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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/16/2024, 11/05/24, 06/02/25, 3/23/26. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner EXCEPT for the items marked on each as not considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 7/16/24 partially fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the copy of JP 304138 includes no translation or statement of relevance (note that applicant may have intended to include a copy of the abstract translation but such was NOT provided, merely an English coversheet). This reference has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
The information disclosure statement filed 6/2/25 partially fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the English translation sections provided of : JP H04179756 and JP H10328232 appear to be for different applications. Thus no translation or statement of relevance (note that applicant may have intended to include a copy of the abstract translation but such was NOT provided). This reference has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
The information disclosure statement filed 3/23/26 partially fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the English translation sections provided of : JP 05164492, JP 08178557, and JP 09138089 appear to be for different applications. Thus no translation or statement of relevance (note that applicant may have intended to include a copy of the abstract translation but such was NOT provided). This reference has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Election/Restrictions
Claim 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/16/26.
It is also noted that applicant elected species A-IV of Fig. 3E in this same response, this elected resulted in no claims being withdrawn.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 term “corresponds to” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “corresponds to” 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. One skilled in the art is not given a clear understanding of what corresponding to requires in the claim, whether it is equal to, within 10%, or 30%, whether greater or lesser matter. This limitation provides no clear meaning for equivalence in the claim. For examination any size will read on the claim requirement.
The term “substantially circular basic shape” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. The claim will be examined as anything with a curvature reading on the limitation.
Claim 16 is rejected as not having a clear limitation due to “the first one of the channel plate stacks (1) and, fluidically separate therefrom, the second one of the channel plate stacks are fluidically connected in series or in parallel” having unclear grammar. Thus it is unclear if the claim is trying to provide a limitation for the first channel stack and different limitation for the second stack or a limitation for the combination of the two. The claim will be examined as “the first one of the channel plate stacks and the second one of the channel plate stacks are fluidically separate therefrom”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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(s) 1-2, 4-8, 11-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niggemann et al. (U.S. Patent 4,880,055; hereafter Niggemann ‘055) in view of Bungo et al. (U.S. PGPub 2019/0024986).
Regarding claim 1, Niggemann ‘055 teaches a plate heat exchanger (elements 36) for a refrigerant circuit (It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Thus the intended use of “for a refrigerant circuit” in the claim does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 MPEP 2214 (II), the prior art is capable of the stated use; examiner further notes that the recitation that “for a refrigerant circuit” has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. MPEP 2111.02) having channel plates (elements 96,98,99) with channel-forming cut-outs (channels shown in figures 4 & 5 with the shown flow) of which at least two of the channel plates are in each case arranged into channel plate stacks (the stacks shown in fig. 4-5), forming at least one channel ( flow path for 27 or 28 shown in Fig. 4& 5 through the plates), wherein a first one of the channel plate stacks (the stack of 96, 98, 99 between element 38 and element 100 for fluid 27 in Fig. 4) for a first fluid and a second one of the channel plate stacks (the stack of 96, 98, 99 between element 100 and element 48 for fluid 28 in Fig. 5) for a second fluid are stacked alternatingly between two cover plates (element 38 and 48) with separating plates (elements 100) arranged therebetween to separate opposing ones of the at least one channel (per Fig. 4-5), at least one of the two cover plates has fluid connections (element 40, 42,50,54) for the first fluid and/or the second fluid.
Niggemann ‘055 does not teach wherein each of the channel-forming cut-outs of at least one of the channel plates of the first one of the channel plate stacks and the second one of the channel plate stacks has at least one stabilizing bridge oriented transversely to the at least one channel. Bungo teaches the channel-forming cut-outs (elements 1) of at least one of the channel plates (elements 4) of the channel plate stacks (fig. 5/6) has at least one stabilizing bridge (element 3, it is notes that the presence of a solid structure inherently adds stabilization as it prevent flexure) oriented transversely to the at least one channel (per fig. 5/6). It would have been oblivious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Niggemann ‘055 to include the ribs (stabilizing bridge) in at least one of the channel plates of the first one of the channel plate stacks and the second one of the channel plate stacks, the motivation would be for temperature distribution (col. 1, ln 43-48).
Regarding claim 2, Niggemann ‘055 does not expressly teach the channel plates are formed from aluminum. The use of aluminum is well-known in the art for heat exchanger plates. Bungo for example teaches the use of aluminum for heat exchanger plates with channels ( para.0029), thus using such for Niggemann ‘055 would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing, the motivation would be to use a metal that has good heat transfer and workability.
Regarding claim 4, Niggemann ‘055 teaches the first one of the channel plate stacks and the second one of the channel plate stacks are each formed with multiple stacked ones of the channel plates (per fig. 4 and 5).
Niggemann ‘055 does not teach wherein each second one of the channel plates has the at least one stabilizing bridge oriented transversely to the at least one channel. Bungo teaches the channel-forming cut-outs (elements 1) of at least one of the channel plates (elements 4) of the channel plate stacks (fig. 5/6) has at least one stabilizing bridge (element 3, it is notes that the presence of a solid structure inherently adds stabilization as it prevent flexure) oriented transversely to the at least one channel (per fig. 5/6). It would have been oblivious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Niggemann ‘055 to include the ribs (stabilizing bridge) such that each second one of the channel plates has the at least one stabilizing bridge oriented transversely to the at least one channel, the motivation would be for temperature distribution (col. 1, ln 43-48), wherein each second one of the channel plates has the at least one stabilizing bridge oriented transversely to the at least one channel.
Regarding claim 5, Niggemann ‘055 does not teach each of the channel plates of the first one of the channel plate stacks and the second one of the channel plate stacks has the at least one stabilizing bridge oriented transversely to the at least one channel, wherein the at least one of the stabilizing bridge of each of the channel plates stacked on top of one another are offset along a course of the at least one channel. Bungo teaches the channel-forming cut-outs (elements 1) of at least one of the channel plates (elements 4) of the channel plate stacks (fig. 5/6) has stabilizing bridges (elements 3, it is notes that the presence of a solid structure inherently adds stabilization as it prevent flexure) oriented transversely to the at least one channel (per fig. 5/6) and are offset (per fig. 11). It would have been oblivious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Niggemann ‘055 to include the ribs (stabilizing bridge) as claimed, the motivation would be for temperature distribution (col. 1, ln 43-48).
Regarding claim 6, Niggemann ‘055 does not teach the at least one stabilizing bridge of each of the channel-forming cut-outs of one of the channel plates has a width that corresponds at least to a width of the at least one channel formed. Bungo teaches the at least one stabilizing bridge of each of the channel-forming cut-outs of one of the channel plates has a width that corresponds at least to a width of the at least one channel formed (per figures the same width). It would have been oblivious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Niggemann ‘055 to include the ribs (stabilizing bridge) as claimed, the motivation would be for temperature distribution (col. 1, ln 43-48).
Regarding claim 7, Niggemann ‘055 teaches the channel plates each have multiple ones of the channel-forming cut-outs (per fig. 4 and 5), wherein each of the channel-forming cut-outs forms a channel structure with multiple individual ones of the at least one channel (per fig. 4-5).
Niggemann does not teach wherein each of the multiple individual ones of the at least one channel has the at least one stabilizing bridge oriented transversely to the multiple individual ones of the at least one channel. Bungo teaches the channel-forming cut-outs (elements 1) of at least one of the channel plates (elements 4) of the channel plate stacks (fig. 5/6) has stabilizing bridges (elements 3, it is notes that the presence of a solid structure inherently adds stabilization as it prevent flexure) oriented transversely to the at least one channel (per fig. 5/6) and are offset (per fig. 11). It would have been oblivious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Niggemann ‘055 to include the ribs (stabilizing bridge) as claimed, the motivation would be for temperature distribution (col. 1, ln 43-48).
Regarding claim 8, Niggemann ‘055 teaches the multiple individual ones of the at least one channel of the channel structure are spaced in parallel (per fig. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 11, Niggemann ‘055 does not teach the channel plates, the separating plates, and the two cover plates each have multiple corresponding bushings for screws or bolts. Bungo teaches the plates of a stacked heat exchanger have bushing holes (7,8,9) for bolts/screws. It would have been oblivious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Niggemann ‘055 to include bushings of Bungo in the plates as claimed, the motivation would be to connect and secure the plates together.
Regarding claim 12, Niggemann ‘055 teaches the channel-forming cut- outs have a shape that forms the at least one channel with an at least partially serpentine course (per fig. 4 and 5, note how the flow travels back and forth at location thus reading on thus reasonably reading on this broad limitation).
Regarding claim 14, Niggemann ‘055 teaches a first through-hole (element 40) is formed in a first one of the two cover plates as a fluid inlet for the first fluid, wherein a second through-hole is formed in a second one of the two cover plates as a fluid outlet for the first fluid (element 50).
Regarding claim 15, Niggemann ‘055 does not teach the channel-forming cut- outs of the channel plates are formed by punching. This isa a product-by-process claims and “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 16, Niggemann ‘055 teaches (see the 12b above) the first one of the channel plate stacks and the second one of the channel plate stacks are fluidically separate therefrom (per fig. 4 and 5).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niggemann et al. (U.S. Patent 4,880,055; hereafter Niggemann ‘055) in view of Bungo et al. (U.S. PGPub 2019/0024986), and further view of Swift et al. (U.S. Patent 4,516,632).
Regarding claim 3, Niggemann ‘055 does not teach the separating plates and/or the two cover plates have a greater material thickness than the channel plates of the first one of the channel plate stacks and the second one of the channel plate stacks. Swift teaches he two cover plates have a greater material thickness than the channel plates (col. 3, ln 35-38). It would have been oblivious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Niggemann ‘055 to include thicker cover plates of Swift, the motivation would be the increased strength to resist pressure and maintain integrity.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niggemann et al. (U.S. Patent 4,880,055; hereafter Niggemann ‘055) in view of Bungo et al. (U.S. PGPub 2019/0024986), and further view of Niggemann et al. (U.S. Patent 4,993,487; hereafter Niggemann ‘487).
Regarding claim 9, Niggemann ‘055 does not teach the channel-forming cut- outs are arranged concentrically in rings, wherein the at least one stabilizing bridge of adjacent ones of the channel-forming cut-outs are radially offset.
Niggemann ‘487 teaches channel-forming cut- outs are arranged concentrically in rings (elements 12 and 14). It would have been oblivious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Niggemann ‘055 to include the concentric shape of Niggemann ‘487 to make the heat exchanger round/circular in shape as opposed to square/rectangular, the motivation would be to fit or match an allocated space of application. Examiner further notes that it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; MPEP 2144.04 (IV)B.
Bungo teaches the channel-forming cut-outs (elements 1) of at least one of the channel plates (elements 4) of the channel plate stacks (fig. 5/6) has stabilizing bridges (elements 3, it is notes that the presence of a solid structure inherently adds stabilization as it prevent flexure) oriented transversely to the at least one channel (per fig. 5/6) and are offset (per fig. 11). It would have been oblivious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Niggemann ‘055 to include the ribs (stabilizing bridge) as claimed radially offset, the motivation would be for temperature distribution (col. 1, ln 43-48).
Regarding claim 10, Niggemann ‘487 further teaches a width of the channel- forming cut-outs decreases from outside inwards (per fig. 1). This would be modified for the same reason as claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 13, Niggemann ‘055 does not teach the two cover plates, the first one of the channel plate stacks and the second one of the channel plate stacks, and the separating plates arranged therebetween have a substantially circular basic shape.
Niggemann ‘487 teaches the heat exchanger plates are circular in shape (per fig. 1 and 2). It would have been oblivious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Niggemann ‘055 to include the concentric shape of Niggemann ‘487 to make the heat exchanger round/circular in shape as opposed to square/rectangular, the motivation would be to fit or match an allocated space of application. Examiner further notes that it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; MPEP 2144.04 (IV)B.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL M ATTEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8-5 and Friday 8-10 and 2-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson be reached on (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 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.
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights