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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species A1 (fig. 4), encompassing claims 16, 17, 19-25 and 27-30, in the reply filed on 10/16/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 18 and 26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “at any point of its length , a width that is greater than the width of the upstream portion” in line 20. There is a space between the word “length” and the “,”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “one end,,” in line 3 comprises two commas. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the end,,” in line 4 comprises two commas. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “a first phas” in line 8 has a typographical error. Should read –a first phase--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the first phase)” in line 14 has a typographical error which includes a parenthesis. Appropriate correction is required.
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 source of a first phase” and “a source of a second phase” in claim 27 is understood to be a separator (see para. 0094 of the publication).
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 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 16, 17, 19-25 and 27-30 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 16 recites the limitation “said lateral channel" in line 10 lacks proper antecedent basis. Should read –said at least one lateral channel--. Appropriate correction required throughout the claims.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “at least one longitudinal channel” in line 10-11 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates with the previously cited limitation “a series of longitudinal channels” in line 6 of the claim. For examination purposes, examiner read the limitation as –at least one of the series of longitudinal channels--.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “said longitudinal channel” in line 12-13 lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear if it is referring to the “series of longitudinal channels” or ““at least one longitudinal channel”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein said at least one longitudinal channel of the mixing device (3) is divided, in the longitudinal direction, into an upstream portion having a length L3 measured in the longitudinal direction ad a width D3 measured in the lateral direction” in line 14-16 renders the claim indefinite because it appears to have a grammatical error (see the underlined limitations). For examination purposes, examiner read the underlined limitations as -- and a width D3 measured in the lateral direction--.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “its” in line 20 renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what the term “its” referring to.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the entire length” in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the external profile”, “the tangent”, “the point of intersection” and “the axis of symmetry” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the end” in line 4 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “at least one opening” in line 2 render the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates with the previously cited limitation “at least one opening” in claim 16.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “the ratio L3/L4” in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “a heat exchanger” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear with the previously cited limitation “a heat exchanger” in line 3 of claim 16.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “said plates” in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis. Should read –said plurality of plates--.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “a first fluid” in line 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates with the previously cited limitation “a first fluid” in line 2 of claim 16.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “a mixing device” in line 12 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates with the previously cited limitation “a mixing device” of claim 16. The limitation should read –the mixing device--.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “the first series” in line 13 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “a mixing device” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates with the previously cited limitation “a mixing device” of claim 16. The limitation should read –the mixing device--.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “a first fluid” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates with the previously cited limitation “a first fluid” in line 2 of claim 16.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “at least one first inlet” in section i) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates with the previously cited limitation “at least one first inlet” in line 4-5 of claim 16.
Claim 30 recites the limitation “a heat exchanger” in section a) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear with the previously cited limitation “a heat exchanger” in line 3 of claim 16.
Claim 30 recites the limitation “a mixing device” in section e) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates with the previously cited limitation “a mixing device” of claim 16. The limitation should read –the mixing device--.
Claims 21, 22, 25 and 29 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Natacha et al. (WO 2018172644 A1), wherein Natacha teaches a mixing device (3) for distributing a mixture of a first phase (61) and a second phase (62) of a first fluid (F1) in a longitudinal direction (z) in at least one passage (10) of a heat exchanger (1) (see fig. 1), said mixing device comprising:
- at least one lateral channel (31/31a/31b/31c) configured for the first phase (61) to flow from at least one first inlet (311/see the annotated figure below) (see page 7 of the translation; fig. 3);
- a series of longitudinal channels (32/32a/32b) extending in the longitudinal direction (z) and each configured for the second phase (62) to flow from a second inlet (see the annotated figure below) to a second outlet (see the annotated figure below), said longitudinal channels (32/32a/32b) succeeding each other in a lateral direction (y) orthogonal to the longitudinal direction (z) (see annotated fig. 3 below); and
- at least one opening (34) fluidly connecting said lateral channel (31/31a/31b/31c) to at least one longitudinal channel (32) such that the mixing device (3) is configured to distribute a mixture of the first phase (61) and the second phase (62) via the second outlet (see the annotated figure below) of said longitudinal channel (32) (see page 7 of the translation; fig. 2, 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
420
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Voggenreiter et al. (US 4646822 A) discloses a mixing device (10) for distributing a mixture of a first phase (fluid via inlet manifold 6) and a second phase (fluid via inlet manifold 12) of a first fluid in a longitudinal direction in at least one passage (8) of a heat exchanger (1) (see fig. 1, 2).
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