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 .
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 limitation(s) is/are: “blocking element” in claim 1 and 8. The claim limitation uses a generic placeholder “element” that is coupled with functional language “blocking” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function. The generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier in claims 1 and 8.
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.
According to paragraph 0035 in the publication or page 11-13 of the specification, and Fig. 2, The corresponding structure of the “blocking element” is an extension of a corrugation.
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
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong (KR 10-2013-0047825 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hong discloses a plate (100, Fig. 5) for a heat exchanger (Fig. 4), the plate comprising:
a peripheral rib (a periphery edge of the plate 100 and it appears as a rib in Fig. 4) defining a boundary of the plate (a boundary having two straight opposite sides and two round opposite sides in Fig. 5); and
a plurality of corrugations (150) formed within the peripheral rib of the plate (within the periphery edge),
wherein the corrugations formed on the plate in conjunction with corrugations formed on adjacent overlapping plates (corrugations 150 a middle plate 100 in Fig. 4 contact corrugations 150 in adjacent plates above and below the middle plate) define first fluid flow passages “A” and second fluid flow passages “B” on opposite sides of the plate (a black arrow flow over the middle plate, and a gray arrow flow under the middle plate),
wherein the second fluid flow passages “B” are adjacent to the first fluid flow passages “A” (the black arrow flow over the middle plate and the gray arrow flow under the middle plate are adjacent),
wherein a first set of inlet and outlet holes (openings 111 on opposite diagonal ends of the middle plate) define a first inlet and outlet that are in fluid communication with the first fluid passages “A” (the openings 111 supply and collect the black arrow flow over the middle plate), and
wherein a second set of inlet and outlet holes (openings 121 on another opposite diagonal ends of the middle plate) define a second inlet and outlet that are in fluid communication with the second fluid passages “B” (the openings 121 supply and collect the gray arrow flow under the middle plate),
wherein at least one of the plates comprises at least one blocking element (interception portions S1, Fig. 5, as extensions of the corrugations 150 to block spacing portions S2) formed on the plate (100) and adapted to at least partially block a gap between at least one corrugation of the plurality of corrugations and the peripheral rib (that blocks corrugations 150 with the spacing portions S2),
wherein the corrugations are angular corrugations (corrugations 150 have an angle with the straight edge of the plate 100) that converge on a central axis "C" of the plate from the peripheral rib (the corrugations converge on a central axis in an annotated figure 5 below), and
wherein the at least one blocking element extends from the peripheral rib till an extreme end of the angular corrugations converging on the central axis "C" of the plate (the interception portions S1 extend from the straight periphery edge till an extreme end of the corrugations 150 defining the spacing portions S2, see “extension” in the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
961
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Hong in claim 1 further discloses wherein the blocking element extends from at least one of the adjacent plates (the interception portions S1 of a plate extend from a contact point of at least one of the adjacent plates, see cross-section of the interception portion S1 in Fig. 6), and wherein the blocking element is adapted to at least partially block a gap between an extreme end of at least one corrugation of the plurality of corrugations and a corresponding peripheral rib formed on one of the adjacent plates (the interception portion S1 blocks a gap between the extreme end and the rib in annotated figure 6 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
465
837
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Hong in claim 1 further discloses wherein the blocking element is inclined towards the corrugations (the interception portions S1 is inclined towards the corrugations 150) and directs fluid to the fluid flow passages defined by the corrugations (the interception portions S1 blocks the spacing portions S2 and directs the fluid to an open space around the corrugations in the passage).
Regarding claim 8, Hong discloses a heat exchanger (Fig. 4) comprising:
a plurality of plates (plurality of plates 100, Fig. 4) stacked overlapping with respect to each other (Fig. 4),
each plate (100) comprising:
a peripheral rib (a periphery edge of the plate 100 and it appears as a rib in Fig. 4) defining a boundary of the plate (a boundary having two straight opposite sides and two round opposite sides in Fig. 5);
a plurality of corrugations (150) formed on a plate (middle plate in Fig. 4) in conjunction with corrugations (150) on an adjacent overlapping plate (a plate below the middle plate in Fig .4), which together define first fluid flow passages “A” and second fluid flow passages “B” on opposite sides of the plate (the black arrow flow over the middle plate and the gray arrow flow under the middle plate),
wherein the second fluid flow passages “B” are adjacent to the first fluid flow passages “A” (the black arrow flow and the gray arrow flow are adjacent);
a first (openings 111 on opposite diagonal ends of the middle plate) and second set of inlet and outlet holes (openings 121 on another opposite diagonal ends of the middle plate),
a first inlet and outlet defined by the first set of inlet and outlet holes (the openings 111),
wherein the first inlet and outlet are in fluid communication with the first fluid flow passages for ingress and egress of first fluid with respect to the first fluid passages “A” (the openings 111 supply and collect the black arrow flow over the middle plate); and
a second inlet and outlet defined by the second set of inlet and outlet holes (the openings 121),
wherein the second inlet and outlet are in fluid communication with the second fluid flow passages for ingress and egress of second fluid with respect to the second fluid passages “B” (the openings 121 supply and collect the gray arrow flow under the middle plate),
wherein at least one of the plates comprises at least one blocking element (interception portions S1, Fig. 5, as extensions of the corrugations 150 to block spacing portions S2) formed on the plate (100) and adapted to at least partially block a gap between at least one corrugation of the plurality of corrugations and the peripheral rib (that blocks corrugations 150 with the spacing portions S2),
wherein the corrugations are angular corrugations (corrugations 150 have an angle with the straight edge of the plate 100) that converge on a central axis "C" of the plate from the peripheral rib (the corrugations converge on a central axis in an annotated figure 5 above), and
wherein the at least one blocking element extends from the peripheral rib till an extreme end of the angular corrugations converging on the central axis "C" of the plate (the interception portions S1 extend from the straight periphery edge till an extreme end of the corrugations 150 defining the spacing portions S2, see “extension” in the annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 9, Hong in claim 8 further discloses wherein the first inlet and outlet are defined by aligning a first set of inlet and outlet holes formed on the respective adjacent plates (see the diagonal openings 111 are aligned in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Hong in claim 8 further discloses wherein the second inlet and outlet are defined by aligning the second set of inlet and outlet holes formed on the respective adjacent plates (see the diagonal openings 121 are also aligned in Fig. 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FOR K LING whose telephone number is (571)272-8752. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 am to 5 pm.
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 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.
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/F.K.L/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights