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
In view of the amendment, the previously set forth drawings’ objections have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment, the previously set forth claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed with respect to the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the Amendment. Accordingly, the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn. Please see below for new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), necessitated by Amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are moot. Applicant has amended the claims to recite new combinations of limitations. Please see below for new grounds of rejection, necessitated by Amendment.
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 1-4 and 6-10 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 1 recites the limitation "the grooves channels cavity". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as grooves channels cavity.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the each profiled longitudinal goffer having a projection". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as each profiled longitudinal goffer has a projection.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation of “a cavity of the groove channels” is unclear since claim 1 already recites “the grooves channels cavity”. Therefore, it’s unclear if the cavity in both recitations is the same or different. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as the same cavity of claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation " the common groove contour". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as a common groove contour.
Claim 8 recites the limitation " the common groove contour". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as a common groove contour.
Claim 8 recites the limitation " the parallel channels". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as parallel channels.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 6, 9, and 10 are rejected at least insofar as they are dependent on rejected claim(s), and therefore include the same error(s).
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.
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 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over POTAPOV (RU 156635 U1: Machine Translation was Previously provided by Examiner) in view of (Applicant Admitted Prior Art: hereinafter: AAPA) and Shaw (US 8752346 B1).
Regarding claim 1, POTAPOV teaches a heat exchange panel (see Figures 1-3 and ¶ [14]), comprising;
a flattened base (1) made of a low heat conductivity polymer material (see Figure 1 and ¶ [14]), having two opposing flat functional sides, joined along a contour to narrow lateral sides, wherein one of the functional sides has grooves (2) with channels for receiving piping elements of a heat exchange loop (see Figures 1-3 and ¶¶ [31, and 47]); and
a heat exchange coating (3) made of a high heat conductivity material (see Figures 1-3 and ¶ [14]), arranged on a surface of the grooved functional side of the base said heat exchange coating covering both a flat portion of said surface of the grooved functional side and a surface of the grooves channels cavity (see ¶ [14]), wherein the heat exchange coating (3) is made of foil (see ¶ [53]) and is adhesively joined, via a glue coating, to the surface of the grooved functional side of the base (see Figures 1-3 and ¶ ¶ [14 and 53]), wherein the base includes combined set of grooves with straight and bow-shaped channels bound together into a continuous contour (see Figures 1-3 and ¶ [14]), wherein end sides of the straight and bow-shaped grooves channels located at lateral sides of the base are made open (see Figures 1-3 and ¶ [14]), and wherein the channels of each base groove are made with a cross section having a profile in a form of an inverted omega shape (see Figures 1-3 and ¶ [56]), with a horizontally oriented cylindrical lower section of each channel changing in its upper part to a narrower open from below and from above section of the channel forming a groove mouth (see ¶ [47]).
POTAPOV does not teach a bond formed as a glue coating with a "residual tack" of a Pressure Sensitive Adhesive, keeping elasticity in a temperature range from -40°C to +1000°C. POTAPOV also does not teach that the groove mouth has parallel and perpendicularly oriented lateral sides.
However, it’s an engineering design choice to use any commercially available glue of pressure sensitive adhesive type for its intended use, including a commercially available glue of pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA) type that has some elasticity in the temperature range from -40°C to +1000°C, as evidenced by AAPA, see specification Page. 14 Lines [3-10] where Applicant admitted and listed commercially available glues that may be used.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the glue coating of POTAPOV with a bond formed as a glue coating with a "residual tack" of a Pressure Sensitive Adhesive, keeping elasticity in a temperature range from -40°C to +1000°C, since it has been held “[t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-Saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.)”: such provision would provide the benefit of increasing the working range of POTAPOV’s heat exchange panel.
Moreover, it’s old and well known in the art for channels to have parallel and perpendicularly oriented lateral sides, as evidenced by Shaw, see in Shaw’s Figure 3 where the grooved channel (11) has parallel and perpendicularly oriented lateral sides (17).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cross section of POTAPOV’s channel to have parallel and perpendicularly oriented lateral sides, since as evidenced by Shaw, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of increasing the contact surface between the tube and the channel thus increasing the heat transfer rate.
Regarding claim 2, POTAPOV as modified further teaches characterized in that the heat exchange coating (3) contains a plurality of profiled longitudinal goffers located along said straight groove channels (see ¶ [14]),
the each profiled longitudinal goffer having a projection being a counterpart of a corresponding groove of the base (see ¶ [14]), wherein a flat surface of the heat exchange coating positioned over the base groove sections with the bow-shaped channels is provided with a perforation along a middle line of the groove contour and a plurality of cuttings located transversal to said middle line (see ¶¶ [57-59]), so as to allow for rapturing and leaf cuttings of the heat exchange coating along said perforation line and said cuttings and folding of said leaf cuttings into a cavity of the groove channels (see ¶ [42]).
Regarding claim 3, POTAPOV as modified further teaches characterized in that the base is made of a polymer material with density no less than 35 kg/m3 of foamed polystyrene or polyurethane foam (see ¶ [15]).
Regarding claim 4, POTAPOV as modified further teaches characterized in that the heat exchange coating is made of aluminum or copper foil (see ¶ [53]).
Regarding claim 6, POTAPOV as modified further teaches characterized in that a width of the groove mouth is made sufficient for passage with an effort of the piping elements of the heat exchange contour, but no less than 0.9 of a maximum width of their cross section (see ¶ [47]), and in that a diameter of a lower channel part is comparable with maximum width of a cross-section of the piping elements of the heat exchange contour, ensuring accurate positioning of the piping elements within an internal cavity of the lower channel part (see ¶ [47]).
Regarding claim 7, POTAPOV as modified further teaches characterized in that the common groove contour of the base grooves channels includes at least two straight sections with parallel channels crossing a surface of corresponding working side of the base (see ¶¶ [18 and 33-35]), and at least one rotary groove section with the bow-shaped channel, located between the straight sections channels and bound with them forming the common groove contour (see ¶¶ [18 and 33-35]).
Regarding claim 8, POTAPOV as modified further teaches characterized in that the common groove contour of the base grooves channels contains at least two straight sections with the parallel channels crossing a surface of a working side of the base, bow-shaped rotary sections joined with and located between said at least two straight sections (see ¶¶ [18 and 33-35]), and also a plurality of turn sections shaped as a fragment of the bow-shaped rotary section, wherein one side of each turn section being positioned adjacent to one of the lateral base sides, and wherein said turn sections are positioned symmetrically on the working surface of the base with the common groove contour (see ¶¶ [18 and 33-35]).
Regarding claim 9, POTAPOV as modified further teaches characterized in that the groove channels contour is made symmetric with respect to symmetry axes of a working surface of the base and the grooves channels contour is made symmetric with respect to a symmetry center of the working surface of the base (see ¶¶ [18 and 33-35]).
Regarding claim 10, POTAPOV as modified further teaches characterized in that the heat exchange coating is additionally provided with marking in a form of cuttings located along lines of a sectional division of the panel (see ¶ [21]).
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 at (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