DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 3, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 16 and 17 are currently amended. Claims 1-20 are pending review in this action.
New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 2 is 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 2 recites the limitation: “the heads are structured to be connected to an upper surface of the accommodating part” (lines 2-3).
Claim 2 depends on claim 1.
Claim 1 defines the recessed part as having “accommodating parts and heads”.
The use of the singular form in claim 2 creates ambiguity as to the intended structure.
A review of the specification indicates that claim 1 is directed to the recessed part (515a or 515b) illustrated in figure 5D. The recessed part (515a or 515b) includes multiple accommodating parts and multiple heads with the heads being connected to upper surfaces of corresponding accommodating parts.
Claims 10-15 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 10 recites the following limitations: “recessed parts” (line 4) and “each of the recessed parts comprises accommodating parts and heads” (line 14). This combination of limitations appears to suggest that the intended claimed structure is the one shown in figure 5D with the “plurality of recessed parts” being recessed part (515a) and recessed part (515b) – each of which includes multiple accommodating parts and heads.
However, the last two lines of the claim read: “the recessed parts are manufactured as an integral part to cover the through holes”.
The use of the singular form “integral part” suggests that there is only one element made up of multiple “recessed parts” combined together in an “integral part”.
The confusion is enhanced because in alternate embodiments, the term “recessed part” is applied to a single accommodating part and corresponding head (see paragraph [0089]).
The claim is interpreted to have been intended to be directed to the embodiment shown in figure 5D and to have intended to claim multiple recessed parts with each recessed part being an integral element comprising multiple accommodating parts and multiple heads.
Claim 11 is 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 11 recites the limitation: “the heads are structured to be connected to an upper surface of the accommodating part” (lines 2-3).
Claim 11 depends on claim 10.
Claim 10 defines each recessed part as having “accommodating parts and heads”.
The use of the singular form in claim 11 creates ambiguity as to the intended structure. A review of the specification indicates that claim 10 is directed to recessed part (515a) and recessed part (515b) illustrated in figure 5D. Each recessed part (515a or 515b) includes multiple accommodating parts and multiple heads with the heads being connected to upper surfaces of corresponding accommodating parts.
Claims 16-20 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 16 recites the following limitations: “a plurality of recessed parts” (line 3) and “each of the plurality of recessed parts comprises accommodating parts and heads” (line 15). This combination of limitations appears to suggest that the intended claimed structure is the one shown in figure 5D with the “plurality of recessed parts” being recessed part (515a) and recessed part (515b) – each of which includes multiple accommodating parts and heads.
However, the last two lines of the claim read: “the plurality of recessed parts is manufactured as an integral part to cover the through holes”.
The use of the singular form “integral part” suggests that there is only one element made up of multiple “recessed parts” combined together in an “integral part”.
The confusion is enhanced because in alternate embodiments, the term “recessed part” is applied to a single accommodating part and corresponding head (see paragraph [0089]).
The claim is interpreted to have been intended to be directed to the embodiment shown in figure 5D and to have intended to claim multiple recessed parts with each recessed part being an integral element comprising multiple accommodating parts and multiple heads.
Claim 18 is 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 18 recites the limitation: “heads of the plurality of recessed parts are integrally connected to each other”.
The claimed structure is unclear.
Claim 18 depends on claim 16. Claim 16 defines a plurality of recessed parts with each of the plurality of recessed parts comprising multiple heads.
The limitation of claim 18 may be interpreted to mean that the heads of each recessed part are integrally connected to each other. However, this structure appears to already be claimed in independent claim 16. In this case, claim 18 would be subject to a rejection under 35 USC 112(d) for failing to further limit the independent claim on which it depends.
Alternatively, claim 18 may be interpreted to mean that heads of the individual recessed parts are integrally connected to each other. In this case, there would appear to be a contradiction, because if the heads of the individual recessed parts are integrally connected, then there would not be a plurality of recessed parts – rather there would be one recessed part.
Claims 19 and 20 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.
Both claims require steps of applying the heat transfer member sequentially “between the recessed part of the first cell region and the recessed part of the second cell region”.
This use of the term “recessed part” appears to be in the sense of a recessed part having a single accommodation part, rather than the intended meaning in claim 16 of a “recessed part” having multiple accommodating parts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 5.00 PM.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
LILIA V. NEDIALKOVA
Examiner
Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights