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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 11/11/2025. The objections to the claims have been withdrawn. Claims 1-6 remain pending for consideration.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “wherein the at least two protrusions and the at least two catches … are located longitudinally along the sides of the gasket” lacks antecedent basis and for examination purposes will be interpreted as -- wherein the at least two protrusions and the at least two catches … are located longitudinally along sides of the gasket --
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “said press-in and catch on method improves a stability of the gasket position in the heating plate during the assembly/disassembly” lacks antecedent basis and for examination purposes will be interpreted as -- said press-in and catch on method improves a stability of the gasket position in the heating plate during an assembly/disassembly --
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “wherein the at least 4 protrusions and the at least 3 catches are located … along port holes in the heating plate of the plate-type gasketed heat exchanger” lacks antecedent basis and for examination purposes will be interpreted as -- wherein the at least 4 protrusions and the at least 3 catches are located … along the port holes in the heating plate of the plate-type gasketed heat exchanger --
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “the catches configured to extend beyond a plane of a heating plate” lacks antecedent basis and for examination purposes will be interpreted as -- the catches configured to extend beyond a plane of the heating plate --
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “wherein the protrusions and the catches … are located longitudinally along the sides of the heating plate of the gasketed heat exchanger” lacks antecedent basis and for examination purposes will be interpreted as -- wherein the protrusions and the catches … are located longitudinally along sides of the heating plate of the gasketed heat exchanger --
Claims 2-4 are also objected due to dependency.
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 1-5 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 claim recites “wherein the at least two protrusions and the at least two catches … are located longitudinally … along port holes arranged corresponding to port holes arranged in the heating plate of the gasketed plate heat exchanger” which renders the claim indefinite. As recited, the claim is confusing since it is not entirely clear what type of structure/part arrangement is being disclosed. More clarity is requested.
For examination purposes, the phrase “wherein the at least two protrusions and the at least two catches … are located longitudinally … along port holes arranged corresponding to port holes arranged in the heating plate of the gasketed plate heat exchanger” will be interpreted as -- wherein the at least two protrusions and the at least two catches … are located longitudinally … along port holes arranged in the heating plate of the gasketed plate heat exchanger --
Claims 2-5 are also rejected due to dependency.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyuk (KR200344180Y1).
Regarding claim 1, Hyuk teaches a gasket (gasket 200 Fig. 4) for a plate-type gasketed heat exchanger (paragraph [0020]), the gasket comprises: at least two protrusions (protruding pieces 213 Figs. 4-5) in a fixed position (Figs. 4-5) extending perpendicular from a surface of the gasket (bottom surface of gasket 200 Fig. 6); and at least two catches (holding pieces 214 Figs. 4-5) configured on the gasket to extend beyond a plane of a heating plate (Fig. 6 where heat transfer plate 100 corresponds to the heating plate), wherein the at least two protrusions and the at least two catches are each spaced apart from each other (Fig. 6), and are located longitudinally along sides of the gasket (Fig. 4) or along port holes (open passages 260 Fig. 4) arranged in the heating plate of the gasketed plate heat exchanger (Fig. 4), and wherein the at least two protrusions and the at least two catches are further configured to enable an assembly of the gasket to the heating plate (Fig. 6) with a press-in (paragraphs [0043] and [0044]) and a catch on method (paragraphs [0042] and [0044]) at the same time.
Hyuk teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “said press-in and catch on method improves a stability of the gasket position in the heating plate during the assembly/disassembly as well as during operation of the plate-type gasketed heat exchanger and reduces a risk of internal or external leakage, and wherein the stability of the gasket position facilitates a discharge of dirtiness during the disassembly of the heating plate”.
However, Hyuk teaches a gasket (gasket 200 Fig. 4) for a plate-type gasketed heat exchanger (paragraph [0020]) that comprises: at least two protrusions (protruding pieces 213 Figs. 4-5) and at least two catches (holding pieces 214 Figs. 4-5) configured to enable an assembly of the gasket to the heating plate (Fig. 6) with a press-in (paragraphs [0043] and [0044]) and a catch on method (paragraphs [0042] and [0044]) at the same time. Therefore, given that Hyuk is teaching a gasket with a structure that is similar to the one disclosed in the specification, it is the Examiner's position that the gasket taught by Hyuk would inherently have the instantly claimed function of “said press-in and catch on method improves a stability of the gasket position in the heating plate during the assembly/disassembly as well as during operation of the plate-type gasketed heat exchanger and reduces a risk of internal or external leakage, and wherein the stability of the gasket position facilitates a discharge of dirtiness during the disassembly of the heating plate”. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the Applicants to establish a nonobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 5, Hyuk teaches wherein the gasket comprises on the surface of the gasket: at least 4 protrusions (Figs. 4-5) and at least 3 catches (Figs. 4-5) that allow hybrid installation of the gasket in the heating plate of the plate-type gasketed heat exchanger (Fig. 6 and paragraph [0044]), wherein the at least 3 catches extend beyond the plane of the heating plate (Fig. 6), wherein the heating plate has at least 4 cutouts (fitting holes 140 Figs. 5-6) for the at least 4 protrusions (Figs. 5-6) and at least 3 fragments of a profiled edge (protrusions 125 Figs. 5-6) for the at least 3 catches (Figs. 5-6), and wherein the at least 4 protrusions and the at least 3 catches are located longitudinally to sides of the heating plate of the plate-type gasketed heat exchanger (Figs. 5-6) or along the port holes in the heating plate of the plate-type gasketed heat exchanger and are spaced apart from each other (Figs. 5-6).
Hyuk teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the at least 4 protrusions and the at least 3 catches are spaced apart from each other at a distance of not less than 15 mm from each other”.
However, Hyuk does disclose a distance separating the protrusions from the catches (Figs. 4-6).
Therefore, a distance between the protrusions and the catches is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is “the at least 4 protrusions and the at least 3 catches are spaced apart from each other at a distance of not less than 15 mm from each other”.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e., protrusions and catches separated by a distance, was disclosed in the prior art by Hyuk, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide “the at least 4 protrusions and the at least 3 catches are spaced apart from each other at a distance of not less than 15 mm from each other”.
Regarding claim 6, Hyuk teaches a method of hybrid installation (the method described in paragraph [0044]) of a gasket (gasket 200 Fig. 4) in a heating plate (heat transfer plate 100 Figs. 5-6) of a plate-type gasketed heat exchanger (paragraph [0020]) comprising: catching on by catches (holding pieces 214 Figs. 4-6 and paragraph [0042]) of a corresponding fragment of a profiled edge of the heating plate (protrusions 125 Figs. 5-6) perpendicular to an axis of the heating plate (Figs. 5-6 where the axis of the heating plate is a line parallel to groove 130), the catches configured to extend beyond a plane of the heating plate (Fig. 6), and pressing in protrusions (protruding pieces 213 Figs. 4-5 and paragraph [0043]) into a corresponding cutout (fitting holes 140 Figs. 5-6) in the heating plate, the protrusions extending perpendicular from a surface of the gasket (bottom surface of gasket 200 Fig. 6) in a fixed position (Figs. 5-6), wherein the protrusions and the catches are each spaced apart from each other (Figs. 4-5), are located longitudinally along sides of the heating plate of the gasketed heat exchanger (Figs. 4-5) or along port holes (open passages 260 Fig. 4) arranged in the heating plate of the gasketed plate heat exchanger (Fig. 4).
Hyuk teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein said method improves a stability of the gasket position in the heating plate during an assembly/disassembly as well as during work of the plate type gasketed heat exchanger reducing a risk of internal or external leakage, wherein the stability of the gasket position facilitates a discharge of dirtiness during the disassembly of the heating plate”.
However, Hyuk teaches a gasket (gasket 200 Fig. 4) for a plate-type gasketed heat exchanger (paragraph [0020]) that comprises: at least two protrusions (protruding pieces 213 Figs. 4-5) and at least two catches (holding pieces 214 Figs. 4-5) configured to enable an assembly of the gasket to the heating plate (Fig. 6) with a press-in (paragraphs [0043] and [0044]) and a catch on method (paragraphs [0042] and [0044]) at the same time. Therefore, given that Hyuk is teaching a gasket with a structure that is similar to the one disclosed in the specification, it is the Examiner's position that the gasket taught by Hyuk would inherently have the instantly claimed function of “wherein said method improves a stability of the gasket position in the heating plate during an assembly/disassembly as well as during work of the plate type gasketed heat exchanger reducing a risk of internal or external leakage, wherein the stability of the gasket position facilitates a discharge of dirtiness during the disassembly of the heating plate”. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the Applicants to establish a nonobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyuk as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Luca (WO2010092556A1), and Xu et al. (CN2112699U, herein after referred to as Xu).
Regarding claim 2, Hyuk teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein the gasket is made of a NBR material, with a maximum operating temperature of 110°C”.
However, Luca teaches wherein the gasket (the disclosed “gaskets” in line 9 of page 2 correspond to the gasket of Hyuk) is made of a NBR material (page 2 lines 7-13), with a maximum operating temperature of 110°C (page 2 lines 7-13 where the temperature range is disclosed as
-
25
o
C
t
o
180
o
C
) to ensure a useful lifetime of the gasket in the range of two to five years (page 2 lines 7-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Hyuk to include “wherein the gasket is made of a NBR material, with a maximum operating temperature of 110°C” in view of the teachings of Luca to ensure a useful lifetime of the gasket in the range of two to five years.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the gasket has an overall width of 155 mm, and an overall length of 350 mm”.
However, Xu teaches the gasket (gasket 6 Fig. 1 corresponds to the gasket of Hyuk) has an overall width of 155 mm (page 6 paragraph [5]), and an overall length of 350 mm (page 6 paragraph [5]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the gasket has an overall width of 155 mm, and an overall length of 350 mm” in view of the teachings of Xu to provide a gasket long and wide enough to seal the plates of the heat exchanger.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyuk as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Luca.
Regarding claim 3, Hyuk teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein the gasket is made of varieties of NBR material or types of EPDM, FKM, or various plastics, or composite materials”.
However, Luca teaches wherein the gasket (the disclosed “gaskets” in line 9 of page 2 correspond to the gasket of Hyuk) is made of varieties of NBR material (disclosed “mixtures of NBR” page 2 lines 7-13) or types of EPDM (disclosed “mixtures of EPDM” page 2 lines 7-13) to ensure a useful lifetime of the gasket in the range of two to five years (page 2 lines 7-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Hyuk to include “wherein the gasket is made of varieties of NBR material or types of EPDM” in view of the teachings of Luca to ensure a useful lifetime of the gasket in the range of two to five years.
Regarding claim 4, Hyuk teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein the plate-type gasketed heat exchanger has heating plates with port holes and gaskets forming a heating plate package which is mounted on a leading beam of a plate-type gasketed heat exchanger frame and screwed with screws and cover plates, wherein components of the heating plates are made of stainless steel, titanium, titanium alloys or various metals or alloys of metals or non- metals or plastics or composite materials”.
However, Luca teaches wherein the plate-type gasketed heat exchanger (PHE Fig. 11 of Luca corresponds to the plate-type gasketed heat exchanger of Hyuk) has heating plates (plates 1 Fig. 11 and page 13 lines 3-8) with port holes (through holes 2 Fig. 11) and gaskets (annular sealing gaskets 8 Fig. 11 and page 13 lines 3-8) forming a heating plate package (Fig. 11) which is mounted on a leading beam (upper plate-guide beam 20 Fig. 11 of Luc) of a plate-type heat exchanger frame (listel 20 Fig. 11) and screwed with screws (tie rods 12 and tightening nuts 13 Fig. 11) and cover plates (lateral plates 10 and 11 Fig. 11), wherein components of the heating plates (understood to be the components of plates 1 Fig. 11) are made of stainless steel (page 8 lines 5-10) or titanium (page 8 lines 5-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Hyuk to include “wherein the plate-type gasketed heat exchanger has heating plates with port holes and gaskets forming a heating plate package which is mounted on a leading beam of a plate-type gasketed heat exchanger frame and screwed with screws and cover plates, wherein components of the heating plates are made of stainless steel, titanium, titanium alloys or various metals or alloys of metals or non- metals or plastics or composite materials” in view of the teachings of Luca to provide a fully assembled plate type heat exchanger.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 5-8 that none of the cited references teaches “at least two protrusions in a fixed position extending perpendicular from a surface of the gasket; the at least two protrusions and the at least two catches are each spaced apart from each other” as recited by amended claims 1 and 6, Examiner disagrees.
For clarity purposes, the rejections of claims 1 and 6 are repeated down below:
Regarding claim 1, Hyuk (KR200344180Y1) teaches at least two protrusions (protruding pieces 213 Figs. 4-5) in a fixed position (Figs. 4-5) extending perpendicular from a surface of the gasket (bottom surface of gasket 200 Fig. 6), the at least two protrusions and the at least two catches (holding pieces 214 Figs. 4-6) are each spaced apart from each other (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, Hyuk (KR200344180Y1) teaches pressing in protrusions (protruding pieces 213 Figs. 4-5 and paragraph [0043]) into a corresponding cutout (fitting holes 140 Figs. 5-6) in the heating plate(heat transfer plate 100 Figs. 5-6) , the protrusions extending perpendicular from a surface of the gasket (bottom surface of gasket 200 Fig. 6) in a fixed position (Figs. 5-6), wherein the protrusions and the catches (holding pieces 214 Figs. 4-6) are each spaced apart from each other (Figs. 4-5).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
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.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763