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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 2-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 contains the following issues:
The claim recites that “the outer cylinder and the middle cylinder have an open end on the same side and a closed end on the same side” (emphasis added), without proper antecedent basis. As currently recited, the scope of the claim may be ambiguous as to which specific side(s) are required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the quoted recitation will instead be construed as –the outer cylinder and the middle cylinder have an open end on a same first side and a closed end on a same second side—, to clarify that there are two separate sides, each respectively with the open and closed ends of both cylinders.
Claim 3 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “the same side”, in line 2 of page 2, which raises similar ambiguities as above. For examination purposes, this recitation will be construed as –the same first side—.
The claim recites “the same side”, in line 4 of page 2, which raises similar ambiguities. For examination purposes, this recitation will be construed as –the same first side—.
Claim 6 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “a second baffle”, without a corresponding “first baffle”. It is unclear whether two baffles are required for anticipation or infringement. It is also unclear whether claim 6 was intended to depend on claim 4, instead of claim 2. For examination purposes, the two recitations of “second baffle” in claim 6 will simply be construed as –baffle—.
The claim recites “two second areas”, without corresponding “two first areas”. It is unclear how many of the “two areas” are required for anticipation or infringement. It is also unclear whether claim 6 was intended to depend on claim 4, instead of claim 2. For examination purposes, the three recitations of “two second areas” will simply be construed as –two areas—.
Claim 7 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “a second groove”, without a corresponding “first groove”. It is unclear whether two grooves are required for anticipation or infringement. It is also unclear whether claim 7 was intended to depend on claim 5, instead of claim 6. For examination purposes, the two recitations of “second groove” in claim 7 will simply be construed as –groove—.
The recitation of “second baffle” presents similar issues given claim 6. For examination purposes, the recitation of “second baffle” in claim 7 will be construed as –baffle—.
Claim 8 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “and/or” twice, which renders the scope of the claim unclear. As currently recited, the claim can be ambiguously construed as A and B or C; A and B and C; A or B and C; or A or B or C. For examination purposes, the first recitation of “and/or,” will be omitted, and the second recitation of “and/or,” will be construed as –or,—
Claim 9 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “and/or” twice, which renders the scope of the claim unclear. As currently recited, the claim can be ambiguously construed as A and B or C; A and B and C; A or B and C; or A or B or C. For examination purposes, the first recitation of “and/or,” will be omitted, and the second recitation of “and/or,” will be construed as –or,—
Claim 10 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “and/or” twice, which renders the scope of the claim unclear. As currently recited, the claim can be ambiguously construed as A and B or C; A and B and C; A or B and C; or A or B or C. For examination purposes, the first recitation of “and/or,” will be omitted, and the second recitation of “and/or,” will be construed as –or,—
Claim 11 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “and/or” twice, which renders the scope of the claim unclear. As currently recited, the claim can be ambiguously construed as A and B or C; A and B and C; A or B and C; or A or B or C. For examination purposes, the first recitation of “and/or,” will be omitted, and the second recitation of “and/or,” will be construed as –or,—
Claim 12 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “and/or” twice, which renders the scope of the claim unclear. As currently recited, the claim can be ambiguously construed as A and B or C; A and B and C; A or B and C; or A or B or C. For examination purposes, the first recitation of “and/or,” will be omitted, and the second recitation of “and/or,” will be construed as –or,—
Claim 13 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “and/or” twice, which renders the scope of the claim unclear. As currently recited, the claim can be ambiguously construed as A and B or C; A and B and C; A or B and C; or A or B or C. For examination purposes, the first recitation of “and/or,” will be omitted, and the second recitation of “and/or,” will be construed as –or,—
Claim 14 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “and/or” twice, which renders the scope of the claim unclear. As currently recited, the claim can be ambiguously construed as A and B or C; A and B and C; A or B and C; or A or B or C. For examination purposes, the first recitation of “and/or,” will be omitted, and the second recitation of “and/or,” will be construed as –or,—
Claim 20 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “the gas-liquid separator has a liquid inlet, a liquid outlet, an air inlet and an air outlet’, despite claim 1 from which it depends already reciting the same. It is unclear whether additional inlets and outlets are required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the entire recitation of “the gas-liquid separator has a liquid inlet, […] and the liquid inlet is communicated” in lines 2-3 of the claim, will simply be construed as –wherein the liquid inlet is communicated—.
Any remaining claims are rejected at least by virtue of their dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 15 are allowed. Claims 2-14 and 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action. The prior art, when taken as a whole, neither anticipates nor renders prima facie obvious the claimed invention as recited in at least claim 1. The closest prior art appears to be Liu et al. (CN 113291123 B).1
At best, Liu discloses: a gas-liquid separator (see at least fig. 1) for an air conditioning system of a vehicle (see at least abstract), wherein the gas-liquid separator comprises:
a housing (1) having a liquid inlet (9), a liquid outlet (6), an air inlet (3) and an air outlet (8);
a middle cylinder (2) arranged in the housing (shown in fig. 1), wherein an upper end (e.g., right end) of the middle cylinder (2) is provided with a separation recess (space for 14), a first flow channel (inside 1 and outside 2) is formed between an inner surface of the housing (1) and an outer surface of the middle cylinder (2);
an inner cylinder (4) at least partially accommodated in the middle cylinder (2), wherein a second flow channel (outside 4 and inside 2) is formed between at least part of an outer surface of the inner cylinder (4) and an inner surface of the middle cylinder (2),
However, Liu does not disclose that the first flow channel is configured to communicate the air inlet and the separation recess; that the second flow channel is configured to communicate the separation recess and the air outlet; or that a third flow channel is formed in the inner cylinder, and the third flow channel being configured to communicate the liquid inlet with the liquid outlet.
There are no prior art teachings of record that would otherwise supplement or substitute the teachings of Liu et al. to arrive at the claimed invention. Although other prior art teachings, such as Li et al. (CN 110857824 A)2 appear to provide support for having nested or concentric middle (2) and inner (111) cylinders inside a housing (3), said teachings fail provide support nor motivation for the specific inlets, outlets and flow channels claimed.
Moreover, although one of ordinary skill in the art could consider relying on an “obvious to try” rationale3 for changing the internal connections of the cylinders to arrive at the claimed invention, the reliance on said rationale is admonished4 by the fact that what would be obvious is to vary all possible parameters or try each of numerous possible choices (e.g. completely redesigning the gas-liquid separator) until one possibly arrived at a successful result, since the prior art does not give any explicit indication of which parameters are critical, nor any direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful.
It should also be noted that the intended purpose and operating principles of Liu and Li require the specific arrangement of components, fluid channels, and connections as disclosed and described therein. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any modifications to the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention would be based on improper hindsight, and would render it inoperable for its intended purpose. Assuming arguendo, rearranging and/or replacing the cylinders would change the principles of operation thereof, since it would require completely redesigning the structure of the gas-liquid separators, most likely resulting in unexpected and/or unintended results, which is evidence against a prima facie case of obviousness. Thus, a preponderance of evidence supports the allowability of the claims over the prior art.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIGUEL A DIAZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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 C. 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.
/MIGUEL A DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 Liu et al. was made of record by the Applicant with the IDS filed on April 1, 2024.
2 Li et al. was made of record by the Applicant with the IDS filed on April 1, 2024.
3 See MPEP § 2143 (I) (E).
4 Id., at § 2145 (X) (B).