Detailed Action1
America Invents Act Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses. Thus, the reference characters such as “P”, “Q”, “R”, “S”, “X”, and “Y” should be enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 1 and 2 are further objected to because of an informality: “a second set of flow passage which is not …“ should be changed to “a second set of flow passages which are not …“.
Appropriate correction is required.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention
Claims 2 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites there is no space between the flat plate R for upper surface and the flat plate S for lower surface in a portion where the processed portion is not present but only the spacer X is present between the flat plate R for upper surface and the flat plate S for lower surface. As taught by Applicant’s originally filed figures (specifically figure 9B), there is no portion of the first flow passage plate where only spacer X is present between plates R & S (see fig. 9B wherein a portion of processed flat plate Q is always present between the plates R & S). The examiner provides a recommendation to amend this limitation in the 112b rejections, below.
Claims 6-8 are rejected for depending from claim 2.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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 1-8 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites bringing a main surface of a flat plate R for upper surface and the main surface of the processed flat plate Q into close contact with each other so as to form, between the flat plate R for upper surface and the processed flat plate Q, a first set of flow passages for flowing a first fluid that are formed at the processed portion, and joining together the main surfaces of the flat plate R for upper surface and the processed flat plate Q, thereby obtaining a first flow passage plate in lines 8-9. The examiner notes that reference characters used in the claims do not affect the scope of the claim. Thus, it is unclear if the main surface and flat plate are referring to a plate identical to that as the main surface and flat plate introduced in line 4, or if a different plate is being introduced. The following phrase, used three times, is also awkwardly written so as to be confusing: “for upper surface”.
In addition, the phrase “close contact” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” 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.
Further, the following phrase is awkwardly written: “for flowing a first fluid that are formed at the processed portion”.
The examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite: “bringing a second main surface of an upper flat plate (R) into contact with the main surface of the processed flat plate (Q) so as to form a first set of flow passages for flowing a first fluid between the upper flat plate (R) and the processed flat plate (Q), the first set of flow passages formed partially by the processed portion, and joining together the main surfaces of the upper flat plate (R) and the processed flat plate (Q), thereby obtaining a first flow passage plate”.
Claim 1 recites to form recesses at the main surface in lines 18-19. It is unclear what main surface this limitation is referring to since multiple main surfaces have been introduced. The examiner recommends changing the main surface of the first flow passage plate to “a third main surface of the first flow passage plate”. This will make subsequent references to one of the three main surfaces clear.
Clam 1 recites which is a portion having the recesses formed therein in the eighth to last line. It is unclear which recesses this limitation is referring to since multiple recesses have been introduced. The examiner recommends changing the recesses in line 18 to “second recesses”. This will make subsequent references to one of the recesses clear.
Claim 1 also recites stacking thus formed second flow passage plates on top of each other in the seventh to last line. Since the claim previously only produces one second flow passage plate, it is unclear how multiple second flow passage plates are “thus formed”. The examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite: “stacking a plurality of the second flow passage plates on top of each other”.
Claim 3 recites preparing a flat plate-like spacer Y. it is unclear if this spacer is the same as the spacers introduced in claim 1, or is introducing a second spacer. If referring to the spacers of claim 1, the examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite: “preparing the spacers such that they have a flat plate-like shape and do not have a portion in contact … “.
Claim 3 also recites “close contact”. The phrase “close contact” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” 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.
Also referring to claim 3, to eliminate confusion, the examiner recommends amending the stacking step as follows: “stacking, on top of each other and in this order, the one of the plurality of second flow passage plates, a first one of the spacers, the another of the plurality of second flow passage plates, and a second one of the spacers”.
Regarding claim 4, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the spacer X in the first joining process, and the flat plate S for lower surface. The examiner recommends amending this claim to recite something similar to: wherein, in the first joining process, the upper flat plate (R) and the processed flat plate (Q) are joined together by diffusion bonding.
Claim 2 recites a flat plate R for upper surface and a flat plate S for lower surface, and then joining together main surfaces of the flat plate R for upper surface, the processed flat plate Q, the spacer X, and the flat plate S for lower surface so that there is no space between the flat plate R for upper surface and the flat plate S for lower surface in a portion where the processed portion is not present but only the spacer X is present between the flat plate R for upper surface and the flat plate S for lower surface. The examiner notes that reference characters used in the claims do not affect the scope of the claim. Thus, it is unclear if the main surface and flat plate are referring to a plate identical to that as the main surface and flat plate introduced in line 4, or if a different plate is being introduced. Further, the phrases “for upper surface” and “for lower surface” are awkward and unclear. In addition, it is unclear how no space can be present between the flat plates R & S.
The examiner recommends amending this limitation as follows: “an upper flat plate (R) and a lower flat plate (S), and then joining together main surfaces of the upper flat plate (R), the processed flat plate (Q), the spacer (X), and the lower flat plate (S) so that there is no empty space between the upper flat plate (R) and the lower flat plate (S) in a portion where the processed portion is not present but only the spacer (X) and a non-processed portion of the processed flat plate (Q) is present between the upper flat plate (R) and the lower flat plate (S).”
Claim 2 also recites to form recesses at the main surface, thereby obtaining a second flow passage plate including in its main surface a plastically deformed portion which is a portion having the recesses formed therein. It is unclear what main surface the first clause of this limitation is referring to since multiple main surfaces have been introduced. In addition, it is unclear which recesses the second clause of this limitation is referring to since multiple recesses have been introduced. The examiner recommends amending this limitation as follows: “to form second recesses at the main surface of the first flow passage plate, thereby obtaining a second flow passage plate including in its main surface a plastically deformed portion which is a portion having the second recesses formed therein.”
Claim 2 also recites stacking thus formed second flow passage plates on top of each other. Since the claim previously only produces one second flow passage plate, it is unclear how multiple second flow passage plates are “thus formed”. The examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite: “stacking a plurality of the second flow passage plates on top of each other”.
Claim 2 recites spacers in the fifth to last line. It is unclear if this is referring to the previously introduced spacer, or is introducing second spacers.
Claims 2 and 6 each recite close contact. The phrase “close contact” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” 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.
Claim 6 also recites preparing a flat plate-like spacer Y processed so as not to have a portion in contact with the plastically deformed portion even after a main surface of the flat plate-like spacer and the main surface of its corresponding second flow passage plate are brought into close contact with each other. It is unclear if spacer Y is referring to the spacers introduced in the second joining process of claim 2. To eliminate confusion, the examiner recommends amending the preparing and stacking steps of claim 6 as follows:
preparing the second spacers so that they have a flat plate-like shape and do not have a portion in contact with the plastically deformed portion even after a main surface of the second spacers and the main surface of respective second flow passage plates are brought into contact with each other; and
stacking, on top of each other and in this order, the one of the plurality of second flow passage plates, one of the second spacers (Y), the another of the plurality of second flow passage plates, and a second one of the second spacers (Y).
Claims 5 and 7-8 are rejected for depending from one of claims 1 and 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest the plastic working process that forms recesses on a main surface of the first flow passage plate such that the plastic working deforms the first set of flow passages, in combination with the other limitations of claims 1 and 2, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Sunil Singh (571-272-3460). 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.