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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of the second species or the embodiment of Figure 2 (readable on claims 1 through 3 and 5 through 8) in the reply filed on December 29, 2025 is acknowledged.
Please note that applicant has noted in the aforementioned reply that claims 1 through 3 are generic. However, as previously noted in the Requirement for Restriction/Election mailed on October 29, 2025, only claim 1 and claim 2 as amended are generic because they meets the definition for a generic claim as set forth in MPEP 806.04(d). Claim 3 does not meet the definition of a generic claim because, for example, the species claims do not require all of the limitations of claim 3.
Claims 4, 9, and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to the various non-elected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 29, 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because some of the drawings contain impermissible black shading (i.e., Figures 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8). 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not avoid phrases which can be implied (i.e., “is disclosed”; note that the first sentence of an abstract need not be a complete sentence) and because the term “heat treatment” is used throughout the abstract in a manner not consistent with the common and/or art-accepted meaning of the term (i.e., note that the common and/or art-accepted meaning of “heat treatment” specifically is “a process of heating and cooling metals to achieve desired physical properties of the metals”) without having been redefined. With regard to the latter, it appears that the term “heat treatment” is being used synonymously with the terms “heat transfer” or “heat exchange” or similar by applicant. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Heat Exchange Module with Accumulation Device” or similar.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “heat treatment” is used throughout the specification in a manner not consistent with the common and/or art-accepted meaning of the term without being properly redefined (i.e., note that the common and/or art-accepted meaning of “heat treatment” specifically is “a process of heating and cooling metals to achieve desired physical properties of the metals”). It appears that the term “heat treatment” is being used synonymously with the terms “heat transfer” or “heat exchange”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitations are: accumulation device, heat exchange unit, and expansion member appearing throughout the claims.
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.
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 1 through 3 and 5 through 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 the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For example, the term “heat treatment” is used throughout the claims in a manner not consistent with the common and/or art-accepted meaning of the term without having been redefined as noted in greater detail below. It appears that the use of the term “heat treatment” might be the result of an inaccurate translation, where a more accurate translation might be “heat transfer” or “heat exchange” or similar. Additionally, base claim 1 also recites the limitations “subjected to two different temperature levels in the heat transfer system”, which limitations also appear to the result of an inaccurate translation which is not set forth in standard idiomatically proper English. It may be that applicant is trying to instead recite “subjected to two different temperature ranges in the heat transfer system” or similar, for example, although the exact intended meaning is not clear. Lastly, in claim 8, the limitations “wherein the end piece contributes to the fluidic connection” (emphasis added) are also not recited in standard idiomatically proper English and it is not clear what exactly is intended to be encompassed thereby because the term “contributes” appears in a non-standard context.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “heat treatment” appearing in claim 1 and throughout the claims is used by the claim to mean “heat transfer” or “heat exchange” or similar, while the accepted meaning is “a process of heating and cooling metals to achieve desired physical properties of the metals”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
The term “internal” in claim 1 (and in all claims depending therefrom) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “internal” 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, and it is not clear relative to which element(s) the heat exchanger is internal. Thus, as used to qualify relative location of the “internal heat exchanger”, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claims further indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
The indefinite pronoun “it” appears throughout claim 2, but it is unclear to which previously recited element each occurrence of this pronoun is intended to refer, thus further rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim and by all claims depending therefrom.
There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for the limitation “the end of which” [claim 6, line 4], thus further rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim and by any claims depending therefrom.
The term “upper” in claim 6 (and in claims 7 and 8 depending therefrom) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “upper” 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. Thus, as used to qualify the respective heat exchanger faces and the walls in the claims, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claims further indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Any claim not specifically mentioned stands rejected at least for depending on a rejected claim.
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.
(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.
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claims 1 through 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wittmann et al. (U.S. Pub. No. US 2011/0146318 A1).
With regard to claim 1 of the instant application, Wittmann et al. discloses a heat treatment/heat transfer module 101 for a heat treatment/heat transfer system of a vehicle, the heat treatment/heat transfer module 101 comprising: a first heat exchanger 13, a second heat exchanger 14, and an internal heat exchanger 19, wherein the first heat exchanger 13 and the second heat exchanger 14 both are being configured to bring about an exchange of heat between a refrigerant fluid and a heat transfer liquid (i.e., see at least paragraphs [0025] and [0028] through [0032]), wherein the internal heat exchanger 19 is configured to bring about an exchange of heat between the refrigerant fluid, which is subjected to two different temperature levels/ranges in the heat treatment/heat exchange system, wherein the heat treatment/heat transfer module comprises an accumulation device 16 configured to contain the refrigerant fluid, the internal heat exchanger 19 comprising a platform or support 100 (i.e., see Figure 3 at least) on which the accumulation device 16 is disposed (i.e., see abstract and at least paragraphs [0060] and [0068]).
With regard to claim 2 of the instant application, Wittmann et al. discloses the heat treatment/heat transfer module 101 as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first heat exchanger 13 comprises a first pass (i.e., between points 38 and 39 as shown in Figure 1 or Figure 2) configured for the refrigerant fluid to pass through it and a second pass (i.e., between connections 104 in Figure 1 or Figure 2) configured for the heat transfer liquid to pass through it, the second heat exchanger 14 comprising a first passage (i.e., between points 25 and 26 as shown in Figure 1 or Figure 2) configured for the refrigerant fluid to pass through it and a second passage (i.e., along line 6 in Figure 1 or Figure 2) configured for the heat transfer liquid to pass through it, the internal heat exchanger 19 comprising a first channel (i.e., between points 29 and 30 as shown in Figure 1 or Figure 2) configured for the refrigerant fluid to pass through it at a first temperature and a second channel (i.e., between points 27 and 28 as shown in Figure 1 or Figure 2) configured for the refrigerant fluid to pass through it at a second temperature different than the first temperature.
With regard to claim 3 of the instant application, Wittmann et al. discloses the heat treatment/heat transfer module 101 as claimed in claim 2, wherein at least the first pass of the first heat exchanger 13 and at least the first channel of the internal heat exchanger 19 form a first section configured to cause the refrigerant fluid to circulate at the first temperature.
With regard to claim 5 of the instant application, Wittmann et al. discloses the heat treatment/heat transfer module 101 as claimed in claim 2, the heat treatment module 101 comprising an expansion member (i.e., one of relief members D1-D3 ) at least secured to the first or second heat exchanger 13/14 (i.e., at least indirectly secured thereto via the refrigeration circuit).
The reference thus reads on the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 through 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) 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 of record does not show nor reasonably suggest a heat treatment/heat transfer module which includes, in combination, all of the elements which are structurally and functionally interrelated as recited by claim 6 of the instant application (and by all claims depending therefrom).
Conclusion
The additional related and/or prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LJILJANA V CIRIC whose telephone number is (571)272-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Saturday, flexible.
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.
/Ljiljana V. Ciric/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
LJILJANA (Lil) V. CIRIC
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights