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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 7 is withdrawn and claims 8-9 are canceled from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic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 12/29/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because as shown in figure 6, the reference numbers 21, 25, 50, 51, 55 are all attached to blank spaces and is unclear as to what they are supposed to be attached to for reference. 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 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 2 and 4 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "a moisture permeable layer " in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since it is unclear if it is referring to the previously recited “a moisture permeable sheet” or a completely different moisture permeable layer.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: “is such that the partition member is not broken when the partition member is peeled off from the frame” which is unclear as to what the structural relationship is towards peeling the partition off from the frame. The claims are towards a product rather than the process limitation which is confusing as to whether the partition member is actually apart of the overall product or if it is peeled from the frame and not a part of the heat exchanger.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tan (US Publication No.: 2011/0014289).
With respect to claim 1, Tan discloses a heat exchanger (Fig. 5, 1) comprising: a plurality of flow pass elements (Fig. 5, flow pass elements 5 and Para 0144 and 0145), each flow pass element including a partition member that is a moisture permeable sheet shaped member (Figs. 6-7, moisture permeable sheet 6 and Para 0146-0147), and a frame forming an air flow path by joining to the partition member (Fig. 6, frame 7 joins to 6), the heat exchanger being configured by stacking the plurality of flow pass elements (Fig. 5 and 6, 6 and 7 are stacked), and in each of the plurality of flow pass elements, the partition member being joined to the frame in direct contact (Fig. 6, 6 is in direct contact with 7).
With respect to claim 2, Tan discloses the heat exchanger of claim 1 as discussed above. Tan also discloses wherein the partition member includes a porous base that is sheet shaped (Fig. 8b, porous base 11 and Para 01470-149), and a moisture permeable layer covering a surface of the porous base (Fig. 8b, 6 covers a bottom surface of 11), the moisture permeable layer of the partition member faces the frame, and only the moisture permeable layer of the porous base and the moisture permeable layer is in direct contact with the frame (Fig. 8b, 6 is only in contact with frame 7).
With respect to claim 3, Tan discloses the heat exchanger of claim 1 as discussed above. Tan also discloses wherein a flat joining surface is provided on the frame, and the partition member is joined to the flat joining surface (Fig. 6 and 8b, flat surface at the peak of 7 joins to 6).
With respect to claim 4, Tan discloses the heat exchanger of claim 1 as discussed above. Tan also discloses wherein a joining strength of the partition member to the frame is smaller than a breaking strength of the partition member (Para 0128 an adhesive is coated on which requires zero strength compared to a breaking strength of the adhesive).
With respect to claim 5, Tan discloses the heat exchanger of claim 1 as discussed above. Tan also discloses wherein a joining strength of the partition member to the frame is such that the partition member is not broken when the partition member is peeled off from the frame (Para 0128, 0142, 0155, 0158 an adhesive is capable of the intended use or process limitation).
With respect to claim 6, Tan discloses the heat exchanger of claim 1 as discussed above. Tan also discloses wherein the partition member is joined to the frame by entering fine irregularities on a surface of the frame (Applicants specification explains the fine irregularities are from being dissolved in ethanol in Para 0083 and on Para 0068, 0110, 0163 and 0165 explains the partition member can also be dissolved in ethanol).
It is noted that claim 6 contains a product by process limitation (i.e. is joined to the frame by entering fine irregularities on a surface of the frame) and that the product by process limitation does not limit the claim to recite the step, just the structure obtained by performing the step. Further, in product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 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).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (US Publication No.: 2011/0014289) in view of Matsugi, Yoshitaka (WO 2014/109184 hereinafter “Yoshitaka”).
With respect to claim 3, Tan discloses the heat exchanger of claim 1 as discussed above. If it can be shown that Tan does not disclose the peaks of the corrugated frame are not flat then Yoshitaka teaches corrugations that have peaks with a flat surface (Figs. 6b). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the corrugated frame of Tan with the flat peak surface as taught by Yoshitaka to have a desired fluid flow and heat exchange.
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