DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Status
Claims 1-15, 17, and 21-37 are canceled. Claims 16, 18, and 38-50 are pending.
Response to Arguments
In regards to Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/2025, they have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
The claim language does not require a specific configuration on the height locations in regards to the three dimensional surface of the heat exchange plate.
The Haselden reference teaches the serpentine path (see Figures 3-4) and the specific interior fluid passageways (see Figures 3-4). The Mason reference was only relied upon to teach a variation in the height along an interior fluid passageway was it does (Mason, Column 1, lines 37-46).
In regards to applicant’s arguments on pages 6-7 of the remarks, the office respectfully disagrees.
The Haselden reference clearly discloses changing the configuration of the heat exchanger to maintain desired conditions. Haselden discloses having varying heat exchange in one region versus another (see page 4 of Haselden). Haselden further teaches changes in the formations that are known in the art to alter the heat exchanger to withstand the various pressures to which the heat exchanger is subjected to in use (see page 6). One change is depth of formations on the heat exchanger that one of ordinary skill in the art would relate to height or size (see page 6).
Therefore, for the aforementioned reasons, applicant’s arguments are found to be unpersuasive.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto- processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-L jsp.
Claims 16, 18-20, and 38-50 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,619,944. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application claims are broader in scope than the patent claims.
Regarding Claim 16: patented claims 1, 12 and 15-16 recite all the limitations.
Regarding Claim 18: patented claims 14 and 17 recite all the limitations.
Regarding Claim 19: patented claim 18 recites all the limitations.
Regarding Claim 20: patented claims 1 and 15 recite all the limitations.
Regarding Claim 38: patented claims 14 and 17 recite all the limitations.
Regarding Claim 39: as applied to claim 20 above, inherently patented claim 14 meets the limitations.
Regarding Claim 40: patented claim 13 recites all the limitations.
Regarding Claim 41: patented claim 1 recites all the limitations.
Regarding Claim 42: patented claim 2 recites all the limitations.
Regarding Claim 43: patented claim 1 recites all the limitations.
Regarding Claim 44: patented claims 1 and 18 recite all the limitations.
By virtue of dependency, claims 45-50 are also rejected.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 16, 18-20, and 38-50 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haselden (WO 96/20382, provided in IDS) in view of Mason et al. (3,613,782), hereafter referred to as “Mason.”
Regarding Claim 16: Haselden teaches a heat exchange plate (30 or 40) comprising: a front face that defines a first heat exchange surface (surfaces of 30 and 40), a back face on a side of the plate opposed to the front face (see Figures 3-4), the back face defining a second heat exchange surface (see Figures 3-4), wherein the heat exchange plate is a single-sided plate (see Figures 3-4); and an interior fluid passageway (see fluid flow arrows in Figures 3-4) disposed between the front face and the back face (see Figures 3-4), a surface of the interior fluid passageway (see fluid flow via arrows) defining a third heat exchange surface (sections from 36b to 38b or 46b to 48b), wherein the front face comprises outwardly protruding regions (page 17 to page 19) corresponding to the location of the interior fluid passageway (see Figures 3-4), the outwardly protruding regions protruding (page 17 to page 19) in a given location to an extent that is defined by a height of the interior fluid passageway in the given location (see fluid flow via arrows), wherein the height refers to a dimension in a direction normal to the back face, the heat exchange plate defining: a first zone (38 or 48) corresponding to a first interior fluid passageway height (36 into 38 or 46 into 48), a second zone (38a or 48a) corresponding to a second interior fluid passageway height (36a into 38a or 46a into 48a), wherein the second interior fluid passageway height is taken from an interior surface of the back face to an interior surface of the front face (see Figures 3-4), and a third zone corresponding to a third interior fluid passageway height (36b into 38b or 46b into 48b), wherein the third zone is arranged downstream of the second zone (see Figures 3-4); wherein the third zone is disposed in an area in which the interior fluid passageway extends along a serpentine path (see Figures 3-4); wherein the third interior fluid passageway height (see Figures 3-4) is taken from an interior surface of the back face to an interior surface of the front face (see Figures 3-4).
Haselden fails to teach wherein the first interior fluid passageway height is greater than the second interior fluid passageway height, and wherein the second interior fluid passageway height is greater than the third interior fluid passageway height.
Mason teaches interior fluid passageways may vary in height along a fluid flow pathway (Column 2, lines 36-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was made to have provided wherein the first interior fluid passageway height is greater than the second interior fluid passageway height, and wherein the second interior fluid passageway height is greater than the third interior fluid passageway height to the structure of Haselden as taught by Mason in order to advantageously provide varying heat transfer area to prevent excessive pressure drops (see Mason, Column 1, lines 37-46).
Furthermore, changes in dimensions/proportions/shape/sizes are design choice absent evidence of criticality. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B.
Regarding Claim 18: Haselden teaches wherein the third zone (38b or 48b) extends along an edge of the heat exchange plate from a top edge to a bottom edge, opposite the top edge (see Figures 3-4).
Regarding Claim 19: Haselden teaches further comprising a peripheral edge that borders the front face and the back face, a fluid inlet (32 or 42) in communication with the interior fluid passageway (see fluid flow via arrows), a fluid outlet (34 or 44) in communication with the interior fluid passageway (see fluid flow via arrows), a manifold region (openings for 32, 34, 42 and 44), wherein the fluid inlet (32 or 42) and the fluid outlet (34 or 44) are disposed in the manifold region (openings for 32, 34, 42 and 44), and the first zone (38 or 48 fluid feed into each from 32 or 42) is disposed in the manifold region (see Figures 3-4) adjacent openings 32 or 42, and the second zone is disposed outside the manifold region (openings for 32, 34, 42 and 44).
Regarding Claim 20: Haselden teaches further comprising a peripheral edge (perimeter edges of 30 or 40) that borders the front face and the back face, wherein peripheral edge includes a first edge, a second edge spaced apart from and extending in parallel to the first edge, a third edge extending between the first edge and the second edge, and a fourth edge spaced apart from and extending in parallel to the third edge, the fourth edge extending between the first edge and the second edge (see Figures 3-4), wherein a manifold region (openings for ports 32, 42, and 34, 44) extends outward from the third edge, the first zone (38 or 48) is disposed in the manifold region (fluid feed from inlets 32 or 42 into 38 or 48), the second zone (38 a or 48a) extends along the third edge between the manifold region and the second edge (see Figures 3-4).
Regarding Claim 38: Haselden teaches wherein the third zone (38b or 48b) is disposed in an area in which the interior fluid passageway extends along a serpentine path (see Figures 3-4), wherein the third zone extends along the fourth edge and the second zone extends along the third edge (see 38b or 48b along 30 or 40).
Regarding Claim 39: Haselden teaches wherein the third zone (see 38b or 48b along 30 or 40) extends between the first and second zones and the fourth edge (see 38b or 48b along 30 or 40).
Regarding Claim 40: Haselden teaches wherein the third zone (see 38b or 48b along 30 or 40) extends between the first and second zones and the fourth edge (see 38b or 48b along 30 or 40).
Regarding Claim 44: Haselden teaches further comprising a fluid inlet (32 or 42) in communication with the interior fluid passageway (see fluid flow via arrows), a fluid outlet (34 or 44) in communication with the interior fluid passageway (see fluid flow via arrows), and wherein the fluid inlet (32 or 42) and the fluid outlet (34 or 44) are disposed in the manifold region (openings for 32, 34, 42 or 44), and the first zone (38 or 48) is disposed in the manifold region (fluid flow into 38 or 48 from 32 or 42), and the second zone is disposed outside the manifold region (see Figures 3-4).
Regarding Claim 45: Haselden teaches wherein the height of the interior fluid passageway (see Figures 3-4, fluid flow arrows) at a given location is the greatest distance between an interior surface of the front face and an interior surface of the back face in the direction normal to the back face (space between the plates and the edges of 30 or 40).
Regarding Claim 46: Haselden teaches wherein the first interior fluid passageway height (see Figures 3-4, fluid flow arrows) is measured at a first location of the interior fluid passageway corresponding to the first zone (38 or 48), wherein the second interior fluid passageway height (see Figures 3-4, fluid flow arrows) is measured at a second location of the interior fluid passageway corresponding to the second zone (38a or 48a), wherein the third interior fluid passageway height (see Figures 3-4, fluid flow arrows) is measured at a third location of the interior fluid passageway corresponding to the third zone (38b or 48b see Figures 3-4, fluid flow arrows).
Regarding Claim 47: Haselden teaches wherein the first interior fluid passageway height (see Figures 3-4, fluid flow arrows) is measured at a first location of the interior fluid passageway (see Figures 3-4, fluid flow arrows) corresponding to the first zone (38 or 48), wherein the second interior fluid passageway height (see Figures 3-4, fluid flow arrows) is measured at a second location of the interior fluid passageway (see Figures 3-4, fluid flow arrows) corresponding to the second zone (38a or 48a), wherein the third interior fluid passageway height (see Figures 3-4, fluid flow arrows) is measured at a third location of the interior fluid passageway corresponding to the third zone (38b or 48b).
Regarding Claim 48: Haselden teaches wherein at least part of the first zone (38 or 48) is upstream of the second zone (see Figures 3-4).
Regarding Claim 49: Haselden teaches wherein at least a part of the first zone (38 or 48) is downstream of the third zone (see Figures 3-4 and flow arrows).
Regarding Claim 50: Haselden teaches wherein at least a part of the first zone (38 or 48) is downstream of the third zone (see Figures 3-4 and flow arrows).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 41-43 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections set forth above in this instant Office Action. The claims must be rewritten, without significantly broadening the claims, to include all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The double patenting rejection must also be overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Papoulis et al. (US 2012/0097365 A1).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIRSTIN U OSWALD whose telephone number is (571)270-3557. The examiner can normally be reached 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Len Tran can be reached on 571-272-1184. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIRSTIN U OSWALD/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763