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 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:
coupling device.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
the term “device” is a generic placeholder, (B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “coupling”), and (C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appear to be the corresponding structures for the aforementioned 112(f) limitation(s):
The disclosure defines coupling device as multi-channel block that has a cuboid main body for connecting fluid ports or connecting tubes. Therefore, the coupling device will be construed as multi-channel block that has a cuboid main body for connecting fluid ports or connecting tubes, and/or 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 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 6 and 10-12 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 6 recites the limitation "the connecting flange ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as “a connecting flange”.
The term “large mounting surface” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large mounting surface” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as “a mounting surface”.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “a size of the heat exchanger”, and the claim also recites “in particular a height of the heat exchanger” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 12, the recitations of “a size of the heat exchanger” and “a height of the heat exchanger” are unclear since the claim already recites “a size of the heat exchanger” and “a height of the heat exchanger”. Therefore, it’s unclear if the size and the height in both recitations are the same or different. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as if the size and the height in both recitations are the same.
Claim 11 is rejected at least insofar as it is dependent on rejected claim(s), and therefore include the same error(s).
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 1-4, 6, 7, 9-13 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by CHIBA (EP 1850076 A2: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, CHIBA teaches a heat exchanger module (1: see Figures 1 and 2) for an air-conditioning system or a heat pump system (see ¶ [0022]), comprising:
a heat exchanger (2) for cooling refrigerant, which is penetrated by a refrigerant channel (channels of 7) for refrigerant,
a collector (3) for drying and storing refrigerant, which is penetrated by a storage channel (space inside 3) for refrigerant (see ¶ [0022]),
a coupling device (4) equipped for the mechanical (30: see Figure 6) and/or fluidic connection (15 and 16) of heat exchanger and collector (See Figure 2), by way of which in an assembled state of the heat exchanger module the heat exchanger is mechanically fixed to the collector and/or the refrigerant channel fluidically connected to the storage channel (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 2, CHIBA further teaches wherein the coupling device (4) is in multiple parts (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 3, CHIBA further teaches wherein the coupling device (4) is arranged sandwich-like between heat exchanger (2) and collector (3: see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, CHIBA further teaches wherein the coupling device (4) has a connecting plate (plate of 32: see Figure 6) comprising at least two openings (15 and 16) and a multi-channel device (21 and 22) arranged on the same (see Figure 2), which comprises a first channel (channel of 21) fluidically connected to a first opening (15) of the at least two openings (15 and 16) and a second channel (channel of 22) fluidically connected to a second opening (16) of the at least two openings (15 and 16: see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, CHIBA further teaches wherein the connecting plate (plate of 32: see Figure 6) is fixed to the collector (3) by soldering or screwing, in particular on the connecting flange (30) of the collector (3: see Figure 6: Examiner notes that the recitation " fixed to the collector by soldering or screwing " is considered product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113)).
Regarding claim 7, CHIBA further teaches wherein the channels (channels of 21 and 22) of the multi channel device (21 and 22) are realised by connecting tubes (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 9, CHIBA further teaches wherein the heat exchanger (2) is arranged on the connecting plate (plate of 32: see Figure 6) and the multi-channel device (21 and 22) in a contacting manner (see Figures 1, 2, and 13), or the heat exchanger is arranged on the multi-channel device in a contacting manner and is contact-free with respect to the connecting plate.
Regarding claim 10, CHIBA further teaches wherein the connecting plate (plate of 32: see Figure 6) has a large mounting surface (inner surface of 32: see Figures 6, 12, and 13) which in the assembled state of the heat exchanger module (1) faces away with respect to the collector (3: see Figures 12 and 13), which is zoned in a first mounting place (24: see Figures 3 and 13) equipped for mounting the heat exchanger (2) and into a second mounting place (23) equipped for mounting the multi-channel device (21 and 22: see Figures 3 and 12), wherein the heat exchanger (2) is touchingly arranged on the first mounting place (24) and fixed to the connecting plate (plate of 32), wherein the multi-channel device (21 and 22) is arranged on the second mounting place (23) and fixed to the connecting plate (plate of 32: see Figure 3 and 12), and- wherein the first opening (15) and the second opening (16) are arranged on the second mounting place (23: see Figure 2 and cf. Figure 3).
Regarding claim 11, CHIBA further teaches wherein the collector (3) in its main extension direction defines a longitudinal centre axis (longitudinal center axis of 3: see Figure 2), - the connecting plate (plate of 32) has a total height (height of 23 and 24) extending parallel to the longitudinal centre axis (see Figures 2 and 3), - the first mounting place (24) has a mounting place height (height of 24) extending parallel to the longitudinal centre axis (see Figures 2 and 3), - the second mounting place (23) has a residual height (height of 23) extending parallel to the longitudinal centre axis (see Figures 2 and 3), - wherein the mounting place height (24), depending on a size of the heat exchanger (2), in particular corresponds to a height of the heat exchanger (2), and- wherein the residual height (height of 23) is defined by the total height (height of 23 and 24) minus the mounting place height (height of 24: see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 12, CHIBA teaches a method for providing a heat exchanger module (1),- providing a heat exchanger module (1) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), - wherein a position of the first opening (15) on the connecting plate (plate of 32) is selected depending on a size of the heat exchanger (2), in particular a height of the heat exchanger (2), - wherein a position of the second opening (16) on the connecting plate (plate of 32) is selected depending on a size of the heat exchanger (2), in particular a height of the heat exchanger (2: see Figures 1 and 2 where the positions of 15 and 16 are selected based on the size of the heat exchanger (2) to be separated via partition 13).
Regarding claim 13, CHIBA teaches a motor vehicle system, in particular an air-conditioning system or a heat pump system (see ¶ [0022]), having at least one heat exchanger module (1) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHIBA (EP 1850076 A2: cited by Applicant) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Gruner (US5896834A).
Regarding claim 5, CHIBA does not teach wherein the collector comprises a connecting flange, which comprises a mounting surface equipped for mounting the connecting plate and a pair of channel grooves for conducting refrigerant, which open out on the mounting surface and are fluidically connected to the storage channel, - wherein the connecting plate, with a large plate surface located opposite with respect to the multi-channel device, is directly arranged on the mounting surface in a contacting manner or subject to interposing a sealing means, and fixed to the connecting flange, so that a first channel groove of the two channel grooves is fluidically connected to the first opening and the first channel and a second channel groove of the two channel grooves is fluidically connected to the second opening and the second channel.
However, it’s old and well known in the art for the heat exchangers to have on their mounting surface a connecting plate and a pair of channel grooves for conducting refrigerant, as evidenced by Gruner, see in Gruner’s Figures 1 and 2 where the mounting surface of the heat exchanger comprises a connecting plate (1) and a pair of channel grooves (21 and 22) that are fluidically connected to a first opening and a second opening (9 and 10).
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 collector of CHIBA with a connecting flange, which comprises a mounting surface equipped for mounting the connecting plate and a pair of channel grooves for conducting refrigerant, which open out on the mounting surface and are fluidically connected to the storage channel, wherein the connecting plate, with a large plate surface located opposite with respect to the multi-channel device, is directly arranged on the mounting surface in a contacting manner or subject to interposing a sealing means, and fixed to the connecting flange, so that a first channel groove of the two channel grooves is fluidically connected to the first opening and the first channel and a second channel groove of the two channel grooves is fluidically connected to the second opening and the second channel, since as evidenced by Gruner, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of redirecting the fluid in and out of the collector from and to the desire location of the opening without using additional piping.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHIBA (EP 1850076 A2: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 8, CHIBA does not teach wherein the multi-channel device has a cuboid main body, the channels of the multi-channel device are realised by bores which penetrate the main body.
However, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the shape of the multi-channel device would result in a difference in function of CHIBA’s device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the shape of CHIBA’s multi-channel device, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed shape. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed shape solves any stated problem and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the shape as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CHIBA’s multi-channel device to have a cuboid main body, the channels of the multi-channel device are realised by bores which penetrate the main body as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights