NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 22, 2020

2020002486 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/942,072 03/30/2018 GEORGE M. HARPOLE 303399-232166/009839-0030 6822 64728 7590 07/22/2020 SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION 1000 JACKSON STREET TOLEDO, OH 43604 EXAMINER DIAZ, MIGUEL ANGEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3763 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/22/2020 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): cgolupski@shumaker.com hpeppard@shumaker.com tlopez@shumaker.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GEORGE M. HARPOLE Appeal 2020-002486 Application 15/942,072 Technology Center 3700 BEFORE JOHN C. KERINS, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 6–9.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Although the first page of the Final Action does not list claim 7 as rejected, the Final Action includes a rejection of that claim on pages 7–8. The Examiner indicates that claims 10–12, 14–16, 18, and 19 are allowed, and claims 2–4 are objected to. Final Act. 1. Appeal 2020-002486 Application 15/942,072 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a thermal cooling system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A thermal cooling system for cooling a heat source, said cooling system comprising: a coolant loop providing a flow of cooling fluid to the heat source, said coolant loop including a cold flow line portion and a hot by-pass flow line portion; a mixing valve receiving and mixing the cooling fluid from the hot by-pass flow line portion and the cold flow line portion and providing the mixed cooling fluid to the heat source; a heat exchanger provided in the cold flow line portion and operating to cool the cooling fluid flowing through the cold flow line portion, said hot by-pass flow line portion by-passing the heat exchanger; a bladder tank having a bladder and including a hot side on one side of the bladder in fluid communication with the hot by- pass flow line portion and a cold side on an opposite side of the bladder in fluid communication with the cold flow line portion, wherein the cooling system is configured so that when the heat source is on and generating heat, cold cooling fluid from the cold side of the bladder tank is provided to the mixing valve and when the heat source is off and not generating heat, cold cooling fluid from the cold flow line portion fills the cold side of the bladder tank; and a three-way valve provided in the coolant loop that receives the cooling fluid from the bladder tank and the heat exchanger, and provides the cooling fluid from the bladder tank to the mixing valve and from the heat exchanger to the mixing valve. Appeal 2020-002486 Application 15/942,072 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Tamblyn US 4,135,571 Jan. 23, 1979 Vian US 4,193,442 Mar. 18, 1980 Seidel US 7,997,079 B2 Aug. 16, 2011 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Seidel and Tamblyn. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Seidel, Tamblyn, and Vian. OPINION With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Seidel discloses a thermal cooling system (10) for cooling a heat source (12), said cooling system (10) comprising: a coolant loop (lines of 10) providing a flow of cooling fluid to the heat source (12, as shown in at least figure 1), said coolant loop including a cold flow line portion (line/portion where 16 is adjacent to) and . . . a heat exchanger (16) provided in the cold flow line portion and operating to cool the cooling fluid flowing through the cold flow line portion (e.g., by dissipating heat to 16 during a heating mode as recited in at least column 2, lines 28-30). Final Act. 2–3 (emphasis omitted). Figure 1 from Seidel is reproduced below. Appeal 2020-002486 Application 15/942,072 4 Figure 1 is a “schematic diagram[] of a self-regulated thermal energy storage system (10) adapted for cooling . . . a client.” Seidel 7:1–3. Seidel explains that Figure 1 illustrates “the case that generator (12) is adapted to cool client (16).” Id. at 8:57. According to Seidel, “[t]he term . . . ‘generator’ refers hereinafter to any source of heat and/or cold,” which, “may be an electric or diesel powered boiler, a solar powered system, a geothermal system or the like; a chiller, or cold river or sea water or the like.” Id. at 7:38–42. In the case of cooling illustrated in Figure 1, generator Appeal 2020-002486 Application 15/942,072 5 12 would be a source of cold. Seidel explains that “[t]he term . . . ‘client’ refers hereinafter to any ‘beneficiary’ of the stored energy to which energy (heat or cold) generated in the energy generation source is provided.” Id. at 7:43–45. Seidel provides examples where “[t]he client can be a liquid, such as, freshly produced milk to be cooled, a solid, such as a molten iron to be cooled, or gas, such as air in an air cooling system.” Id. at 7:46–48. “The client may receive the energy either directly or indirectly, for example, via a heat exchanger.” Id. at 7:48–50. The Examiner provides an annotated version of Seidel’s Figure 1 in the Answer to further explain the rejection, which is reproduced below. The annotated figure is a portion of Seidel’s Figure 1, which illustrates Seidel’s thermal energy storage system with the Examiner’s annotations Appeal 2020-002486 Application 15/942,072 6 included. Ans. 6. As seen above, the Examiner considers the highlighted rectangular region near reference numeral 16 as the recited “heat exchanger,” which is consistent with the disclosure of Seidel discussed above. Appellant, however, identifies a problem with the Examiner’s rejection, explaining that [t]he Examiner . . . is calling the thing (generator 12) that generates the heat or cold to increase or decrease the temperature of the cooling fluid in Seidel as the thing (heat source) that is being cooled in the claimed invention, and the thing (client 16) that is being heated or cooled in Seidel as the thing (heat exchanger) that is providing the cooling in the claimed invention. Reply Br. 3. That is, the Examiner’s rejection relies on a finding that Seidel’s generator 12 is the “heat source” recited in claim 1 and client 16 is the “cooling fluid.” As Appellant explains, these findings are inconsistent with the embodiment in Seidel’s Figure 1, which the Examiner relies on in the rejection. As noted above, Seidel’s Figure 1 is a “schematic diagram[] of a self-regulated thermal energy storage system (10) adapted for cooling . . . a client.” Seidel 7:1–3. In that embodiment, Seidel’s heat exchanger (as identified by the Examiner in the annotated figure from Seidel above) uses the first medium identified by the Examiner, which is coolant from generator 12, to cool the second medium identified by the Examiner, which is the client fluid (e.g., freshly produced milk to be cooled, a molten iron to be cooled, or air in an air cooling system). Simply stated, in the embodiment relied on by the Examiner, generator 12 provides a source of cold, rather than heat. Client 16 is cooled, rather than providing the cooling. The Examiner’s error is made clear in the Appeal 2020-002486 Application 15/942,072 7 Answer, which reiterates that “Seidel indeed reasonably teaches the claimed heat source (12) being cooled.” Ans. 6. Because the Examiner’s findings are not supported by the disclosure of Seidel, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 1. The rejections of claims 6–9 do not cure the deficiency noted above. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 6, 8, 9 103 Seidel, Tamblyn 1, 6, 8, 9 7 103 Seidel, Tamblyn, Vian 7 Overall Outcome 1, 6–9 REVERSED