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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “62” has been used to designate both the first recess and the second recess in figs. 16A and 16B.
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. 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.
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.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is too long (206 words), and because it uses phrases which can be implied (“The present invention relates to”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On p. 18, l. 5 of the submitted specification, “pump housing 18” should be “pump housing 12.”
The use of the term “Kapton MT,” which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, ℠, or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 13–15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 should be amended to recite “at least partially in the circumferential direction.”
Claim 13, lines 2–3, should be amended to recite either “the heat conducting plate assembly comprising” or “wherein the heat conducting plate assembly comprises.”
Claim 14 recites “a recess.” Since antecedent basis is already provided for “at least one recess” in claim 13, for clarity, this should be amended to recite “at least one of the recesses.” The same procedure should be done with similar claim 15.
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 claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Comment: Although the “carrier unit” of claims 1 and 13, the biasing element of claims 8 and 9, the holding element of claim 9, and the drive unit of claim 12 are formulated as limitations to be interpreted under § 112(f), they is not. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the carrier unit and holding element to be generic structural components capable of carrying or holding other components, while the biasing means would be a spring or a resilient or elastic material or the like, and the drive unit would be a motor or the like. See MPEP § 2181.I.C.: “Examiners will apply 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to a claim limitation that uses the term ‘means’ or generic placeholder associated with functional language, unless that term is (1) preceded by a structural modifier, defined in the specification as a particular structure or known by one skilled in the art, that denotes the type of structural device (e.g., ‘filters’), or (2) otherwise modified by sufficient structure or material for achieving the claimed function.”
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.
Claims 2–4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites, “wherein the first recess and the second recess form a single continuously extending recess.” However, the claim earlier provides for only “a first recess . . . and/or a second recess,” meaning that both are not required, contrary to the suggestion in the originally-quoted passage. Applicant may amend the claim such that the passage only applies where both the first and second recesses are present, or strike the limitation.
Claim 4 relates to specifics of “the first recess.” However, claim 2 from which it depends makes clear that the first recess is not required, only at least one of the first recess and the second recess. Therefore, claim 4 is indefinite because it’s unclear if the specifics of the claim can be ignored if only the second recess is relied upon to show the limitations of claim 2. Applicant should amend claim 4 to make clear that the heat conducting plate assembly comprises the first recess.
Claim 3 is rejected due to dependency upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Rafferty Wholesale NPL (provided by the Office).
Claim 13: The Rafferty Wholesale NPL discloses a heat conducting plate assembly (see the figure) for use in a heating system component of a conveyor pump (understood as intended use, see MPEP §2111.02.II.), the heat conducting plate assembly comprises:
a first heat capturing plate portion (e.g. the left plate of the structure as depicted) that is configured to be thermally coupled to a heating unit of a conveyor pump (said portion is capable of being thermally coupled as claimed, e.g. via a clamp or adhesive),
a second heat capturing plate portion (e.g. the right plate of the structure is depicted) that is configured to be thermally coupled to a medium leading section of a carrier unit of a conveyor pump (said portion is capable of being thermally coupled as claimed, e.g. via a clamp or adhesive),
a first heat releasing plate portion (e.g. the top half of the left plate),
a second heat releasing plate portion (e.g. the bottom half of the left plate), and
at least one recess that extends at least partially between the first heat releasing plate portion and the second heat releasing plate portion (the middle small hole of the five small holes of the left plate qualifies as such a recess).
Comment: Claim 13 is broad because the term “portion” is able to be ascribed to any cohesive area of a structure. Furthermore, Applicant discloses a “recess” as like a hole, whereas the term “recess” ordinarily means something like a groove or blind hole. Should Applicant choose to amend the claim, Applicant should understand that it understands the term “recess” to read on all of at least holes, aperture, gaps, grooves, and blind holes.
Claim 14: The Rafferty Wholesale discloses the second heat capturing plate portion has at least a curved portion having a radius R (formed where the left and right plates meet, a radius necessarily forming there), and wherein a recess (any of the small holes) extends at least substantially transverse to the curved portion of the second heat capturing plate portion.
Comment: The Office understands “extends at least substantially transverse to the curved portion” to mean that the extension establishes a directional line that crosses across the curved portion.
Claim 15: The Rafferty Wholesale NPL discloses that the second heat capturing plate portion has at least a curved portion having a radius R (formed where the left and right plates meet, the portion itself of which can be ascribed to the second heat capturing plate portion on the right side as described for the rejection of claim 13), and wherein a recess (any of the vertically-extending lines formed where the left and right plates meet) extends at least substantially coaxial to the curved portion of the second heat capturing plate portion.
Comment: The Office understands “extends at least substantially coaxial to the curved portion” to mean that the extension substantially shares an axis around which the curved portion is formed.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1 and 6–12 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1–3, 6, 7, and 9–11 of copending Application No. 17/540,771 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Reference claim 1 matches pending claim 1.
Reference claim 2 matches pending claim 6.
Understanding the language of “in particular” as presenting only a narrower, optional alternative within the claim, reference claim 3 matches pending claim 7.
Reference claim 6 matches pending claim 8.
Understanding the term “preferably” as encompassing the narrower, optional alternative, reference claim 7 matches pending claim 9.
Reference claim 9 matches pending claim 10.
Understanding the language of “such as” as presenting only a narrower, optional alternative within the claim, reference claim 10 matches pending claim 11.
Reference claim 11 matches pending claim 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 2–4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection, as well as the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1 (from which each of 2–5 depend), Höfer et al. (US Pub. 2019/0346175) is the closest prior art of record. Höfer arguably discloses every individual element claimed, but does not disclose these arranged as claimed in any one embodiment, nor are these embodiments combinable to arrive at the claimed invention, nor would it have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform one or more modifications to combine the disclosed features to arrive at the claimed invention.
The embodiment shown in fig. 7 does not properly feature a printed circuit board, as instead conducting paths 261 are simply secured to an insulating film. The paths not being printed is clearly evident from the way they leave the film to go leftward in fig. 7.
The embodiment in fig. 8a and 8b seems to feature a printed circuit board, as evident from the description in ¶ 115 that “the respective conducting paths 361 are printed or sprayed onto heat conducting plate 340 as thin layers, wherein insulating layer 360, preferably made of a ceramic material, is provided as a first layer.” However, the housing (300) of this embodiment does not, in any reasonable way, accommodate at least a part of this circuit board, since its connections therein extend upwards from connection pins 302.
The embodiment in figs. 9a and 9b show a molded interconnect device, which is only arguably a printed circuit board. However, this embodiment is not combined or combinable with the first and second heat capturing and releasing plate portions (142, 141 from figs. 1–2b).
The embodiment in fig. 10 shows a printed circuit board that appears to be partially accommodated in a housing. However, like figs. 9a and 9b, this embodiment is not combined or combinable with the first and second heat capturing and releasing plate portions (142, 141 from figs. 1–2b).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Teufl et al. (US Pub. 2015/0373780) discloses two temperature sensors and a relevant heat conducting plate.
Gu et al. (WO 2019/119507 A1) discloses a similar apparatus with two sensor areas.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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, Edward (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761