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 .
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 limitations are: “functional elements” in claim 5.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In the case of claim 5, the functional elements are interpreted to refer to any of the temperature sensors, pressure sensors and volume flow sensors as well as valves in form of solenoid switching valves, directional control valves, pressure relief valves and check valves as disclosed in paragraph 0031 of the specification, 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 § 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.
Claims 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,14,15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makita (JP 2020009694 A), hereafter known as Makita, in view of Cheadle (US 20220281353 A1), hereafter known as Cheadle.
Regarding claim 1, Makita discloses an arrangement for a temperature control circuit (abstract, Makita), comprising a housing in which at least one channel is formed for transporting temperature control media (fig 2, channels 70 and 80 for temperature control fluids, abstract, Makita) , wherein the wall of the housing is formed from sheet metal (not disclosed, although fig 2 suggests the body is made of a formed sheet material).
Makita does not disclose the housing wall being formed of sheet metal. However, Cheadle teaches the housing wall of a heat exchanger formed from sheet metal (para 0099, manifold cover 98 is deep drawn sheet metal, Cheadle). Cheadle describes a planar heat exchange device, a field closely related to Makita and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Cheadle into Makita and made the housing body of Makita out of sheet metal. Sheet metal heat exchangers are well known in the art, and making the heat exchanger housing out of sheet metal would reduce the cost of manufacture. Additionally it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the material of the heat exchanger, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 2, Makita in view of Cheadle discloses the arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the housing has at least a first housing part and a second housing part (fig 2b, first housing part 30 and second part 40, Makita).
Regarding claim 3, Makita in view of Cheadle discloses the arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the housing parts are formed as deep-drawn parts or as punched parts (para 0099, Cheadle, the parts can be made by deep drawing).
Regarding 4, Makita in view of Cheadle discloses the arrangement according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of openings are introduced in the housing (figs 2c and 2d, the housing has openings letting fluid through into rails 23 and 24 leading to pipes 22a, 22b, 21a,21b in fig 1, Makita).
Regarding claim 6. Makita in view of Cheadle discloses the arrangement according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of flow channels are formed in the housing (fig 2b, water channels 70 and 80 are formed in the housing, Makita).
Regarding claim 7, Makita in view of Cheadle as applied to in claim 1 discloses the arrangement according to claim 2, wherein a separating element is arranged between the housing parts (fig 2b Makita, separating element 60 is between housing parts 30 and 40), but does not disclose the separating element being made of sheet metal. However, Cheadle also teaches a heat exchanger separating element being made of sheet metal (fig 1, element 58, which separates interior of the housing into channels, as seen in fig 3, is a corrugated sheet, and is metallurgically bonded to plates 12 and 18, para 0083, thus element 58 must be metal, Cheadle). Cheadle describes a planar heat exchange device, a field closely related to Makita and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Cheadle into Makita in view of Cheadle as applied to in claim 1 and made the separating element out of sheet metal. Sheet metal heat exchangers are well known in the art, and making the separating element out of sheet metal would reduce the cost of manufacture, as well as increase heat conduction. Additionally it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the material of the heat exchanger, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 8, Makita in view of Cheadle as applied to in claim 7 discloses the arrangement according to claim 7, wherein the separating element separates the channels (fig 2b, separating element 30 separates channels 70 and 80, Makita).
Regarding claim 9, Makita in view of Cheadle discloses the arrangement according to claims 7, wherein the separating element is formed as an internal heat exchanger (page 8, paragraph 1, fig 2b, passages 70 and 80 exchange heat, thus separating element 30 is an internal heat exchanger, Makita).
Regarding claim 14, Makita in view of Cheadle discloses a distribution structure for transporting temperature control media, comprising an arrangement according to claim 1 (page 13, Makita, paragraphs 1-2, the battery temperature control system has a coolant circuit and a refrigerant circuit, which are structures that transports the temperature control media).
Regarding claim 15, Makita in view of Cheadle discloses a refrigerant circuit for an electric vehicle, comprising a distribution structure according to claim 14 (page 13, Makita, paragraphs 1-2, the battery temperature control system has a coolant circuit and a refrigerant circuit, and is for electric vehicles, as per the title and background art in page 2).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makita in view of Cheadle, in further view of Multi Skills Lynk’s video “How to Replace Heat Exchanger Temperature Sensors || Heat Exchanger T-Sensor को कैसे बदलें”, hereafter known as Lynk.
Regarding claim 5, Makita in view of Cheadle discloses the arrangement according to claim 4, but does not disclose wherein functional elements are arranged in the openings.
However, Lynk teaches a heat exchanger with functional elements arranged in its openings (1:48-3:11, heat exchanger has a temperature sensor mounted inside an opening, Lynk). Lynk is an instructional video about heat exchanger maintenance, a field related to Makita, Cheadle, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Lynk into Makita in view of Cheadle and added a temperature sensor into one of the openings in the housing of Makita in view of Cheadle leading to the rails 23 and 24. Temperature sensors mounted to heat exchangers are well known in the art, and the temperature sensor would allow the user to know the temperature of the fluids inside, as well as provide data to a monitoring system (0:05-0:35, software system monitors the heat exchanger, Lynk).
Claims 10,11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makita in view of Cheadle, in further view of Eller EP (3708940 A1), hereafter known as Eller.
Regarding claim 10, Makita in view of Cheadle discloses the arrangement according to claim 2, but does not disclose wherein the housing parts are connected to one another by a welded joint or a soldered joint.
However, Eller teaches joining heat exchanger components via soldering (page 6, last paragraph, the metal blocks of the body can be soldered or welded to one another, Eller). Eller describes a fluid heat exchanger, a field closely related to Makita, Cheadle, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Eller into Makita in view of Cheadle and solder the housing parts of the heat exchanger. Soldered heat exchangers are well known in the art, and the soldering process provides a strong bond in a fast and economical manner. Additionally, It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to join the housing components in an appropriate manner, since applicant has not disclosed that welding or soldering specifically solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with other joining methods, such as a brazed connection.
Regarding claim 11, Makita in view of Cheadle and Eller discloses the arrangement according to claim 10, wherein the housing parts are connected to each other in a media-tight manner (para 0065, Cheadle, the housing parts are sealingly joined together).
Claims 12,13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makita in view of Cheadle, in further view of Hiwatashi (US 20140311724 A10), hereafter known as Hiwatashi.
Regarding claim 12, Makita in view of Cheadle discloses the arrangement according to claim 2, but does not disclose wherein the housing parts are connected to each other via a screw connection.
However, Hiwatashi teaches joining heat exchanger housing components via screwed connection (fig 2, housing components 11 and 12 are connected via screwed connection of the bolts, Hiwatashi). Hiwatashi describes a fluid heat exchanger, a field closely related to Makita, Cheadle, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Hiwatashi into Makita in view of Cheadle and screwed the housing parts of the heat exchanger together. Bolted or screwed together heat exchangers are well known in the art, and the process provides a strong connection that can be disassembled easily for maintenance or adjustment. Additionally, It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to join the housing components in an appropriate manner, since applicant has not disclosed that screwed connections specifically solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with other joining methods, such as a brazed connection.
Regarding claim 13, Makita in view of Cheadle discloses the arrangement according to claim 2, but does not disclose wherein at least one sealing element is arranged between the housing parts.
However, Hiwatashi teaches sealing elements between housing parts (fig 9, gaskets 130 are sealing element and are between housing parts 11 and 12, Hiwatashi). Hiwatashi describes a fluid heat exchanger, a field closely related to Makita, Cheadle, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Hiwatashi into Makita in view of Cheadle and added the sealing gaskets of Hiwatashi between the housing parts of the heat exchanger. Sealing gaskets for heat exchangers are well known in the art, and the gaskets are able to maintain a seal even as the joint between the housing components loosens or deforms.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Penny (EP 3026386 A1) discloses a heat exchanger for a vehicle.
Taniguchi (WO 2019139022 A1) discloses a heat exchanger for a battery.
정석동(KR 200340493 Y1) discloses a heat exchanger with separating means and housing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAOTIAN LU whose telephone number is (571)272-0444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm 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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights