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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 15, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Receipt and entry of the amended/replacement abstract and of the amended claims filed on April 15, 2026 are acknowledged.
Receipt and entry of the amended abstract and amended claims filed on April 15, 2026 are acknowledged.
Applicant’s interview summary of the telephonic interview conducted on October 30, 2025 has been received as well and is acceptable.
Claims 1 through 23 remain pending. Of these, claims 1 through 8 are all as amended either directly or indirectly, claims 22 and 23 are new, and claims 3, 4, 9 through 21 remain withdrawn as noted in greater detail below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments related to the previously cited objections to the drawings have overcome the previous objections to the drawings. However, new objections to the drawings have been included hereinbelow, based on further consideration.
Applicant has stated that the replacement abstract has been amended to remove the previously objectionable language. The examiner agrees, and the previous objections to the abstract are hereby withdrawn.
While applicant’s amendments to the claims have generally obviated previously cited indefiniteness rejections of the claims, these amendments have also introduced new indefiniteness issues in the claims as noted in greater detail below. Furthermore, additional indefiniteness issues have been identified by the examiner upon further consideration as also noted in greater detail below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims as previously cited by the examiner have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Election/Restriction
Claims 3, 4, and 9 through 21 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to the non-elected inventions of Groups II and III and on the various non-elected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 13, 2024 as supplemented via the reply filed on February 14, 2025.
Drawings
Upon careful reconsideration, the drawings filed on January 11, 2023 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “610” and “620” have both been used to designate the housing (i.e., in Figure 6). 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.
Alternately, the drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “620” has been used to designate both an element corresponding to the housing and a fluid conduit (i.e., in Figure 6). 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.
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.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “seal assembly” in claim 5 and claims 6 through 8 depending therefrom.
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 base cl 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, 2, 5 through 8, 22, and 23 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.
Upon careful reconsideration (and as discussed during the telephonic interview of June 16, 2026), it is noted that while each of base claims 1, 7, and 8 recites that the second fluid conduit is “fluidically isolated from the first fluid conduit”, the base claims fail to recite whether or not the respective fluid ports in each of the first fluid connector and of the second fluid connector also fluidically isolated from each other. Thus, as written, it is not clear whether or not the two fluids are intended to be isolated from each other throughout the inventive heat exchanger module or only while in the first fluid conduit and in the second fluid conduit, thus rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by these claims and by all claims depending therefrom.
Base claims 1, 7, and 8 have been amended to recite a body configured to convey heat energy between the first fluid conduit and the second fluid conduit. However, the structures and/or elements intended to be encompassed by the newly added limitation relating to the body are not specifically set forth, thus rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought thereby and/or at least rendering the associated element subject to broad interpretation. For examination purposes, the term “the body” will be broadly interpreted as required for pending claims to include any body of mass, fluid and/or solid.
Similarly, the claims fail to specify what structural relationship if any is required between the tubular housing and the remaining elements in each of base claims 1, 7, and 8, thus further rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by these claims and any claims depending therefrom.
Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected at least as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Key (U.S. Patent No. 2,011,640).
With regard to claim 1 of the instant application, Key (i.e., especially as shown in Figures 1, 4, and 5, but not limited thereto) discloses a heat exchanger module comprising: a tubular housing or shell 1; a first fluid conduit 8; a second fluid conduit 16, fluidically isolated from the first fluid conduit 8 via partition wall 13, where the partition wall 13 is readable on the body as newly recited by the claim, the body or wall 13 extending along an entire length of the first fluid conduit 7/8 and of the second fluid conduit 16/17 (i.e., note that reciting “an entire length” instead of “the entire length” broadens the claims to allow for certain portions of lengths to be selected for comparison as opposed to requiring the one inherent total/entire length as previously claimed); a first fluid connector assembly 9 (i.e., as shown in Figure 4), the first fluid connector assembly comprising: a first fluid port fluidically connected to the first fluid conduit 7/8; and a second fluid port fluidically connected to the second fluid conduit 16/17; and a second fluid connector assembly 6, the second fluid connector assembly comprising: a third fluid port fluidically connected to the first fluid conduit 7/8; and a fourth fluid port fluidically connected to the second fluid conduit 16/17.
The reference thus reads on the claim.
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims and alternately for claim 1, claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Janssens et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,050,554 B2).
With regard to claim 1 of the instant application, Janssens et al. (i.e., as shown in Figure 2, but not limited thereto) discloses a heat exchanger module 1 comprising: a tubular housing or shell 3; a first fluid conduit 11; a second fluid conduit 12, fluidically isolated from the first fluid conduit 11; a body at least broadly readable as required on space 24 within main compartment 7 extending along an entire length of the first fluid conduit 11 and of the second fluid conduit 12 through which a heat conductive fluid is conducted thus configuring the compartment 7 or space 24 to convey heat energy between the first fluid conduit 11 and the second fluid conduit 12 (i.e., note that reciting “an entire length” instead of “the entire length” broadens the claims to allow for certain portions of lengths to be selected for comparison as opposed to requiring the one inherent total/entire length as previously claimed); a first fluid connector assembly (i.e., including left-hand cover 4 in Figure 2), the first fluid connector assembly comprising: a first fluid port (i.e., inlet for fluid Q in Figure 2) fluidically connected to the first fluid conduit 11; and a second fluid port (i.e., outlet for fluid R) fluidically connected to the second fluid conduit 12; and a second fluid connector assembly (i.e., including right-hand cover 4 in Figure 2), the second fluid connector assembly comprising: a third fluid port (i.e., outlet for fluid Q in Figure 2) fluidically connected to the first fluid conduit 11; and a fourth fluid port (i.e., inlet for fluid R in Figure 2) fluidically connected to the second fluid conduit 12.
With regard to claim 5 of the instant application, Janssens et al. discloses the heat exchanger module of claim 1, as further comprising at least one fluid connector assembly comprising (i.e., including left-hand cover 4 in Figure 2): a first fluid port (i.e., inlet for fluid Q in Figure 2) fluidically connected to the first fluid conduit 11; a second fluid port (i.e., outlet for fluid R in Figure 2) configured fluidically connected to the second fluid conduit 12; and a seal assembly comprising an interface defining a first fluid seal 23 (i.e., shown as a thickened dot at the interface between partition 18 and end plate 6 at both covers 4 in Figure 2; also see claim 9 of Janssens et al.) arranged between the first fluid port (i.e., inlet for fluid Q in Figure 2) and the second fluid port (i.e., outlet for fluid R in Figure 2).
With regard to claim 6 of the instant application, Janssens et al. discloses the heat exchanger module of claim 5, as further comprising a second fluid seal 23 (i.e., at the other cover 4 in Figure 2; at least broadly interpreted as required, the seals 23 are defined between the ports of the first fluid Q and of the second fluid R at each end of the casing or housing 3) defined between the first fluid port (i.e., inlet for fluid Q in Figure 2) and the second fluid port (i.e., outlet for fluid R in Figure 2), wherein: a first fluid connector assembly (i.e., including left-hand cover 4 in Figure 2) is configured to removably connect to a first fluid coupler of a first manifold assembly (i.e., including fluid manifolds 14 and 17), to fluidically connect the first fluid conduit 11 to a first fluid manifold 14 of the first manifold assembly and to connect the second fluid conduit 12 to a second fluid manifold 17 of the first manifold assembly; and a second fluid connector assembly is configured to removably connect to a second fluid coupler of a second manifold assembly (i.e., including right-hand cover 4 in Figure 2), to fluidically connect the first fluid conduit 11 to a third fluid manifold 15 of the second manifold assembly (i.e., including fluid manifolds 15 and 16) and fluidically connect the second fluid conduit 12 to a fourth fluid manifold 16 of the second manifold assembly.
The reference thus reads on the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claims 7, 8, 22, and 23 would be allowable if rewritten (without patentably significant broadening) to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, and under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, 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: the prior art of record does not show nor reasonably suggest, in combination, a heat exchanger module including all of the various elements of claims 7 and 8 (i.e., and including the limitations of base claim 1 and all intervening claims) as well as of claim 22 (and claim 23) which are structurally and functionally interrelated as recited in the claims.
Conclusion
The additional prior and related art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LJILJANA V CIRIC whose telephone number is (571)272-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Saturday, flexible.
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.
/Ljiljana V. Ciric/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
LJILJANA (Lil) V. CIRIC
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights