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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/19/24 is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3-4 and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/2/26.
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 below items must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“at least one connection point formed by two perpendicular portions of the housing” of claim 1 (note that this may be shown depending on resolution of 112b below, the issue is the claim language being unclear and as claimed it not being shown)
“one of the perpendicular portions comprises a bent section forming the connection point by parallel arrangement with the other perpendicular portion” of claim 1 (note that this may be shown depending on resolution of 112b below, the issue is the claim language being unclear and as claimed it not being shown)
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 includes the limitation of :”a pair of manifolds located on both sides of the open ends of the elongated tubes” should properly read (based upon the figures) grammatically as ”a pair of manifolds wherein one is located on each of the opposite sides of the open ends of the elongated tubes”. 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, and 11-12 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 1 is rejected for the limitation of “at least one connection point formed by two perpendicular portions of the housing” as it is unclear to one skilled in the art what connection point tis being claimed. The claim does not limit the perpendicular direction to something nor does it clearly define what is connected. It is unclear if applicant is claiming that there is a connection between two elements perpendicular to each other or if applicant means that one of the two perpendicular elements connects to some other unclaimed element. The specification and drawings do not help clarify this limitation sufficiently to make the claim definite. The perpendicular elements are 102A and 102B which as shown in fig. 3-5 are not connected together directly creating the claimed connection point. The best clarity is provided in paragraph 0034 (PGPUB) where it teaches that each of the perpendicular elements has a connection point with the cover plate, but this isa two connection points, one on either side. Thus creating more confusion as the claim only requires one connection point formed by the two elements with no other element listed in the claim for the connection. The claim will be interpreted as requiring “at least one connection point on at least one of the two perpendicular portions” but does not limit what that is connected to.
Similarly in claim 1 the limitation of “one of the perpendicular portions comprises a bent section forming the connection point by parallel arrangement with the other perpendicular portion”. This language is similarly unclear as the one immediately above. The drawings indicate no bent section in the perpendicular portion (though bent to create the periductular portion form the lower base 104 this does not appear to be the bend claimed), further this limitation does not make it clear how this forms a connection point with the other perpendicular portion or if applicant is claiming it creates a point with an unclaimed element (thus creating confusion). Examiner notes that applicant choose to not elect a housing formed by a single plate with a one connection point (this may have been an unshown embodiment where instead of a cover plate a single plate is wrapped fully around, and if this limitation is to read on that embodiment, then it would be restricted out, thus the claim is assumed to read on the elected invention). The best reading of this is based off paragraph 0036 (PGPub) where the connection point is with the bent section of the cover plate. As applicant has not claimed the cover plat and there is no clear bent section of the perpendicular portion at such in the figures this is unclear in the claim. This section will be interpreted as the following that at least includes some clearly shown structure into the claim “one of the perpendicular portions comprises a section in parallel arrangement with the other perpendicular portion”.
Claim 6 is indefinite for the claim limitation of “the cover plate (element 26) is essentially flat, wherein the cover plate comprises bent sections”. These limitations are effectively at odds with each other requiring a flat structure then requiring bends. Applicant may be trying to claim the flat middle section with bent ends, but as written it requires the entire cover plate to be flat, creating and indefiniteness issue. The claim will be read as requiring a flat middle section and bent ends.
Claims 2, 5-9, and 11-12 are rejected for dependence form one or more of the above rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonnell (U.S. PGPub 2019/0063849) in view of Beetz et al. (U.S. PGPub 2008/0053644).
Regarding claim 1, McDonnell teaches a heat exchanger (element 10), comprising: a bundle of elongated tubes (element 16) comprising open ends (inlet and outlet shown in fig. 2 with flow arrows) for a first fluid (para. 0016); (see objection above for following section) a pair of manifolds (elements 12 and 14) wherein one is located on each of the opposite sides of the open ends of the elongated tubes (per fig. 1-3); a housing (element 18) configured to form a conduit for a second fluid (para. 0016) and at least partially encapsulating the elongated tubes (para. 0016 and fig. 1-3),wherein the housing comprises an inner surface facing the elongated tubes (inner side element 28), at least one connection point (any point where element 50 meets element 30 on either side see fig. 3) on at least one of the two perpendicular portions (elements 30) (see 112b above for previous section); one of the perpendicular portions comprises a section in parallel arrangement with the other perpendicular portion (per fig. 3)(see 112b above for previous section).
McDonnell does not teach the heat exchanger further comprises at least one sealing portion located at least within the housing, so that the sealing portion overlaps at least portion of the connection point adjacent to at least one manifold.
Beetz teaches a heat exchanger (element 1) further comprises at least one sealing portion (element 13; note that this does not fall under 112f as sealing of gaps is well understood by one skilled in the art) located at least within the housing (per fig. 2 & 4) and is adjacent to at least one header (element 6, per fig. 2 & 4). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify McDonnell to include the sealing portion of Beetz as taught inside the housing and as Beetz teaches it wraps around the circumference of the header connection it would overlaps at least portion of the connection point adjacent to at least one manifold as taught by McDonald, the motivation would be to seal between flow channels (para. 0025).
Regarding claim 2, McDonnell teaches the manifold comprises at least one header (element 19) comprising open ends (per fig. fig. 2 & 4) to receive the elongated tubes (as shown in fig. 2 & 4 the tube opening are fed from the headers, note the term “receive” is extremely broad and read on by this structure).
McDonnell does not teach the header is encapsulated by the housing. Beetz further teaches the header is encapsulated by the housing (per fig 2 & 4). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify McDonnell to include the header as taught by Beetz of being inside the housing, the motivation would be to seal between flow channels with the sealing member (para. 0025).
Regarding claim 5, McDonnell teaches the housing is formed by a base portion (element 24) and a cover plate (element 26), wherein the cover plate with base portion forms two connection points (any point along edges where element 26 connects to element 24).
Regarding claim 6, McDonnell teaches the base portion is essentially U-shaped (per fig. 3), and the cover plate is essentially flat, wherein the cover plate comprises bent sections for arranging the connection points be at the terminal ends thereof (per fig. 2-3, note the 112b above and the assumed intended meaning reads on this structure.).
Regarding claim 11, Beetz further teaches the sealing portion is formed by an elongated ring portion (per fig. 2-4). This would be incorporated for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonnell (U.S. PGPub 2019/0063849) in view of Beetz et al. (U.S. PGPub 2008/0053644), and in further view of Dieguez Fortes et al. (U.S. PGPub 2017/0336147) and Shinhama et al. (U.S. PGPub 2010/0025028).
Regarding claim 7, McDonnell does not teach the cover plate comprises at least one separator configured to form a path for the second fluid within the housing, wherein the cover plate further comprises a separator receiver configured to fix the separator perpendicularly to the cover plate.
Dieguez Fortes teaches the heat exchanger includes at least one separator (element 6.5) configured to form a path for the second fluid within the housing (per fig. 20). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify McDonnel to include the separator of Dieguez Fortes between the cover plate and the base portion which aligns with the tubes shown, the motivation would be to maximize the heat transfer distance/time.
McDonnell and Dieguez do not teach the cover plate further comprises a separator receiver configured to fix the separator perpendicularly to the cover plate. Shinhama teaches that a separator (elements D1-D4) is held in place with a separator receiver (element 8a)configured to fix the separator perpendicularly to the cover plate (element 8). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify McDonnel and Dieguez Fortes to include the support system of Shinhama, the motivation would be to easy positioning and securing (para. 0133).
Regarding claim 8, Shinhama further teaches the housing comprises a depletion (7e) configured to receive the free end of the separator in the base portion (element 7). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify McDonnel and Dieguez Fortes to include the support system of Shinhama, the motivation would be to easy positioning and securing (para. 0133).
Regarding claim 9, Dieguez Fortes further teaches the separator comprises a recessed section (6.5.1) configured to form fluid communication between the two-sections of fluid flow within the housing (per fig. 20). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify McDonnel to include the separator of Dieguez Fortes between the cover plate and the base portion which aligns with the tubes shown, the motivation would be to maximize the heat transfer distance/time.
Claim(s) 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonnell (U.S. PGPub 2019/0063849) in view of Beetz et al. (U.S. PGPub 2008/0053644).
Regarding claim 12, McDonnell and Beetz do not teach the sealing portion further comprises a spacer plate protruding therefrom, wherein the spacer plate is located in-between the manifold and the housing.
Schmidt teaches the sealing portion (elements 25 and 39) further comprises a spacer plate (element 39) protruding therefrom (per fig. 2C & D), wherein the spacer plate is located in-between the manifold (element 27) and the housing (element 29). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify McDonnel to further include the spacer plate of Schmidt, the motivation would be better sealing (para. 0025).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL M ATTEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8-5 and Friday 8-10 and 2-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson be reached on (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 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.
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763