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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/23/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 5-6 are illustrated using a black and white photo/photocopy. Black and white photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility patent applications (see Patent Rule 1.84).
India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings.
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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the bottom plate of the manifold plate” as claim in at least claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Note: bottom plate #100 does not appear to be illustrated in the drawings. In Fig. 4, #100 is shown as a caption, rather than pointing to the specific part.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In para [0043]; “the expansion valve 30 and 70” should read “the expansion valves 30 and 70”; and “the direction switching valve 40 and 50” should read “the direction switching valves 40 and 50”
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
Correction of the following is required:
The claims call for the limitations “heat transfer barrier and connecting member” (see at least claim 7). The specification fails to provide clear support for said terms. In other words, the specification does not allow the meaning of each of the terms above to be ascertainable by reference to the description. To overcome this objection, applicant should:
(A) clarify the record by amending the written description such that it expressly recites what structure performs the function recited in the claim element in a manner that does not add prohibited new matter to the specification; or
(B) state on the record what structure performs the function recited in the means- (or step-) plus-function limitation.
See 112 section below, and MPEP, 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Each element or step of the plurality of elements or steps as set forth in the first paragraph of claim 1 should be separated by a line indentation in accordance with MPEP R-1.75.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 2-20 is/are objected to for their dependency on an objected base claim.
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:
heat transfer barrier and connecting member in at least claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 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.
Claim 1 calls for the limitation “A manifold fluid module integrating at least one heat exchanger, at least one valve, and at least one expansion valve integrated into a single unit for a thermal management system including a compressor, a plurality of heat exchangers, a plurality of valves, and expansion valves, the manifold fluid module comprising:” in the first paragraph; which is indefinite for the following reasons:
It is unclear which previously recited limitation the word “including” is referring to. Is “including” referring to the thermal management system? the single unit, the at least one expansion valve? Or the manifold fluid module? It is uncertain. Appropriate correction is required.
It is unclear as to how the limitations “a compressor, a plurality of heat exchangers, a plurality of valves, and expansion valves” factors in the scope of the claim. Are the aforementioned limitations functional languages for the thermal management system? or are they required as part of the claimed manifold fluid module? It is uncertain. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 calls for the limitation “the evaporator” in the las two lines, which limitation lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
For examination, “the evaporator” will be interpreted as “an evaporator”.
Claim 5 calls for the limitation “the accumulator”, which limitation lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
For examination, “the accumulator” will be interpreted as “an accumulator”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “heat transfer barrier”, which is indefinite as it is unclear which particular structure the applicant is referring to as “heat transfer barrier”. The specification is devoid of adequate structure for the claimed heat transfer barrier. In other words, there is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, that is used as a heat transfer barrier to prevent heat transfer from the high-temperature fluid passage to the low-temperature fluid passage. Because the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structure correspond to the connecting member, the claim is indefinite.
Similarly, claim 7 also recites the limitation “connecting member”, which is indefinite as it is unclear which particular structure the applicant is referring to as “connecting member”. The specification is devoid of adequate structure for the claimed connecting member. In other words, there is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, that is used as a connecting member for connecting the high-temperature and low-temperature fluid passages. Because the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structure correspond to the connecting member, the claim is indefinite.
Note: the specification states that “the connecting member 130 is formed in a pipe shape, as shown in the drawings” (see [0079]). However, a “a pipe shape” is not a structure.
Note: MPEP 2181 states that a claim limitation expressed in means- (or step-) plus- function language "Shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure...described in the specification and equivalents thereof." "If one employs means plus function language in a claim, one must set forth in the specification an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language. If an applicant fails to set forth an adequate disclosure, the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the 35 U.S.C. 112(b)." In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The proper test for meeting the definiteness requirement is that the corresponding structure of a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation must be disclosed in the specification itself in a way that one skilled in the art will understand what structure will perform the recited function. If there is no disclosure of structure, material or acts for performing the recited function, the claim fails to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 17 calls for the limitation “the accumulator”, which limitation lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
For examination, “the accumulator” will be interpreted as “an accumulator”.
Claim(s) 2-20 is/are indefinite for their dependency on an indefinite base claim.
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 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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhejiang (CN114562832 A).
Regarding claim 1:
Zhejiang discloses a manifold fluid module #14 integrating at least one heat exchanger (one of #11 and #12), at least one valve #161 (best seen in Fig. 17), and at least one expansion valve #13 integrated into a single unit for a thermal management system including a compressor #501, a plurality of heat exchangers (#11 & #12), a plurality of valves (#1161 & #162; [0072]), and expansion valves (note that this limitation is not required for the manifold module. It is recited as a functional language tied to an unclaimed thermal management system), the manifold fluid module comprising:
a manifold plate including a plurality of fluid passages formed internally (via #148 & #149; [0062]), wherein the fluid passages include a low-temperature fluid passage through which heat- exchanged low-temperature fluid flows ([0096]) and a plurality of fluid inlets and a fluid outlet are connected (see Fig. 9; illustrating ports of flow in #100), with the fluid inlets including an evaporator inlet port connected to an outlet of an evaporator (Fig. 3 & 9. Note that #100 is an evaporator unit working with #14), the evaporator inlet port being arranged on the low-temperature fluid passage ([0039] & [0041]).
Regarding claim 2:
Zhejiang further discloses wherein the at least one heat exchanger comprises: a first heat exchanger coupled to the manifold plate that exchanges heat between a first fluid and a second fluid; and a second heat exchanger coupled to the manifold plate that exchanges heat between the first fluid discharged from the first heat exchanger and the second fluid (see description in [0056-0060]).
Regarding claim 3:
Zhejiang further discloses wherein the evaporator inlet port is arranged adjacent to a first inlet port through which the first fluid enters the second heat exchanger (see description in [0056-0060]).
Regarding claim 4:
Zhejiang further discloses wherein the first fluid, which enters through the first inlet port, is discharged through a first outlet port, and the evaporator inlet port is arranged between the first inlet port and the first outlet port (see description in [0056-0060]).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhejiang (CN114562832 A).
Regarding claim 5:
Zhejiang discloses all the limitations, except for wherein the fluid outlet is an accumulator port through which the first fluid is discharged to the accumulator, and the evaporator inlet port is arranged adjacent to the accumulator port.
However, Zhejiang teaches that it is known to provide accumulator in in similar system (see [0094]).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Zhejiang with the fluid outlet being an accumulator port through which the first fluid is discharged to the accumulator, and the evaporator inlet port is arranged adjacent to the accumulator port; especially by adding an accumulator to the system.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have protected the compressor from liquid slugging; thereby, improving system reliability.
Regarding claim 6:
Zhejiang as modified discloses all the limitations, except for wherein the distance between the evaporator inlet port and the accumulator port is equal to or shorter than the distance between the first outlet port and the accumulator port.
However, arranging the distance of the evaporator inlet port and the accumulator port to be equal to or shorter than the distance between the first outlet port and the accumulator port is recognized as a simple matter of rearrangement of parts. It has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative positioning and a device having the claimed relative position would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04- In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Zhejiang as modified with the distance between the evaporator inlet port and the accumulator port being equal to or shorter than the distance between the first outlet port and the accumulator port.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have reduced the bulkiness of the system; thereby, making the system optimal for small scale applications.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ye (US 20230339284 A1), Wegner (US 20100071639 A1), and Calderone (US 20190039440 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIONEL W NOUKETCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-8438. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri: 08:00 AM - 04:00 PM.
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, 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.
/LIONEL NOUKETCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763