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 10/11/2024 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1, 4, and 5 of prior App No. 18/575310. This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 prior App No. 18/575310. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because (A heat exchanger (claim 1, heat exchanger (100)) with plates (claim 4, plate (7)) of a refrigerant-fluid circuit, the heat exchanger comprising at least one plurality of plates stacked on top of one another in a vertical stacking direction, with adjacent plates between each other delimiting a plurality of first circulation ducts (claim 1, a first circuit (110)) for the refrigerant fluid in a low-pressure part of the circuit and a plurality of second circulation ducts (claim 2, a second circuit (120)) for the refrigerant fluid in a high-pressure part ( claim 1, a second circuit intended to be traversed by a heat transfer fluid, fluidically distinct from the first circuit because the pressure is higher) of the circuit, at least some of the plurality of plates of the heat exchanger including a plurality of openings, of which some form a first inlet manifold (claim 1, first inlet manifold (1)) and others form a first outlet manifold (claim 1, first outlet manifold (2)) for the low-pressure refrigerant fluid in communication with the first circulation ducts, and of which some form a second inlet manifold (claim 1, second inlet manifold (3)) and others form a second outlet manifold (claim 1, second outlet manifold (4)) for the high-pressure refrigerant fluid in communication with the second circulation ducts, the heat exchanger being wherein at least two of the first circulation ducts are adjacent in the vertical stacking direction (claim 5, first group of chambers 61).
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 3, 6, & 9 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 3 recites the limitation "the circulation ducts" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant had previously claimed first and second circulation ducts as written it is unclear if applicant is claiming one or both of those or a new set of ducts. The claim will be examined as reading “either the first or second circulation ducts”.
Regarding claim 6 the term “potentially” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). This claim will be examined as a peripheral portion of a plate being made integral with the peripheral portion of an adjacent plate to isolate the circulation duct.
Regarding claim 9 a limitation of “so that all of the raised edges of each of the plates are in contact with each other” is indefinite as it is unclear the required contact between the plates. One skilled in the art would not know if applicant is merely requiring each raised edge to contact at least one other raised edge or if it requires each raised edge to contact ALL other raised edges. This claim will be examined as merely requiring each raised edge to contact at least one other raised edge.
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.
(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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gael (FR 3059400 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
621
717
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It has been held that the 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations as shown below. Thus, the intended use of the heat exchanger in the claim, of a refrigerant-fluid circuit, for the refrigerant in a low-pressure part of the circuit, and refrigerant fluid in the high-pressure part of the circuit does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art and the cited prior art is capable of the claimed use. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 MPEP 2214 (II).
Regarding claim 1 Gael teaches A heat exchanger (shown in fig. 5 heat exchanger 3) with plates (shown in fig. 5 stack of plates (19, 20, 40, 42)) of a refrigerant-fluid circuit, the heat exchanger comprising at least one plurality of plates stacked on top of one another in a vertical stacking direction, with adjacent plates between each other delimiting a plurality of first circulation ducts (shown in fig. 2 the first circuit 15) for the refrigerant fluid in a low-pressure part of the circuit and a plurality of second circulation ducts (shown in fig. 3 the second circuit 22) for the refrigerant fluid in a high-pressure part ( “high-pressure” and “low-pressure” as used in the claim 9 are known terms in the art not requiring a specific value or range but a relationship of pressure between the two) of the circuit, at least some of the plurality of plates of the heat exchanger including a plurality of openings, of which some form a first inlet manifold (shown in fig. 2 First inlet manifold 16) and others form a first outlet manifold (shown in fig. 2 First outlet manifold 17) for the low-pressure refrigerant fluid in communication with the first circulation ducts, and of which some form a second inlet manifold (shown in fig. 3 second inlet manifold 27) and others form a second outlet manifold (shown in fig. 3 second outlet manifold 29) for the high-pressure refrigerant fluid in communication with the second circulation ducts, the heat exchanger being wherein at least two of the first circulation ducts are adjacent in the vertical stacking direction (shown in fig. 5).
Regarding claim 2 Gael teaches wherein the number of first circulation ducts (shown in fig. 2 the first circuit 15), respectively delimited by two adjacent plates of the plurality of plates (shown in fig. 5 stack of plates (19, 20, 40, 42)) and in communication with the low-pressure part of the circuit, is greater than the number (shown in fig. 2 & 3, Abstract states “the beam 6 delimits a first circuit configured to be traversed by a heat transfer fluid 5 and a second circuit configured to be traversed by a refrigerant 4, the second circuit 22 comprising at least a first ply 23 and a second ply 24 at least partly superposed one by relative to the other” Thus, it is shown that all of the vertically stacked plates are communicated with by fluid 5 during circulation. This is greater than the number of plates in the first ply or second ply of the second circulation duct communicated with by fluid 4 flowing in opposite directions) of second circulation ducts (shown in fig. 3 the second circuit 22), respectively delimited by two adjacent plates of the plurality of plates and in communication with the high-pressure part of the circuit.
Regarding claim 3 Gael teaches wherein the circulation ducts delimited by the adjacent plates of the plurality of plates (shown in fig. 5 stack of plates (19, 20, 40, 42)) are arranged so that a second circulation duct (shown in fig. 3 the second circuit 22) extends on the two sides, in the vertical direction, of the assembly formed by the at least two first adjacent circulation ducts (shown in fig. 2 the first circuit 15).
PNG
media_image2.png
386
786
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4 Gael teaches wherein the first circulation ducts (shown in fig. 2 the first circuit 15) are arranged in assemblies (shown in annotated fig. 2, Assemblies A) of two first circulation ducts that are adjacent in the vertical direction and partially delimited respectively by one and the same plate (shown in annotated fig. 2, Delimiting Plate DP).
Regarding claim 5 Gael teaches wherein each of the assemblies is separated from another assembly by a single second circulation duct (shown in annotated fig. 2, Second Circuit Space SCS separates each assembly A) in the vertical direction.
Regarding claim 7 Gael teaches wherein, at the low-pressure refrigerant-fluid manifolds, the plates are distributed into primary plates (shown in annotated fig. 5 Primary plate PP) with a flat peripheral portion (shown in annotated fig. 5 Flat Peripheral portion Fpp) that extends in a plane substantially perpendicular to the vertical stacking direction, and secondary plates (shown in annotated fig. 5 Secondary Plate Spp) in which the peripheral portion (shown in annotated fig. 5 Peripheral portions pp) is deformed to come into contact with the peripheral portion of a primary plate the internal heat exchanger with plates being configured so that the plurality of plates includes two successive primary plates at regular intervals (shown in annotated fig. 5, the interval between plate types).
Regarding claim 8 Gael teaches wherein the thicknesses of the edges of the peripheral portions (shown in annotated fig. 5 Peripheral portions pp) participating in delimiting a manifold formed by a plurality of openings (shown in fig. 5 through holes 49 and 50) differ from one edge to the other in the vertical stacking direction (Shown in annotated fig. 5, the peripheral portion PP around the openings 49 and 50 alternate on and off each plate).
Regarding claim 9 Gael teaches wherein each of the plates (shown in fig. 5 stack of plates (19, 20, 40, 42)) includes at least one exchange surface (shown in annotated fig. 5 Exchange Surface ES) against which the refrigerant fluid circulates and a raised edge (shown in annotated fig. 5 Raised edge RE), the plurality of plates being stacked so that all of the raised edges of each of the plates are in contact with each other and that the at least one exchange surface is at non-zero distance so as to form the circulation ducts (shown in fig. 2 the first circuit 15 & shown in fig. 3 the second circuit 22).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DAHLBERG et al. (CN 116997761 A) in view of Gael (FR 3059400 A1).
PNG
media_image3.png
605
793
media_image3.png
Greyscale
For claim 6, Gael does not teach additional claim limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 6 DAHLBERG teaches, wherein each of the plates (shown in annotated fig. 8 above, 12a through 13a) has peripheral portions surrounding each of the openings (shown in annotated fig. 8 above, Peripheral Portions PP), a peripheral portion of a plate potentially being made integral with the peripheral portion of an adjacent plate to isolate the circulation duct delimited between these adjacent plates from the manifold formed by the corresponding openings (shown in fig. 17, para. 0046 states “the chamber 17 is closed off from the plate interspaces 13a, 13b through a sealing area 20 surrounding the chamber 17”). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the chamber of Gael, to be the chamber design of DAHLBERG, the motivation so the heat exchanger can withstand high pressures (Prior Art para. 0004). Shown in 112 above for language not being examined.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshii et al. (US 5678422 A) in view of Gael (FR 3059400 A1) .
PNG
media_image4.png
596
709
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10 Yoshii teaches A refrigerant-fluid circuit (shown in fig. 2, the refrigerating system 14)
Yoshii teaches the refrigerant-fluid circuit further comprising a high-pressure part (shown in annotated fig. 2, High pressure part Hpp) and a low-pressure part (shown in annotated fig. 2, Low pressure part Lpp), the heat exchanger (shown in fig. 2, a refrigerant-refrigerant heat exchanger 32, column 8 line 21-34 “According to the present invention, in the refrigerant-refrigerant heat exchanger 32, the direction of the flow of the refrigerant in the inflow passageway 38 and the direction of the flow of the refrigerant in the outflow passageway 39 are opposite to each other, which allows the heat exchanging efficiency to be improved between the inflow refrigerant and the outflow refrigerant in the refrigerant-refrigerant heat exchanger 32. As a result, a super-heated condition of a value of the degree of the superheating of the refrigerant larger than 1.0 is obtained at the outlet of the stacked type heat exchanger 5. As a result, the refrigerant is prevented from being introduced in a liquid state, which otherwise would cause a liquid compression, thereby preventing the compressor from being damaged.” The prior art uses separate refrigerant pathways inside the heat exchanger to prevent liquid from entering the gas pathway to the compressor) being arranged fluidically inside the circuit to enable a heat exchange between the refrigerant fluid circulating primarily in gas form in the low-pressure part with the refrigerant fluid circulating primarily in liquid form in the high-pressure part.
Yoshii does not teach comprising at least one heat exchanger with plates of a refrigerant-fluid circuit, the heat exchanger including at least one plurality of plates stacked on top of one another in a vertical stacking direction, with adjacent plates between each other delimiting a plurality of first circulation ducts for the refrigerant fluid in a low-pressure part of the circuit and a plurality of second circulation ducts for the refrigerant fluid in a high-pressure part of the circuit, at least some of the plurality of plates of the heat exchanger including a plurality of openings, of which some form a first inlet manifold and others form a first outlet manifold for the low- pressure refrigerant fluid in communication with the first circulation ducts, and of which some form a second inlet manifold and others form a second outlet manifold for the high-pressure refrigerant fluid in communication with the second circulation ducts, the heat exchanger being wherein at least two of the first circulation ducts are adjacent in the vertical stacking direction.
Gael teaches comprising at least one heat exchanger (shown in fig. 5 heat exchanger 3) with plates (shown in fig. 5 stack of plates (19, 20, 40, 42)) of a refrigerant-fluid circuit, the heat exchanger including at least one plurality of plates stacked on top of one another in a vertical stacking direction, with adjacent plates between each other delimiting a plurality of first circulation ducts (shown in fig. 2 the first circuit 15) for the refrigerant fluid in a low-pressure part of the circuit and a plurality of second circulation ducts (shown in fig. 3 the second circuit 22) for the refrigerant fluid in a high-pressure part (“high-pressure” and “low-pressure” as used in the claim 9 are known terms in the art not requiring a specific value or range but a relationship of pressure between the two) of the circuit, at least some of the plurality of plates of the heat exchanger including a plurality of openings, of which some form a first inlet manifold (shown in fig. 2 First inlet manifold 16) and others form a first outlet manifold (shown in fig. 2 First outlet manifold 17) for the low- pressure refrigerant fluid in communication with the first circulation ducts, and of which some form a second inlet manifold (shown in fig. 3 second inlet manifold 27) and others form a second outlet manifold (shown in fig. 3 second outlet manifold 29) for the high-pressure refrigerant fluid in communication with the second circulation ducts, the heat exchanger being wherein at least two of the first circulation ducts are adjacent in the vertical stacking direction (shown in fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the heat exchanger of Yoshii, to be the heat exchanger design of Gael, the motivation to optimize the flow of the coolant in the heat exchanger (Description).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY FRANCIS CANOVA whose telephone number is (571)272-5795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at (571) 270-7740. 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.
/HENRY FRANCIS CANOVA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights