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 in the reply filed on 2026 June 01 is acknowledged.
Claims 55-60 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 41-50 and 53-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patent No.: US 2,708,832 A (herein “McGregor”).
Regarding independent claim 41.
McGregor discloses a vaporization device (Fig. 4), comprising:
a liquid input (at 26);
a gas output (at 29); and
one or more plates (20) arranged below the liquid input,
wherein the one or more plates are configured such that they are capable of receiving liquid from the liquid input and generating gas by vaporizing the liquid (col. 2, ln. 16-19), and
wherein the generated gas can exit the device via the gas output (col. 2, ln. 19-21).
Note – Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does... a 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 if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 II.
Regarding claim 42.
McGregor discloses the device of claim 41, wherein the liquid input is configured such that it is capable of generating droplets of liquid (Fig. 4; droplets can be provided through the input to the plates).
Note – Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does... a 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 if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 II.
Regarding claim 43.
McGregor discloses the device of claim 41, wherein the plates are configured such that they can receive the liquid in droplet form (Fig. 4; droplets can fall onto the plates from above).
Note – Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does... a 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 if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 II.
Regarding claim 44.
McGregor discloses the device of claim 41, further comprising:
a heat source (33), wherein the one or more plates are attached to the heat source (shown in Fig. 4; plates 20 are attached to tube 33).
Regarding claim 45.
McGregor discloses the device of claim 44, wherein the heat source is a fluid conduit (tube 33 is a fluid conduit).
Regarding claim 46.
McGregor discloses the device claim 45, wherein the fluid conduit is a pipe (Fig. 4; 33) capable of carrying fluid such as engine coolant.
Note – Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does... a 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 if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 II.
Regarding claim 47.
McGregor discloses the device of claim 41, wherein the one or more plates comprise a plurality of plates (Fig. 4; multiple plates 20).
Regarding claim 48.
McGregor discloses the device of claim 47, wherein each of the plurality of plates is a disc or fin mounted radially about a heat source (col. 2, ln. 50; shown in Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 49.
McGregor discloses the device of claim 44, wherein the heat source is arranged centrally in the device and runs lengthwise through the device (shown in Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 50.
McGregor discloses the device of claim 41, wherein at least one of the plates is an annular slotted or perforated disc (Fig. 4; slotted/perforated at 31).
Regarding claim 53.
McGregor discloses the device of claim 41, wherein the one or more plates are capable of being heated (by flowing heating fluid through 33).
Note – Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does... a 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 if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 II.
Regarding claim 54.
McGregor discloses the device of claim 44, wherein the device is configured such that liquid can enter the device at a first temperature (through 26) and gas can exit the device at a second temperature (through 29), wherein the second temperature can be greater than the first temperature,
wherein the heat source can have a third temperature, and
wherein the third temperature can be greater than both the first and second temperatures.
Note – Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does... a 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 if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 II.
Claims 41 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patent No.: US 3,499,428 A (herein “Stirling”).
Regarding independent claim 41.
Stirling discloses a vaporization device (Fig. 1), comprising:
a liquid input (at 19);
a gas output (at 35); and
one or more plates (49) arranged below the liquid input,
wherein the one or more plates are configured such that they are capable of receiving liquid from the liquid input and generating gas by vaporizing the liquid (col. 4, ln. 6-20), and
wherein the generated gas can exit the device via the gas output (col. 4, ln. 18).
Note – Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does... a 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 if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 II.
Regarding claim 51.
Stirling discloses the device of claim 41, wherein the at least one plate comprises a single plate arranged about a central conduit in a corkscrew or elongated spiral arrangement (shown in Fig. 1; elongated spiral 49).
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.
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 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGregor in view of Patent No.: US 3,875,759 A (herein “Malcosky”).
Regarding claim 52.
McGregor discloses the device of claim 41, but does not explicitly disclose an insulating layer arranged on an exterior surface of the vaporization device.
Malcosky discloses a vaporization device (Fig. 1) similar to McGregor, comprising: an insulating layer (128) arranged on an exterior surface of the vaporization device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the vaporization device of McGregor with the insulation teaching of Malcosky in order to prevent unwanted heat transfer to and from the vaporization device, which could result in a loss of efficiency in the vaporizer, and/or which could negatively impact components adjacent to the vaporizer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jon T. Schermerhorn Jr. whose telephone number is (571)270-5283. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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.
/JON T. SCHERMERHORN JR./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
