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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/08/2024 was filed on the filing date of the instant application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/11/2024, 01/24/2025 and 06/24/2025 were filed after the filing date of the instant application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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:
insertion member → a cylindrical pin is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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 § 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 7 and 10 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 7 recites the limitation "the stacking direction" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been considered as --a stacking direction--.
The recitation of “a third chamfered portion” (claim 10, line 2) is unclear. The recitation renders the claim indefinite because a first and second chamfered portions have not been previously disclosed in parent claim 1. For examination purposes the recitation has been considered as --a chamfered portion--.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakadeguchi (EP 1087191 A1, refer to attached translation).
Regarding claim 1, Nakadeguchi discloses a refrigerant flow path module provided with a refrigerant flow path inside (refer to fig.1), the refrigerant flow path module comprising:
a first plate (1);
a second plate (2) that is overlapped on the first plate;
a refrigerant pipe (31, 32) that contains copper (refer to par. 60, wherein the pipe material is formed from copper or copper alloys) and is attached to the first plate (31, 32);
a brazing material that contains copper (refer to par. 77, wherein copper or copper alloys is used as the brazing material) and joins facing surfaces of the first plate and the second plate to each other; and
a storage (17, 18, figs. 5-6) that stores the brazing material in excess.
Regarding claim 2, Nakadeguchi meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Nakadeguchi discloses wherein the refrigerant pipe (31, 32) is inserted into a hole formed in the first plate (refer to at least fig.1), the second plate (2) is provided with an opening (23) that communicates with the refrigerant pipe and constitutes the flow path (refer to the solid lined arrows as in fig. 1), the hole is disposed inside the opening as viewed in a stacking direction of the first plate and the second plate (refer to fig.1), and the storage (17, 18, figs. 5-6) is formed at a boundary portion between an inner peripheral surface of the opening and a plate surface of the first plate (1) facing the second plate (2).
Regarding claim 3, Nakadeguchi meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Nakadeguchi discloses wherein the refrigerant pipe (31, 32) is inserted into a hole formed in the first plate (1), the second plate (2) is provided with an opening (23) that communicates with the refrigerant pipe and constitutes the flow path (refer to the solid lined arrows as in fig. 1), the hole is disposed inside the opening (23) as viewed in the stacking direction of the first plate and the second plate, and the storage (17, 18) includes a groove disposed away from the hole radially outward and formed in a portion of the plate surface of the first plate facing the second plate, the portion facing the flow path (refer to fig. 5-6).
Regarding claim 8, Nakadeguchi meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Nakadeguchi discloses wherein the refrigerant pipe is inserted into a hole formed in the first plate (refer to fig.6), the second plate is provided with an opening (23) that communicates with the refrigerant pipe and constitutes the flow path (refer to fig.6),
a chamfered portion (refer to chamfer portion 18 as in fig.6) is formed at a boundary between an inner peripheral surface of the opening (23) in the second plate (2) and a plate surface of the second plate facing the first plate, and the storage includes the chamfered portion (refer to fig.6).
Regarding claim 10, Nakadeguchi meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Nakadeguchi discloses wherein a chamfered portion (18) is formed at a boundary between an outer peripheral surface of the first plate and a plate surface of the first plate facing the second plate (refer to fig. 6), and the storage includes the third chamfered portion.
Regarding claim 11, Nakadeguchi discloses an air conditioner (refer to fig. 18) comprising the refrigerant flow path module according to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 9 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.
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANA M VAZQUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4.
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.
/ANA M VAZQUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights