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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the pair of heat transfer plates… provided in the pair of channel plates in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 1-15 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation “a pair of heat transfer plates… provided in the pair of channel plates” which is unclear as to how the plates are in the pair of channel plates. The specification and drawings show the pair of heat transfer plates 11 in figure 6 are on top of the heat transfer plates 40, rather than “in the pair of channel plates”.
Claims 2-15 are rejected as being dependent from claim 1.
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.
Claims 1 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi et al. (US Publication No.: 2021/0398799 hereinafter “Kobayashi”).
With respect to claim 1, Kobayashi discloses a temperature adjustment device (Figs. 1-6) comprising: a pair of channel plates each of (Fig. 2, two plates on top and bottom of 10 with channels 20) which has a front surface and a channel groove provided in at least a part of the front surface (Figs. 4-5, groove 42); a pair of heat transfer plates (Fig. 6, heat transfer plates 11) that respectively faces the channel grooves respectively (Fig. 6, 11 is on top of 40 and channel 20) provided in the pair of channel plates (Fig. 6); a seal member that seals a boundary between the front surface of each of the channel plates and each of the heat transfer plates (Fig. 6, seal 47); a spacer member arranged to face back surfaces of the channel plates and arranged in at least a part of a region immediately below the seal member (Fig. 6, spacer member 41 has a region 41b that is below seal member 47); and a fastening member that fastens the pair of channel plates and the pair of heat transfer plates in an overlapped state (Fig. 7, bolt 60 and nut 61 fasten the pair of plates), wherein the spacer member has higher compressive strength than the channel plates (Para 0049).
With respect to claim 9, Kobayashi discloses the temperature adjustment device according to claim 1 as discussed above. Kobayashi also discloses wherein the spacer member is made of resin or metal (Para 0049).
With respect to claim 10, Kobayashi discloses the temperature adjustment device according to claim 1 as discussed above. Kobayashi also discloses wherein a plurality of the spacer members is provided along the seal member (Fig. 6, spacers 41 are next to or along seals 47).
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 (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 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US Publication No.: 2021/0398799 hereinafter “Kobayashi”) in view of Ohkubo et al. (US Publication No.: 2003/0172657 hereinafter “Ohkubo”).
With respect to claims 2-3, Kobayashi discloses the temperature adjustment device according to claim 1 as discussed above. Kobayashi does not disclose further comprising regulation members that are arranged on opposite sides of the channel plates with respect to the heat transfer plates and regulate an increase in an interval between the pair of heat transfer plates, wherein the fastening member fastens the regulation members together with the pair of channel plates and the pair of heat transfer plates (as per claim 2) further comprising a spring member that biases the pair of heat transfer plates in a direction in which the interval between the pair of heat transfer plates is shortened (as per claim 3)
Ohkubo teaches adding springs as regulation members (Fig. 1, spring 64). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the bolts of Kobayashi with the regulation members as taught by Ohkubo to aid in absorbing dimensional reduction due to plastic deformation (Para 0016 and 0038).
With respect to claim 11, Kobayashi and Ohkubo teach the temperature adjustment device according to claim 2 as discussed above. Ohkubo also teaches wherein the regulation member includes a base portion arranged in a manner of facing one of the heat transfer plates with a space (Fig. 1, base portion 52 is spaced from 61a), and a leg portion extending from the base portion toward the heat transfer plate (Fig. 1, leg portion of the spring 62 that extends towards 61a), and the leg portion extends in a direction in which the pair of channel plates and the pair of heat transfer plates overlap each other (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 12, Kobayashi and Ohkubo teach the temperature adjustment device according to claim 3 as discussed above. Ohkubo also teaches wherein the fastening member is inserted into the spring member (Fig. 1, bolt 62 is inserted into spring 64).
With respect to claim 13, Kobayashi and Ohkubo teach the temperature adjustment device according to claim 11 as discussed above. Ohkubo also teaches further comprising a spring member that biases the pair of heat transfer plates in a direction in which the interval between the pair of heat transfer plates is shortened (Fig. 1, springs 64 compress plates 61), wherein the spring member is arranged between the base portion of the regulation member (Fig. 1, spring 64 is between base on 61a and 65) and the heat transfer plate arranged in a manner of facing the base portion (Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 and 14-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the independent claims, and specifically does not show the size of the space member cross-sectional area compared to a cross-sectional area of the region immediately below the seal member. The closest prior art of record Kobayashi discloses a space member, but not a cross-sectional area compared to a cross-sectional area below the seal member. Although it is well known to provide space members between plates, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the prior art to incorporate a cross-sectional area of a spacer member relative to an area below a seal member as claimed. Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in claims 4-6.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE E ROJOHN III whose telephone number is (571)270-5431. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 M-F.
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.
/CLAIRE E ROJOHN III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763