DETAILED ACTION
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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 and 16-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claims 9-15 remain withdrawn from further consideration. Furthermore, applicant’s argument that reference to Papoulis et al does not disclose the protruding portion formed by bending a portion of the end plate outward (page 2 of applicant’s remark), has been carefully considered but is not found to be persuasive. (See the rejection below with figure A).
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.
Claims 1- 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Papoulis et al. (US 20120097365A1). Regarding claim 1, Papoulis discloses (figure 2 and figure A shown below) a heat exchanger comprising a plurality of main plates (18a,18b) each including a through hole (32-34) through which a heat exchange medium flows, and an outer wall (21) formed at a periphery thereof, the plurality of main plates (18a,18b) being stacked to constitute a heat exchanger core having a flow path formed therein; an end plate (20) being in surface contact with the main plate disposed at an outermost side of the heat exchanger core, the end plate (20) having one or more connection holes; and a connection member (58) configured to be connected to an external component (70) and at least partially inserted into the connection hole (see figure A). Regarding the limitation of wherein the endplate comprise a protruding portion which is formed by bending a portion of the end plate outward. There are two interpretations 1 and 2 marked in the figure A, in which 1) a protruding portion protruding outward from the planar surface of the end plate with a bend or 2) a protruding portion protrudes outward with bend (see figure A). Furthermore, the method of forming the device (formed by bending a portion of the end plate), is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, the bending portion of the protruding portion of claim 1 is the same as or obvious from the bending portion of the protruding portion of Papoulis, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. Both of the protruding portion of interpretations 1 or 2, have bending portions, as shown in figure A.
Regarding claim 2, Papoulis discloses (figure 2) a first screw thread (72) is formed in the connection member. Regarding claim 3, Papoulis discloses (figure A) the protruding portion defining a periphery of the connection hole, and where at least a part of one side of the connection member is exposed to the outside, and the first screw thread (72) is formed in the connection member. Regarding claim 4, the method of forming the device (formed by bending the end plate outward by burring process). is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, the bending portion of the protruding portion of claim 4 is the same as or obvious from the bending portion of the protruding portion of Papoulis, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process than burring process.
Regarding claim 5, Papoulis discloses (figure A) that the connection member (58) has a head portion (portion has thread 72) and a column portion (portion of 58 inserted into the connection hole), the first screw thread (72) is formed in the head portion, and a diameter of the head portion is larger than a diameter of the column portion and a diameter of the connection hole. Regarding claim 6, Papoulis discloses (figure 2 and figure A) that the column portion is fixed by being fitted with the connection hole. Regarding claim 7, Papoulis discloses (figure A) that the connection member (58) is inserted into the connection hole, a portion between the main plate (18a,18b) and a lower surface of the column portion and a portion between an inner peripheral surface of the connection hole and a lateral surface of the column portion each define a cladding surface, and the connection member (58) is formed to be coupled to the connection hole, the main plate, and the end plate by a brazing process (paragraphs 15, 19 and 20, all the plates (18a,18b,19,20) and the connections 50,52,58 are joined by any suitable means such as brazing, soldering, welding). Regarding claim 8, Papoulis discloses (figure 2 and A) that at least a part of the connection member is in contact with an inner peripheral surface of the protruding portion. Regarding claim 16, Papoulis discloses (paragraph 16) that the end plate (20) and the connection member (58) are made of the same type of metallic material (paragraphs 16 and 20, the end plate 20 and the connection member 58 are made of any suitable metal material, which can be the same material). Papoulis further discloses (paragraph 20) that the end plate (20) and the connection member (58) are welded to each other during a brazing process. (the connection member 58 coupled to the heat exchanger by any suitable mean such as brazing, soldering or welding, paragraph 20).
PNG
media_image1.png
810
868
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: the modified figure corresponds to the right enlarged section of figure 2.
Claims 1-8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al. (WO 2014132602A1). Regarding claim 1, Takahashi et al. discloses (figures 4-5 and figure B shown below) a heat exchanger (40) comprising a plurality of main plates (41,a,b,c,d,e) each including a through hole (41ri) through which a heat exchange medium flows, and an outer wall (41a2) formed at a periphery thereof, the plurality of main plates being stacked to constitute a heat exchanger core having a flow path formed therein; an end plate (41d) being in surface contact with the main plate disposed at an outermost side of the heat exchanger core (see figure B), the end plate (41d) having one or more connection holes (see figure B); and a connection member (43) configured to be connected to an external component (paragraph 90, for refrigerant inlet or outlet) and at least partially inserted into the connection hole (see figure B); wherein the endplate comprises a protruding portion which is formed by bending a portion of the end plate outward. (see figure B). Regarding the method of forming the device (formed by bending a portion of the end plate), the limitation is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, the bending portion of the protruding portion of claim 1 is the same as or obvious from the bending portion of the protruding portion of Takahashi, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi discloses (figure 5 and paragraph 65) a first screw thread is formed in the connection member (the bolt holes 43d into which bolts are screwed, a screwed hole inherently has a thread portion). Regarding claim 3, Takahashi further discloses (figure b) that the protruding portion defines a periphery of the connection hole, and where at least a part of one side of the connection member is exposed to the outside, and the first screw thread (screwed hole 43d) is formed in the connection member. Regarding claim 4, the method of forming the device (formed by bending the end plate outward by burring process). is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, the bending portion of the protruding portion of claim 4 is the same as or obvious from the bending portion of the protruding portion of Papoulis, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process than burring process.
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi discloses (figure b) that the connection member (43) has a head portion (see figure B) and a column portion (43a), the first screw thread (screwed hole 43d) is formed in the head portion, and a diameter of the head portion is larger than a diameter of the column portion and a diameter of the connection hole. (See figure B) Regarding claim 6, Takahashi discloses (figure 5 and figure B) that the column portion (43a) is fixed by being fitted with the connection hole. Regarding claim 7, Takahashi discloses (figure B) that the connection member (43) is inserted into the connection hole, a portion between the main plate (41a,b,c,d)) and a lower surface of the column portion (43a) and a portion between an inner peripheral surface of the connection hole and a lateral surface of the column portion each define a cladding surface, and the connection member (43) is formed to be coupled to the connection hole, the main plate, and the end plate by a brazing process (paragraphs 78 and 68). Regarding claim 8, Takahashi discloses (figure 5 and B) that at least a part of the connection member (43) is in contact with an inner peripheral surface of the protruding portion.
Regarding claim 18, Takahashi et al. further discloses (figure 5 and B) that the first screw thread (inside 43d, bold hole 43d is for screwing a bolt, paragraph 65) is formed in a direction parallel to the direction in which the connection member is inserted into the connection hole.
PNG
media_image2.png
664
895
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B: the modified figure corresponds to figure 5 of Takahashi with limitations shown
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Martin (US 20170097179A1). Takahashi discloses that the main plate and the end plate are made of aluminum, and the connection member (43) is made of metal are brazing together. Takahashi does not disclose that the connection member is same type of metal with the end plate. Martin et al. discloses (figure 6, paragraph 60) a plate heat exchanger plate that all components of the heat exchanger includes core plate and mounting block (38), inlet and outlet fitting are made of aluminum alloy brazed together for a purpose of providing substantially benefits in terms of simplicity, cost and manufacturability. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Martin’s teaching in Takahashi’s device for a purpose of providing substantially benefits in terms of simplicity, cost and manufacturability.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Rhee et al. (KR 20200000657A). Takahashi substantially discloses all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above except for a limitation that the heat exchanger further comprises a receiver dryer; and a connector configured to connect the heat exchanger and the receiver dryer, and wherein the connection member is coupled to the end plate disposed at a side opposite to the side at which the receiver dryer is installed. Rhee discloses (figures 3 and 4) a plate heat exchanger that has a connector (400) located on a bottom plate of the heat exchanger opposite the top end plate that has fluid connector, wherein the connector (400) configured to connect the heat exchanger (200) and a receiver dryer (500) for a purpose of removing moisture from the refrigerant when the plate heat exchanger is used in an air conditioning system. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Rhee’s teaching in Takahashi’s device for a purpose of removing moisture from the refrigerant when the plate heat exchanger is used in an air conditioning system.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papoulis in view of Rhee et al. (KR 20200000657A) Papoulis substantially discloses all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above except for a limitation that the heat exchanger further comprises a receiver dryer; and a connector configured to connect the heat exchanger and the receiver dryer, and wherein the connection member is coupled to the end plate disposed at a side opposite to the side at which the receiver dryer is installed. Kim discloses (figures 3 and 4) a plate heat exchanger that has a connector (400) located on a bottom plate of the heat exchanger opposite the top end plate that has fluid connector, wherein the connector (400) configured to connect the heat exchanger (200) and a receiver dryer (500) for a purpose of removing moisture from the refrigerant when the plate heat exchanger is used in an air conditioning system. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Rhee’s teaching in Papoulis’s device for a purpose of removing moisture from the refrigerant when the plate heat exchanger is used in an air conditioning system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mizuno et al. (DE 112017002856) discloses a heat exchanger of the batch type.
.
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 THO V DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4793. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 10-6PM.
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, Atkisson Jianying 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.
/THO V DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763