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 .
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.
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 1-13 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Claim 1:
Claim 1 recites the broad recitation “between 10 µm and 100 µm”, and the claim also recites “between 50 µm and 100 µm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 2:
Claim 2 recites the broad recitation “between 10 µm and 100 µm”, and the claim also recites “between 50 µm and 100 µm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 9:
Claim 9 recites the broad recitation a “material comprising iron”, and the claim also recites a “material selected from iron Fe0 and a steel” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 11:
Claim 11 recites the broad recitation “between 1 mm and 30 mm”, and the claim also recites “between 1 mm and 2 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1;
The prior art of record teaches various methods of manufacturing double-wall heat exchange structures and diffusion-bonded assemblies, including the use of intermediate layers, coatings, and heat/pressure bonding techniques. For example, Lu et al. (US 2021/0187906) discloses a multilayer steel assembly formed by mechanically pressing multiple steel sheets together and welding the sheet edges prior to subsequent thermal bonding operations. Lu teaches steel alloy layers that contain iron as a constituent of the alloy and may be joined by solid phase bonding. However, the prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest a method including interposing a leaf of elemental iron (Fe0) having a thickness between 10 µm and 100 µm between first and second metallic sheets, followed by the claimed sequence of mechanical pressing, peripheral welding, and hot isostatic pressing.
In particular, the prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest the use of a leaf of elemental iron (Fe0) as the interposed bonding member. While the prior art of record may disclose steel components, steel interlayers, porous metallic structures or other bonding materials, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably motivated, and absent impermissible hindsight, to modify the prior art of record to teach or fairly suggest the use of the specifically claimed elemental iron (Fe0) leaf within the claimed thickness range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Huang (CN 203928838U) discloses a double-wall heat exchange tube having first and second heat exchange tubes with a metallic powder layer disposed therebetween to facilitate heat transfer and reduce thermal stresses within the heat exchanger.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lee Holly whose telephone number is (571)270-7097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 to 5:00 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Lee A Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights