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 .
Response to Arguments
Examiner notes that the previously set forth drawings’ objections were not addressed by Applicant. Therefore, the previously set forth drawings’ objection is maintained, modified as necessitated by Amendment.
The amendment to the abstract is not accepted since the language of the abstract appears to be a claim language with extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus, please see requirements the abstract below.
Applicant's arguments, filed with respect to the remaining of previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a)&(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the Amendment except for the issues that Applicant did not fully address, see the rejections repeated below.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the previously set forth prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the cumulative issues under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a)&(b) and drawings.
NOTE: Applicant may wish to discuss proposed amendments with the Examiner by scheduling an interview using the contact information below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, creating uniform, stable, flat contact areas between tops of the least two heating plates turned 180 degrees to each other of the plate heat exchanger to form a symmetric channel of a working medium and the at least two heating plates turned 180 degrees to each other and in contact at a plurality of contact areas must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(m) because the shading provided by the applicant reduces the legibility of the invention.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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 1-4 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 has been amended to recites the limitations of “in contact at a plurality of contact areas” and “a wavy line with different lengths”. These limitations do not appear to have support in the disclosure. Accordingly, these limitations add new matter to the disclosure.
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected at least insofar as they are dependent on rejected claim(s), and therefore include the same error(s).
Claims 5 is 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 5 recites the limitations of “creating uniform, stable, flat contact areas between tops of the least two heating plates turned 180 degrees to each other” and “a wavy line with different lengths”. These limitations do not appear to have support in the disclosure. Accordingly, these limitations add new matter to the disclosure.
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 1-4 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 recitation of “A heat exchange area comprising: at least two heating plates of a plate heat exchanger, the at least two heating plates having a port area, a distribution area, and a heat transfer area, wherein the heat transfer area, includes the at least two heating plates turned 180 degrees to each other and in contact at a plurality of contact areas, formed to allow a working medium to flow along the entire length of the heat exchange area of the at least two heating plates, the heat transfer area further comprising a surface having a plurality of corrugations, where each corrugation of the plurality of corrugations has a set of additional local corrugations on front and/or side surfaces of said each corrugation of the plurality of corrugations, the set of additional local corrugations forming notches, wherein an apex line of the additional local corrugations is a polygonal curve and/or a wavy line with different lengths and embossing on the front and/or side surfaces thereby creating the plurality of contact areas between tops of the at least two heating plates heating plates turned 180 degrees to each other of the plate heat exchanger to form a symmetric channel of a working medium, by the structure of the at least two heating plates turned 180 degrees to each other, which allows the working medium to flow along the entire length of the beat exchange area of the heating plate.” is unclear. First, it’s unclear as to what Applicant is referring to by “a symmetric channel of a working medium, by the structure of the at least two heating plates turned 180 degrees to each other, which allows the working medium to flow along the entire length of the beat exchange area of the heating plate ” since the claim already recites “formed to allow a working medium to flow along the entire length of the heat exchange area of the at least two heating plates” which necessitates to have two working medium. Furthermore, it’s unclear as to what Applicant is referring to by “the heating plate” since the claim recites “the at least two heating plates”. Second, it’s unclear as to what Applicant is referring to by “the structure of the at least two heating plates”. Third, it’s unclear as to what Applicant is referring to by “a wavy line with different lengths” see 112(a) rejection above. Examiner has attempted to interprets the above, however, no clear claim interpretation can be made by Examiner. Examiner notes that Applicant’s correction of the deficiencies under 35 U.S.C. 112 may necessitate new grounds of rejection. Examiner has not indicated any claims allowable in view of the cumulative issues under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a)&(b) and drawings.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation of “wherein the set of additional local corrugations has the following parameters: an opening angle (4α) between an axis along which a top of the apex line of the set of additional local corrugations is conducted and the top of the apex line of the set of additional local corrugation has a value from 90° to 179°; one of acute angles (4ϒ) of a triangle formed by points of intersection of the top of the apex line of the set of additional local corrugation with the axis along which the top of the apex line of the set of additional local corrugations is conducted and a point furthest located from the axis along which the apex line of the set of additional local corrugations is conducted, and at the same time lying on the apex line of the corrugations has a value from 1° to 89°; a number of points furthest located from the axis along which the apex line of the set of additional local corrugations is conducted, and at the same time lying on the apex line of the set of additional local corrugations is at least 2 for every 200 mm of a length of the axis along which the apex line of the set of additional local corrugations is conducted; a distance between the number of points farthest from each other, and at the same time lying on opposite sides of the axis along which the apex line of the set of additional local corrugations is conducted has a value in a range from 1 to 2000% of a value of a base of an isosceles triangle, whose sides form, in section, lines along which a lateral surface of the set of additional local corrugations is conducted; an angle of inclination (4δ) of a lateral set of additional local corrugations surface has a value from 1° to 89°; a radius of rounding of a top of the set of additional local corrugations has a value from 0.1 mm to 1000 mm” is unclear. First, it’s unclear as to what Applicant is referring to by “a number of points” since the claim already recites “a point”. Is the “point” included in “number of points” or they are different points? Moreover, Examiner notes that Applicant is reciting limitation that depends on imaginary features (i.e. axis, lines, angles, points, triangle, radius, and distance: e.g. an opening angle (4α) between an axis (4L) along which a top of the apex line (4S, 4F) of the corrugations is conducted and the top of the apex line) that lack of details, definitions or the point of view that is associated with each limitation in the specification. Examiner has attempted to interprets the above, however, no clear claim interpretation can be made by Examiner. Examiner notes that Applicant’s correction of the deficiencies under 35 U.S.C. 112 may necessitate new grounds of rejection. Examiner has not indicated any claims allowable in view of the cumulative issues under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a)&(b) and drawings.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the axis". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as “an axis”.
Claim 3 is rejected at least insofar as it is dependent on rejected claim(s), and therefore include the same error(s).
NOTE: Applicant may wish to discuss proposed amendments with the Examiner by scheduling an interview using the contact information below.
Claim 5 is 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 5, the recitation of “A plate heat exchanger comprising: at least two heating plates turned 180 degrees to each other, each heating plate including a port area, a distribution area, and a heat transfer area, the heat transfer area being a heat exchange area, the heat exchange area comprising a surface having a plurality of corrugations, where each corrugation of the plurality of corrugations has a set of additional local corrugations on front and/or side surfaces of said each corrugation of the plurality of corrugations, the set of additional local corrugations forming notches, wherein an apex line of the set of additional local corrugations is a polygonal curve and/or a wavy line with different lengths and embossing on the front and/or side surfaces thereby creating uniform, stable, flat contact areas between tops of the least two heating plates turned 180 degrees to each other of the plate heat exchanger to form a symmetric channel of a working medium, by arranging the at least two heating plates turned 180 degrees to each other, which allows the working medium to flow along the entire length of the heat exchange area of the heating plate.” is unclear. First, it’s unclear as to what Applicant is referring to by “the heating plate” since the claim recites “the at least two heating plates”. Second, it’s unclear as to what Applicant is referring to by “creating uniform, stable, flat contact areas between tops of the least two heating plates turned 180 degrees to each other”, see 112(a) rejection above. Third, the term “stable” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “stable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Furthermore, it’s unclear as to what Applicant is referring to by “a wavy line with different lengths” see 112(a) rejection above. Examiner has attempted to interprets the above, however, no clear claim interpretation can be made by Examiner. Examiner notes that Applicant’s correction of the deficiencies under 35 U.S.C. 112 may necessitate new grounds of rejection. Examiner has not indicated any claims allowable in view of the cumulative issues under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a)&(b) and drawings.
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 KHALED AL SAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-8685. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM~3:30PM, M-F (E.S.T.).
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached on (571) 270-7740. 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.
/KHALED AHMED ALI AL SAMIRI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763