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 .
Election/Restrictions
An error in the species requirement was discovered. In the interest of customer service the species requirement is withdrawn. Claims 1-20 are examined in their merits in this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a plurality of rectangular components coupled at their adjacent ends at a slight obtuse angle” of claims 12 and 19 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters 15 (in figure 1) and 18 (in figure 2) have both been used to designate the mating interfaces 18 of the cores 12. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 20 and 25 of figured 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0033, line 1, “two ports 18” should read –two ports 22--.
In paragraph 0037, line 4, “support 30” should read –support 13--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 9-10, 13-14, 16, 18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 2-3, 5-6, 9-10, 13-14, 16, 18 and 20, “the plurality of heat exchanger cores” should read –the array of heat exchanger cores--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 12-20 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.
Regarding claims 12 and 19, in lines 2-3 of each, it is unclear a plurality of rectangular components can be coupled at their adjacent ends at a slight obtuse angle. It is known that rectangles do not have obtuse angles the claim is referring to.
For the purpose of this examination, the claims have been interpreted to mean, in lines 2-3:
--a structural support forming an arch comprised of a plurality of components coupled at their adjacent ends at a slight obtuse angle--.
Regarding claim 19, in lines 18-19, it is unclear how the structural support is coupled both mechanically and fluidly to a header via a plurality of tubes, since claim 19 calls for the structural support and the header being a single entity since claim 19 calls for the structural support comprising a plurality of input ports and a plurality of output ports (lines 3-6) being fluidly coupled (that is a header) to the heat exchanger cores through a plurality of input and output ports and through core input and output ports (lines 14-17).
For the purpose of this examination, the limitation “wherein the structural support is coupled both mechanically and fluidly to a header via a plurality of tubes” of claim 19 have not been address in this Office Action based on the 112(b) rejection, above.
Regarding claims 13-18 and 20, the claims are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claims 12 and 19.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. — Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, claim 17 are not requiring the limitations “a structural support with a plurality of mating interfaces, wherein the plurality of first mating interfaces has a plurality of input ports and a plurality of output ports; and an array of heat exchanger cores, wherein each heat exchanger core in the array of heat exchanger cores comprises: one or more second mating interfaces; at least one core input port and at least one core output port…such that the at least one core input port fluidly couples to a first output port in the plurality of output ports and the at least one core output port fluidly couples to a first input port in the plurality of input ports” of claim 1, since claim 17 calls for the structural support being coupled both mechanically and fluidly to a header via a plurality of tubes. This is, claim 17 calls for the structural support and the header being separate entities that are coupled through tubes, while claim 1 calls for the structural support and the header being a single entity since claim 1 calls for the structural support being fluidly coupled (that is a header) to the heat exchanger cores through a plurality of input and output ports and through core input and output ports.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102:
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Staubach et al. (US 2022/0364504A1, herein “Staubach”).
Regarding claim 1, Staubach discloses:
a heat exchanger assembly (20) (figs. 1-7) comprising:
a structural support (34/36) with a plurality of first mating interfaces (inner surfaces 110 of plates 60/64/68/70/68/66/62) (figs. 1A and 4-5),
wherein the plurality of first mating interfaces (inner surfaces 110 of plates 60/64/68/70/68/66/62) has a plurality of input ports (at plenums 58) and a plurality of output ports (annular outwardly openings in plates 60/64/68/70/68/66/62 at transfer plenums 46A/B/C/D/E/F) (figs. 1A and 4-5) [par. 0055-0056]; and
an array (seen in fig. 1) of heat exchanger cores (core of tubes 40, seen in fig. 1A), wherein each heat exchanger core (of tubes 40) in the array of heat exchanger cores comprises:
one or more second mating interfaces (ends 42/44 of tubes 40) (best seen in figs. 1A, 2C);
at least one core input port (at 44) and at least one core output port (at 42) (figs. 1A and 2C) [par. 0047];
wherein each heat exchanger core (core of tubes 40, of fig. 1A) in the array of heat exchanger cores (seen in fig. 1) is rigidly affixed in a removable configuration to the structural support (34/36) by coupling with a face seal [par. 0078] the one or more second mating interfaces (ends 42/44 of tubes 40) with one or more first mating interfaces (inner surfaces 110 of plates 60/64/68/70/68/66/62) from the plurality of first mating interfaces (inner surfaces 110 of plates 60/64/68/70/68/66/62) such that the at least one core input port (at 44) fluidly couples to a first output port in the plurality of output ports (annular outwardly openings in plates 60/64/68/70/68/66/62 at transfer plenums 46A/B/C/D/E/F) and the at least one core output port (at 42) fluidly couples to a first input port in the plurality of input ports (at plenums 58) (seen in figs. 4-5, as it applies to fig. 1A) [par. 0055-0056].
MPEP 2114 II clearly states “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" and “A claim containing a ‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Because Claim 1 fails to further limit the apparatus in terms of structure, but rather only recite further functional limitations, regarding the “in a removable configuration” limitation, the heat exchanger core as taught by Staubach can be removed from the structural support if required.
Regarding claim 2, Staubach discloses:
each heat exchanger core (core of tubes 40, of fig. 1A) in the plurality of heat exchanger cores (of fig. 1) being cantilevered from the structural support (34/36) (fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 3, Staubach discloses:
fasteners being used to couple each heat exchanger core (core of tubes 40, of fig. 1A) in the plurality of heat exchanger cores (of fig. 1) to the structural support (34/36) (since the plates 60/64/68/70/68/66/62 of the support 34/36 may be secured to each other such as by using fasteners, which help couple the plates to the tubes) [par. 0081].
Regarding claim 4, Staubach discloses:
the fasteners being bolts [par. 0081].
Regarding claim 6, Staubach discloses:
each heat exchanger core (core of tubes 40, of fig. 1A) in the plurality of heat exchanger cores (of fig. 1) having two second mating interfaces (fig. 1A depicts three stages of tubes 40, each stage providing a second mating interface).
Regarding claim 7, Staubach discloses:
each of the two second mating interfaces having a core input port (at 44) and a core output port (at 42) (figs. 1A and 2C).
Regarding claim 10, Staubach discloses:
the structural support (34/36) being in the shape of an arc (seen in fig. 1A) and each heat exchanger core (of tubes 40, of fig. 1A) in the plurality of heat exchanger cores (seen in fig. 1) is trapezoid shaped (seen in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Staubach discloses:
each heat exchanger core (of tubes 40, of fig. 1A) in the array of heat exchanger cores (of fig. 1) being identical in construction (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Staubach discloses:
a heat exchanger assembly (20) (figs. 1-7) comprising:
a structural support (the plurality of manifolds 34/36) forming an arch (seen in fig. 1A) comprised of a plurality of
wherein the structural support (34/36) has a plurality of first mating interfaces (inner surfaces 110 of plates 60/64/68/70/68/66/62) (figs. 1A and 4-5),
wherein the plurality of first mating interfaces (inner surfaces 110 of plates 60/64/68/70/68/66/62) has a plurality of input ports (at plenums 58) and a plurality of output ports (annular outwardly openings in plates 60/64/68/70/68/66/62 at transfer plenums 46A/B/C/D/E/F) (figs. 1A and 4-5) [par. 0055-0056]; and
an array (seen in fig. 1) of heat exchanger cores (core of tubes 40, seen in fig. 1A), wherein each heat exchanger core (of tubes 40) in the array of heat exchanger cores comprises:
one or more second mating interfaces (ends 42/44 of tubes 40) (best seen in figs. 1A, 2C);
at least one core input port (at 44) and at least one core output port (at 42) (figs. 1A and 2C) [par. 0047];
wherein each heat exchanger core (core of tubes 40, of fig. 1A) in the array of heat exchanger cores (seen in fig. 1) is rigidly affixed in a removable configuration to the structural support (34/36) by coupling with a face seal [par. 0078] the one or more second mating interfaces (ends 42/44 of tubes 40) with one or more first mating interfaces (inner surfaces 110 of plates 60/64/68/70/68/66/62) from the plurality of first mating interfaces (inner surfaces 110 of plates 60/64/68/70/68/66/62) such that the at least one core input port (at 44) fluidly couples to a first output port in the plurality of output ports (annular outwardly openings in plates 60/64/68/70/68/66/62 at transfer plenums 46A/B/C/D/E/F) and the at least one core output port (at 42) fluidly couples to a first input port in the plurality of input ports (at plenums 58) (seen in figs. 4-5, as it applies to fig. 1A) [par. 0055-0056].
MPEP 2114 II clearly states “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" and “A claim containing a ‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Because Claim 1 fails to further limit the apparatus in terms of structure, but rather only recite further functional limitations, regarding the “in a removable configuration” limitation, the heat exchanger core as taught by Staubach can be removed from the structural support if required.
Regarding claim 13, Staubach discloses:
each heat exchanger core (core of tubes 40, of fig. 1A) in the plurality of heat exchanger cores (of fig. 1) being cantilevered from the structural support (34/36) (fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 14, Staubach discloses:
fasteners being used to couple each heat exchanger core (core of tubes 40, of fig. 1A) in the plurality of heat exchanger cores (of fig. 1) to the structural support (34/36) (since the plates 60/64/68/70/68/66/62 of the support 34/36 may be secured to each other such as by using fasteners, which help couple the plates to the tubes) [par. 0081].
Regarding claim 15, Staubach discloses:
the fasteners being bolts [par. 0081].
Regarding claims 17-18, the claims have not been considered in this Office Action based on the 112(d) rejection, above.
Regarding claim 19, Staubach discloses:
a heat exchanger assembly (20) (figs. 1-7) comprising:
a structural support (the plurality of manifolds 34/36) forming an arch (seen in fig. 1A) comprised of a plurality of
wherein the structural support (34/36) has a plurality of first mating interfaces (inner surfaces 110 of plates 60/64/68/70/68/66/62) (figs. 1A and 4-5),
wherein the plurality of first mating interfaces (inner surfaces 110 of plates 60/64/68/70/68/66/62) has a plurality of input ports (at plenums 58) and a plurality of output ports (annular outwardly openings in plates 60/64/68/70/68/66/62 at transfer plenums 46A/B/C/D/E/F) (figs. 1A and 4-5) [par. 0055-0056]; and
an array (seen in fig. 1) of heat exchanger cores (core of tubes 40, seen in fig. 1A), wherein each heat exchanger core (of tubes 40) in the array of heat exchanger cores comprises:
one or more second mating interfaces (ends 42/44 of tubes 40) (best seen in figs. 1A, 2C);
at least one core input port (at 44) and at least one core output port (at 42) (figs. 1A and 2C) [par. 0047];
wherein each heat exchanger core (core of tubes 40, of fig. 1A) in the array of heat exchanger cores (seen in fig. 1) is rigidly affixed in a removable configuration to the structural support (34/36) by coupling with a face seal [par. 0078] the one or more second mating interfaces (ends 42/44 of tubes 40) with one or more first mating interfaces (inner surfaces 110 of plates 60/64/68/70/68/66/62) from the plurality of first mating interfaces (inner surfaces 110 of plates 60/64/68/70/68/66/62) such that the at least one core input port (at 44) fluidly couples to a first output port in the plurality of output ports (annular outwardly openings in plates 60/64/68/70/68/66/62 at transfer plenums 46A/B/C/D/E/F) and the at least one core output port (at 42) fluidly couples to a first input port in the plurality of input ports (at plenums 58) (seen in figs. 4-5, as it applies to fig. 1A) [par. 0055-0056].
MPEP 2114 II clearly states “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" and “A claim containing a ‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Because Claim 1 fails to further limit the apparatus in terms of structure, but rather only recite further functional limitations, regarding the “in a removable configuration” limitation, the heat exchanger core as taught by Staubach can be removed from the structural support if required.
The limitation “wherein the structural support is coupled both mechanically and fluidly to a header via a plurality of tubes” has not been considered in this Office Action based on the 112(b) rejection, above.
Regarding claim 20, Staubach discloses:
each heat exchanger core (core of tubes 40, of fig. 1A) in the plurality of heat exchanger cores (of fig. 1) being cantilevered from the structural support (34/36) (fig. 1A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103:
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.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staubach.
Regarding claim 8, Staubach discloses:
a header (34/36) being integrated into the structural support (34/36) (fig. 1A) [par. 0046].
The recitation "is created as single piece" is considered to be a product by process limitation (emphasis added). MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even 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 this instance, the header/support structure taught by Staubach is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting this limitation of the claim. Further, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in various pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164, 65 O.G. 1765, 1893 C.D. 659.
Regarding claim 9, the recitation "each heat exchanger core in the plurality of heat exchanger cores is a single piece construction " is considered to be a product by process limitation (emphasis added). MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even 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 this instance, the header/support structure taught by Staubach is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting this limitation of the claim. Further, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in various pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164, 65 O.G. 1765, 1893 C.D. 659.
each heat exchanger core in the plurality of heat exchanger cores is cantilevered from the structural support.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUSTAVO A HINCAPIE SERNA whose telephone number is (571)272-6018. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5:30pm.
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 at 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 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.
/GUSTAVO A HINCAPIE SERNA/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763