of the air duct adjacent the fins and leading to a drainage port, as taught by Jahn and Ito, in order to drain the water released from the cooling fins toward the drainage port by gravitational force and to integrate the water discharge device in an optimized manner with respect to installation space (Jahn, ¶¶ [0019], [0036]).
With respect to limitation (b), Jahn teaches that the angle of the condensate guide surface relative to the reference plane is a variable that governs whether the water is discharged (the thawed water 10 flows along collecting channel 14 to drainage port 16 only while the slope angle G remains above a minimum, and the structural angle is selected among values a, b, b1, b2 and b3, the last being negative, so that discharge remains reliable on every channel) (¶¶ [0018]–[0019], [0059]–[0060], [0069]). Jahn further teaches that the structural angle is deliberately reduced from a to a smaller angle b in order to lower the construction height of the cooling unit from h1 to h2 with the same air duct geometry (¶¶ [0061], [0064]; figs. 3, 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 modified the container storage device of YI to select the angle formed between the lower surface of the lowermost plate and the side surface of the cooling unit, and to arrive at an obtuse angle, as taught by Jahn, in order to obtain a slope sufficient to carry the condensate to the drain while limiting the construction height occupied by the water discharge path.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YI, Morishita, Gwilliam and Chewter as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of O’Geary et al. (US 5,255,520).
In regard to claims 6 and 7, the modified YI teaches the container storage device of claim 5, including the deflection plate (discharge guide 532; guide sidewalls 591–594) set forth in the rejection of claim 5 above, and a boundary between the plurality of fins and an upstream fin among them (the two sets of cooling fins 9 of Morishita standing in ventilation passage 6, the set nearest intake port 4 being upstream) (Morishita, figs. 1, 3, 9).
The modified YI does not explicitly teach that the deflection plate is provided at that boundary (claim 6) or in a vicinity of that upstream fin (claim 7).
However, O’Geary teaches a deflection plate so located (deflector plates 133, 133a attached to plates 105, 105a adjacent elongated slots 131, 131a and projecting into the duct interconnecting heat sink ducts 91, 91a with load plate duct 55, by which ambient air is drawn into the load plate duct or air from the closed environment is drawn across heat sink fins 61 and spacers 17, according to the relative speeds of fan 23 and fans 25; thermoelectric modules 15 and spacers 17 being staggered along the longitudinal axis of spacer duct 63) (col. 7, ll. 28–41; col. 5, ll. 63–68; figs. 8, 12; claims 16, 31).
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 modified the container storage device of YI to include deflector plates attached adjacent the openings between successive staggered cooling stages and projecting into the flow path, as taught by O’Geary, in order to direct the air across the heat sink fins and spacers of each stage and thereby raise the efficiency of the heat transfer system.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over YI et al. (2018/0283765 A1) in view of Morishita et al. (US 4,586,342) in view of Bell (US 7,111,465 B2) Gwilliam et al. (US 5,431,021) and further in view of Chewter et al. (2024/0140165 A1).
In regard to claim 9, YI teaches a container storage device (refrigerator main body 10 with thermoelectric module assembly 100) comprising:
a storage unit configured to store a container storing a liquid (cryogenic freezing compartment 200 provided in the freezing compartment 40 and defined by the cryogenic case 210 receiving the cryogenic tray, the freezing compartment door 22 carrying a door basket 27 to store containers such as beverage bottles) (¶¶ [0084], [0095], [0119]; figs. 2, 7); and
a cooling unit configured to cool air aspirated from the storage unit and supply the cooled air to the storage unit (thermoelectric module assembly 100 and cooling fan 190 accommodated in the thermoelectric module accommodation part 53; air within the cryogenic freezing compartment drawn through the suction parts 5331 and 5332, heat-exchanged with the cold sink 120, and discharged forward through the grill part 531 into the storage space) (¶¶ [0094], [0129], [0188]; figs. 6–9), wherein
the cooling unit includes a plurality of fins arranged along a flow of the air (heat exchange fins 122, each extending lengthily in the vertical direction and continuously without being cut, disposed horizontally spaced apart on the front surface of the cold sink 120, the shape being adopted in consideration of the flow of the air) (¶¶ [0123], [0189]), an electrothermal device connected to the fins (thermoelectric module 130, a device using a Peltier effect, its heat absorption surface 130a contacted by and stacked with the cold sink 120) (¶¶ [0124], [0128]), and
a drain configured to discharge dew condensation water generated by the fin (slope 535 for drain and drain hole 536 in a center of its lower end, receiving the water dropping from the cold sink 120 and the heat exchange fin 122) (¶¶ [0102]–[0104], [0107]; figs. 9–11),
the drain being arranged in a region of the flow in which the air moves in a first direction and a further region of the flow being one in which the air moves in the opposite direction (suction parts 5331 and 5332 disposed in the upper and lower portions of the grill part 531, the air introduced through the lower suction part 5332 passing through the small space in the lower portion of the accommodation part 53 and moving upward to the cold sink 120, the slope 535 for drain and the drain hole 536 lying at the bottom of that part) (¶¶ [0102], [0106]–[0107], [0188]; figs. 9–11).
YI does not explicitly teach (a) a plurality of electrothermal devices respectively connected to the fins, (b) a plurality of electrothermal devices arranged along the flow of the air, with a single number of fins and the drain arranged in the region where the air flows downward and a plurality of fins arranged in the region where the air flows upward, or (c) a control unit configured to control the plurality of electrothermal devices such that a power consumed by the electrothermal device arranged most upstream among the plurality of electrothermal devices arranged along the flow of the air is maximized.
However, Morishita teaches limitation (a) (a pair of electronic cooling elements 8 utilizing the Peltier effect, each sandwiched between its own heat-conductive plate 7 and its own set of cooling fins 9, both sets located in vertical ventilation passage 6 of vent guide 3) (figs. 1, 3, 9; claims 4, 16).
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 modified the container storage device of YI to include a pair of electronic cooling elements each sandwiched between its own heat-conductive plate and its own set of cooling fins within the air passage as taught by Morishita, in order to further improve the dehumidifying and cooling capability of the cooling unit.
However, Bell teaches limitation (b) (a heat exchanger subdivided into fin sections distributed along the direction of medium movement, each section connected to its own thermoelectric element - separate heat exchangers 905 of corrugated thin metal fins 906 for each row of thermoelectric elements 904, separated by gaps 909, and a fin array 945 whose sections are separated by gaps 946 and are associated with thermoelectric elements 944 from flow inlet 950 to flow outlet 951; sections 1609 of any number, of unequal length, of differing flow direction, and receiving unequal amounts of fluid) (figs. 9A-9E, 16, 17).
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 modified the container storage device of YI to include fin sections distributed along the direction of air movement, each connected to its own thermoelectric element and the sections being of unequal number and unequal flow allocation between the two flow regions, as taught by Bell, in order to subdivide the assembly into thermally isolated sub-assemblies that reduce the average temperature differential across the system and raise its coefficient of performance (Bell, Summary; description of figs. 9A-9E).
However, Gwilliam teaches the control unit of limitation (c) (a plurality of regulated power sources each supplying a different amount of power to a corresponding different one of the thermoelectric modules 12 arrayed along first fluid conduit 11, and a controller individually controlling each power source; microprocessor 43 computing an operating current for each module and current regulator 46 delivering it, so that the allocation of power among the modules along the flow is set by the control unit) (figs. 1, 4, 6, 6A; claims 1, 2, 4). Chewter further teaches adjusting the power supplied to a thermoelectric device with reference to where condensation forms (controller 160 calculating the dew point of the airflow from a measured humidity and adjusting the provided power, the flow control valve position, or the blower speed so as to govern condensation within the thermal conditioning system) (¶¶ [0058], [0060]; fig. 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 modified the container storage device of YI to include a plurality of regulated power sources and a controller individually setting the power of each thermoelectric module arrayed along the air flow, with reference to where condensation forms, as taught by Gwilliam and Chewter, and to allocate the greatest power to the most upstream module, in order to govern the location at which condensation is produced within the cooling unit (Chewter, ¶¶ [0058], [0060]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because YI locates slope 535 and drain hole 536 immediately beneath the cooling stage and requires the water released from cold sink 120 and heat exchange fin 122 to be conducted promptly to that hole, and Morishita likewise locates drainage port 17 below the cooling fins 9 and opened to the outside of box 1, so that concentrating the cooling duty at the stage nearest the drain serves the water discharge arrangement of the primary reference (YI, ¶¶ [0102]–[0104], [0124]; Morishita, description of fig. 1). Selecting which stage of a staged array carries the greatest power, from among the finite set of alternatives, is the optimization of a recognized result-effective variable. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955); KSR, 550 U.S. at 421; MPEP §§ 2143(I)(E) and 2144.05(II).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YI, Morishita, Gwilliam and Chewter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lewin (US 6,705,391 B1).
In regard to claim 10, the modified YI teaches the container storage device of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the fin is coated with a fungicide.
However, Lewin teaches a fin coated with a fungicide (coating 30 of electro-deposited and fused insulating powder covering the exterior surfaces of the fins 13 of metal fin assembly 12, the powder consisting essentially of an organic compound and 2 to 6 percent by weight of a biocide having antifungal and antibacterial qualities) (col. 4, ll. 43–67; figs. 1, 5, 6; claims 6, 7, 11–14, 24).
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 modified the container storage device of YI to include a fused powder coating containing a biocide having antifungal qualities on the exterior surfaces of its fins as taught by Lewin, in order to substantially prevent the accumulation of fungi and bacteria on those surfaces and their release into the ambient air during operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEBESHET MENGESHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1793. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7-4, alternate Fridays, EST. 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/W.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights