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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 15 recites “tip portion”; it must be recited as “the tip portion”. Appropriate correction is required.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/14/2019 has been entered.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Day (US 2013/0092360 A1).
Claim 1: Day discloses a tube for a heat exchanger, the tube (FIG.2) comprising:
at least one coupling edge (i.e., edge 14 used as coupling edge; see paragraph [76]: edge comprises means called separation portion of edge of end sheet of stack); and
at least one straight fusible part (i.e., tab 15 used as fusible part shown in FIG.2 15 is straight part), parallelly aligned with respect to a general plane (inherent; any structure has an arbitrary plane) of the tube (preamble; FIG.2) and formed on the at least one coupling edge (i.e., 14), configured to be assembled with at least one wall (i.e., 2A) of the heat exchanger (i.e., 1), wherein the least one fusible part (i.e., 15) comprises:
a base portion (annotated FIG.4) located in a vicinity of the at least one coupling edge (i.e., 14) and
a tip portion (i.e., 4E sheet used as tip portion; paragraph [77]: end sheets 4E are unattached and not secured at edges 14) located in a vicinity of the at least one the wall (2A), wherein
the fusible part (i.e., 15) is configured to break by differential in expansion and contraction (intended use/functional language) between the tube (FIG.2) and the at least one wall (i.e., 2A), causing the tip portion (i.e., 4E) to be entirely separated from the at least one wall (i.e., 2A).
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (base portion)]
PNG
media_image1.png
398
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 3: Day discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the tip portion (i.e., 4E) of the at least one fusible part (i.e., 15) extends beyond the at least one coupling edge (i.e., 14; see FIG.4; to clarify, tab 15 extends upward and downward beyond edge 14).
Claim 4: Day discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one fusible part (i.e., 15) is formed at corners of the at least one coupling edge (i.e., 14).
Claim 6: Day discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one coupling edge (i.e., 14) is configured to delimit the tube (preamble; FIG.2) formed by two plates assembled with each other with their respective opposite faces.
Claim 7: Day discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one coupling edges (i.e., 14) is configured to delimit a conduit (duct 8) configured to circulate a heat transfer fluid within the tube (functional language).
Claim 14: Day discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: two substantially rectangular, parallel plates facing each other and forming a path for circulation of a heat exchange fluid (i.e., paragraph [52]: pair of plates 5 assembled allowing coolant fluid through), the at least one coupling edges (i.e., 14) coupling the two plates (i.e., 5).
Claim 15: Day discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 14, wherein the general plane (inherent; any structure has an arbitrary plane) runs parallelly and in between the plates (i.e., 5), and wherein the base portion (annotated FIG.4) and tip portion (annotated FIG.4) are aligned on a same plane parallel to the general plane
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US 2013/0092360 A1), in view of Galland (WO 2019145022 A1).
Claim 2: Day fails to disclose at least one notch located on a corner area of the tube between the at least one coupling edge and the base portion.
However, Galland teaches at least one notch (i.e., paragraph [41]) located on a corner area of the tube between the at least one coupling edge and the base portion (i.e., paragraph [41]: at least one fusible part comprises notch) for the purpose of making it possible to generate an initiation of rupture and determining the separation is achieved after expansion/contraction of the plate (paragraph [84]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Day to include at least one notch located on a corner area of the tube between the at least one coupling edge and the base portion as taught by Galland in order to make it possible to generate an initiation of rupture and to determine the separation is achieved after expansion/contraction of the plate.
Claim 9: Day fails to disclose wherein the at least one fusible part further comprises sloping edges connecting the tip portion with the base portion.
However, Galland teaches sloping edges (i.e., 21 on both sides) connecting the tip portion (i.e., 23) with the base portion (i.e., 22) for the purpose of making it possible to generate an initiation of rupture and determining the separation is achieved after expansion/contraction of the plate (paragraph [84]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the invention of Day to include sloping edges connecting the tip portion with the base portion as taught by Galland in order to make it possible to generate an initiation of rupture and to determine the separation is achieved after expansion/contraction of the plate.
PNG
media_image2.png
418
723
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 5, 8, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US 2013/0092360 A1).
Claim 5: Day discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the tip portion (i.e., 4E) is narrower than (The court held that the configuration of the claimed was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that particular configuration of the claimed was significant - Change of Shape: MPEP 2144.04) the base portion (annotated FIG.4), and wherein the tip portion (i.e., 4E) is configured to facilitate separation of the tube (FIG.4) from the at least one wall (i.e., 2A).
Claim 8: Day discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein a width of the tip portion (i.e., 4E) is smaller than of a width of the base portion (annotated FIG.4), except for wherein the at least one fusible part is of a trapezoidal shape. The configuration/shape of the claimed fusible part is of a trapezoidal shape which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration/shape of the claimed fusible part is significant in order to enhance great rigidity and increasing resistance to stresses (Change of Shape: MPEP 2144.04).
Claim 10: Day discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, except for wherein the at least one fusible part is of a triangular shape. The configuration/shape of the claimed fusible part is of a trapezoidal shape which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration/shape of the claimed fusible part is significant in order to enhance great rigidity and increasing resistance to stresses (Change of Shape: MPEP 2144.04).
Claim 11: Day discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one fusible part (i.e., 15), wherein a thickness (i.e., inherent) is measured in a direction perpendicular to the general plane (i.e., planes and their directions are arbitrary and inherent, based on broadest reasonable interpretation thickness measured perpendicular to general plane) of the tube (FIG.4), except for the fusible part is half the thickness of the tube. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Day to include the fusible part is half the thickness of the tube in order to enhance great rigidity and increasing resistance to stresses, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (Optimum value: MPEP 2144.05 II-B).
Claim 12: Day discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one fusible part (i.e., 15), wherein a thickness (i.e., inherent) is measured in a direction perpendicular to the general plane (i.e., planes and their directions are arbitrary and inherent, based on broadest reasonable interpretation thickness measured perpendicular to general plane) of the tube (FIG.4), except for the fusible part is thicker than half the thickness of the tube. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Day to include thicker than half the thickness of the tube in order to enhance great rigidity and increasing resistance to stresses, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (Optimum value: MPEP 2144.05 II-B).
Claim 13: Day discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one fusible part (i.e., 15), wherein a thickness (i.e., inherent) is measured in a direction perpendicular to the general plane (i.e., planes and their directions are arbitrary and inherent, based on broadest reasonable interpretation thickness measured perpendicular to general plane) of the tube (FIG.4), except for the fusible part is thinner than half the thickness of the tube. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Day to include thinner than half the thickness of the tube in order to enhance generation of initiation of rupture and determining the separation, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (Optimum value: MPEP 2144.05 II-B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to all the claims under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Examiner response to Applicant’s argument on pages 6-10: Examiner respectfully disagrees, because:
Applicant arguments regarding the amended claim 1 "examiner do not establish that Day discloses a fusible part that includes a tip portion and a base portion, as required by the claims. Day does not disclose that the strip 23 and the sheet 4E are aligned on a same plane. Day would still fails to disclose that such fusible part is straight and planar, as required by limitation (i) which is at least one straight fusible part, parallel aligned with respect to a general plane of the tube". Examiner respectfully disagrees, because as it is clearly indicated in the office action part 15 of Day used as fusible part which is straight as shown in figure 2 of Day. Further, a plane is arbitrary, however as shown in figure 2 tab 15 is in the same plane as the tube drawn in figure 2. Furthermore, the tube is preamble. As indicated in the office action base portion is annotated by examiner in figure 4, and also sheet 4E interpreted as a tip portion. Further, "the strip 23 and the sheet 4E are aligned on a same plane"; the quoted argument is not claimed. Applicant arguments on page 8 regarding claims 2 and 9: "the fusible part in Galland cannot possibly be straight". Examiner respectfully disagrees, because Day is only modified by Galland to teach the limitations in claim 9 which is sloping edges connecting the tip portion with the base. As indicated before, Day discloses the straight fusible part. Regarding claim 2, Day is only modified by Galland to teach a notch in paragraph [41] of Galland indicates fusible part comprises notch as indicated in the office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure which is relevant to heat exchanger:
Roll (US 2010/0032149 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMRAN TAVAKOLDAVANI whose telephone number is (313)446-6612. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 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, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAMRAN TAVAKOLDAVANI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights