DETAILED ACTION
Amendments filed on 11/21/2025 have been entered.
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 .
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.
Claim limitations:
Segment of claim 9, the claim limitation “connection unit” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholders “unit” coupled with functional language “providing a fluid connection” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 9 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“connection unit” has been interpreted to be a pipe.
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 § 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 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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duerr (US 10,625,572 B2).
Claim 1: Duerr discloses a heat treatment module for a heat treatment system of a vehicle, the heat treatment module (FIG.6) comprising:
a first heat exchanger (2),
a second heat exchanger (3), and
an internal heat exchanger (17),
wherein the first heat exchanger (2) and the second heat exchanger (3) both are configured to create an exchange of heat between a refrigerant and a heat transfer liquid (intended use/functional language), wherein the internal heat exchanger (17) is configured to create an exchange of heat within the refrigerant (intended use/functional language), which in the heat treatment system is subjected to two different temperature levels (to clarify, exchanging heat occurs between two different temperature in heat transfer process), wherein the heat treatment module comprises
an expansion member (5) that is at least secured to the first heat exchanger (2) and/or the second heat exchanger (3) (to clarify, valve 5 fluidly connected to heat exchanger 2),
wherein the first heat exchanger (2) comprises a first pass (a section of flow section 12 inside heat exchanger 2 used as first pass) configured for the refrigerant to pass through it, a second pass (a section of flow section 13 inside heat exchanger 2 used as second pass) configured for the heat transfer liquid to pass through it (intended use/functional language), and is configured to condense the refrigerant prior to the expansion member (5),
wherein the second heat exchanger (3), downstream of the expansion member (5), comprising a first passage (a section of flow section 12 inside evaporator region 3 used as first passage) configured for the refrigerant to pass through it, and a second passage (a section of flow section 14 inside evaporator region 3 used as second passage) configured for the heat transfer liquid to pass through it (intended use/functional language), and is configured to cool the heat-transfer liquid and at least partially evaporate expanded refrigerant (functional language of evaporator region 3),
wherein the internal heat exchanger (17) comprising a first channel (a section of flow section 12 inside of internal heat exchanger 17 used as first channel; to clarify, flow sections 12/14 are in counter flow to exchange heat in section of internal heat exchanger 17) configured for the refrigerant to pass through it at a first temperature (intended use/functional language) and a second channel (a section of flow section 14 inside internal heat exchanger 17 used as second channel) configured for the refrigerant to pass through it at a second temperature different than the first temperature (intended use/functional language), and is configured to exchange heat between refrigerant at the first temperature (functional language of internal heat exchanger 17) and refrigerant at the second temperature, wherein at least one of the first and second heat exchangers (2/3) is stacked (to clarify, heat exchangers 2/17/3 are stacked in this order; see FIG.5) with the internal heat exchanger (17),
wherein at least the first pass (a section of flow section 12 inside 2) of the first heat exchanger (2) and at least the first channel ( a section of flow section 12 inside 17) of the internal heat exchanger (17) form a first section (to clarify, a section of flow section 12 inside 2 and a section of flow section 12 inside 17 forming a first section) configured to cause the refrigerant to circulate at the first temperature (functional language), and
wherein at least the first passage (a section of flow section 12 inside 3) of the second heat exchanger (f3) and at least the second channel (a section of flow section 14 inside 17) of the internal heat exchanger (17) form a second section (to clarify, a section of flow section 12 inside 3 and a section of flow section 14 inside 17 forming a second section) configured to cause the refrigerant to circulate at the second temperature (functional language).
Claim 5: Duerr discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 4, wherein the expansion member (5) separates the first section from the second section within the heat treatment module (preamble; FIG.6).
Claim 6: Duerr discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first heat exchanger (2) and the second heat exchanger (3) each comprise
a heat exchange unit (1) at the end of which is positioned an upper wall (left wall of condenser region 2 used as upper wall) for the first heat exchanger (2) and an upper face (right face of evaporator region 3 used as upper face) for the second heat exchanger (3) wherein the expansion member (5) positioned at the upper wall of the first heat exchanger (2) and/or the upper face of the second heat exchanger,
wherein the upper wall of the first heat exchanger (2) and the upper face of the second heat exchanger (3) are arranged opposite (to clarify, left wall and right face are opposite of internal heat exchanger 17) the internal heat exchanger (17) with respect to the heat exchange unit of at least one of the heat exchangers.
Claim 8: Duerr discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first heat exchanger (2) and the second heat exchanger (3) form an assembly, wherein the expansion member (5) is positioned within a space (to clarify, space does not have certain measured dimensions or boundary; valve 5 is between 2/3 in order of fluid flow) interposed between the assembly formed by the heat exchangers (2/3) and the internal heat exchanger (17).
Claim 9: Duerr discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 8, wherein the space houses a connection unit providing a fluid connection (based on broadest reasonable interpretation, pipe within region 20 used as connection unit) between the first pass (flow section 12 used as first pass) of the first heat exchanger (2) and the first channel (flow section 12 of internal heat exchanger 17 used as first channel; to clarify, flow sections 12/14 are in counter flow to exchange heat in section of internal heat exchanger 17) of the internal heat exchanger (17).
Claim 10: Duerr discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 8, wherein the space houses at least one connection element (based on broadest reasonable interpretation, region 20 used as connection element) contributing to a fluid connection between the first passage (flow section 12 of evaporator region 3 used as first passage) of the second heat exchanger (3) and the second channel (flow section 14 of internal heat exchanger 17 used as second channel) of the internal heat exchanger (17).
Claim 11: Duerr discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 8, wherein the expansion member (5) provides a direct fluid connection (to clarify, valve 5 fluidly connects the heat exchangers and the channels/passages) between the first channel (flow section 12 of internal heat exchanger 17 used as first channel; to clarify, flow sections 12/14 are in counter flow to exchange heat in section of internal heat exchanger 17) of the internal heat exchanger (17) and the first passage (flow section 12 of evaporator region 3 used as first passage) of the second heat exchanger (3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duerr (US 10,625,572 B2).
Claim 7: Duerr discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 6, wherein the expansion member (5) providing provides a direct fluid connection between the first heat exchanger (2) and the first passage (flow section 12 of evaporator region 3 used as first passage) of the second heat exchanger (3).
Duerr discloses the claimed limitations in claim 7, but lacks the first heat exchanger comprises an additional pass. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Duerr to include an additional pass in order to enhance heat exchange of refrigerant, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a known device involves only routine skill in the art Duplication of parts: MPEP 2144.04 VI-B.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/21/2025, with respect to all the claims under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 & 103 have been fully considered and they are moot, because a new reference used in this office action above, in response to the applicant’s new amendments. Applicant’s arguments to new features and amendments are addressed in this office action. Therefore, a new ground(s) of rejections have been made in response to the amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMRAN TAVAKOLDAVANI whose telephone number is (313)446-6612. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
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 on (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 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.
/KAMRAN TAVAKOLDAVANI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763