DETAILED ACTION
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 of Group IV (claims 20-25 and 39-42), Species 13ABC, and Subspecies H in the reply filed on 6/23/2026 without traverse is acknowledged. Claims 1-15, 21, 26-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The traversal is only that species 14ABC should be included with species 13ABC, merely because the applicant alleges so additional burden. This is not persuasive since the alternative container shape will require a divergent search and therefore the allegation ignores the differences of the species.
Examiner Request
The applicant is requested to provide line numbers to each claim in all future claim submissions to aide in examination and communication with the applicant about claim recitations. The applicant is thanked for aiding examination.
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(s) 20, 22-25, 39-42 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 20, the recitation, “single use” is indefinite as there is no way to discern what structure is required of the phrase. The specification provides no description of what structure must be present to provide such and merely uses the term.
The recitation, “wherein one or more surfaces” (line 6) is indefinite for reintroducing what was already previously introduced and it is unclear if these are the same or other surfaces.
In regard to claim 22, the recitation, “the heat exchanger flow path” is singular which is not consistent with the recitation of the “one or more heat exchanger flow paths” recited in claim 20.
In regard to claim 23, the recitation, “the heat exchanger flow path” is singular which is not consistent with the recitation of the “one or more heat exchanger flow paths” recited in claim 20.
In regard to claim 24, the recitation, “the heat exchanger flow path” is singular which is not consistent with the recitation of “one or more heat exchanger flow paths” recited in claim 20.
In regard to claim 25, the recitation, “a plurality of heat exchanger flow paths” is indefinite for reintroducing heat exchanger flow paths anew improperly.
In regard to claim 39, the recitation, “the plurality of surfaces” is indefinite for reintroducing surfaces anew improperly.
In regard to claim 42, the recitation, “at select locations” is indefinite for reintroducing select locations anew improperly.
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.
All of the claims have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, and it is considered that none of the claim recitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 20, 22-25, 39-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weaver (US 3216492). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 20, Weaver teaches a single use heat exchanger device (interpreted as capable of heat exchanging once) comprising: a flexible bag or container (Fig. 1-3; “exchange unit”-column 2, line 4) having one or more surfaces (20, 30; or 14, 20, 30) and defining an interior volume (inside 14), the flexible bag or container (unit) having one or more inlet ports (22) and one or more outlet ports (34) disposed therein to provide fluid access to and from the interior volume (inside 14) wherein the one or more of the surfaces (20, 30; or 14, 20, 30) of the flexible bag or container (unit) comprises one or more heat exchanger flow paths (paths for fluid from 26, 28) contained thereon, wherein each heat exchanger flow path (see plural paths from inlet to outlet) comprises a heat exchange fluid inlet port (26 or path inlet) and outlet port (28 or path outlet).
In regard to claim 22, Weaver teaches that at least one of the heat exchanger flow paths (paths for fluid from 26 to 28) comprise a dimpled surface (see figure 3).
In regard to claim 23, Weaver teaches that the one or more heat exchanger flow paths comprise a flexible polymer film (film, column 1, line 65-70) disposed on an inner surface (inner surface of envelopes 14 or on middle or inner 30) of the flexible bag or container (unit).
In regard to claim 24, Weaver teaches that the one or more heat exchanger flow paths (paths for fluid from 26 to 28) comprise a flexible polymer film (column 1, line 65-70) disposed on an outer surface (see outer paths) of the flexible bag or container (unit).
In regard to claim 25, Weaver teaches that the flexible bag or container (unit) has a plurality of surfaces (see fig. 1, see plural 30) and a plurality of the heat exchanger flow paths (paths for fluid from 26 to 28) are disposed on the plurality of surfaces (plural 30).
In regard to claim 39, Weaver teaches that the plurality of the surfaces (plural 30) contain respective separate heat exchanger flow paths (see several separate flow paths, Fig. 1) each having a heat change fluid inlet port (opening on left of Fig. 1) and outlet port (opening on right of Fig. 1).
In regard to claim 40, Weaver teaches that the respective separate heat exchanger flow paths (plural 30) are located on opposing surfaces of the one or more surfaces (see upper and lower at least).
In regard to claim 41, Weaver teaches that the one or more heat exchanger flow paths (paths for fluid from 26 to 28) comprise a flexible polymer film (film, column 1, line 65-70) welded (heat seal, column 2, line 11) at select locations on the one or more surfaces (14, 20, 30).
In regard to claim 42, Weaver teaches that the flexible polymer (film) is welded at the select locations on the one or more surfaces (20, 30; or 14, 20, 30) with a plurality of circular welds (see 16, 18, column 2, line 10-15).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the 892 form and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)-272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. 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.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights