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 .
The claims received 12/16/2024 are entered. Claim 2 is cancelled.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation vehicle, and the claim also recites “in particular a car” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 13 lacks a definite article to clarify antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination the limitations will be read as –the at least one valve—and –the at least one temperature sensor--.
Claims depending from a rejected claim are rejected due to their dependency.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Calderone (US 11,440,376).
Regarding claim 1, Calderone discloses a fluid management module for a vehicle, in particular a car (4:15-24), comprising:
a support (202) having a first face and a second face, the first face being opposite the second face; and
at least one channel for the circuit of a refrigerant (figure 5 illustrates several channels for refrigerant passage),
wherein the first face of the support supports at least a first heat exchanger (226) and the second face of the support supports at least one valve (234), wherein the first face of the support supports a second heat exchanger (206).
Regarding claim 9, Calderone further discloses the second face of the support further comprises a compressor (204).
Regarding claim 11, Calderone further discloses the second face of the support comprises at least one temperature sensor (232).
Regarding claim 12, Calderone further discloses the valve (234) and the temperature sensor (232) have parallel directions of longitudinal extension (shown in at last figure 5).
Regarding claim 13, Calderone further discloses the at least one valve (234) is arranged in a first refrigerant circulation zone of the support, for the circulation of the refrigerant at high pressure (the expansion valve receives high pressure refrigerant from a high pressure port), wherein at least one temperature sensor (232) is arranged in a second refrigerant circulation zone of the support for the circulation of the refrigerant at high pressure and/or for the circulation of the refrigerant at low pressure (figure 5 shows temperature sensor 232 connected at a low pressure portion).
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) 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calderone (US 11,440,376) in view of Kim et al (US 12,083,860).
Regarding claim 3, Calderone further discloses that the first face support supports a connection of a third heat exchanger (222; shown in at least figure 2). Calderone lacks that the support supports the third heat exchanger itself. Kim discloses a support (130) which supports three heat exchangers (112, 114, and 116). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have supported the third heat exchanger of Calderone at the support as taught by Kim in order to reduce refrigerant line lengths and prevent refrigerant entry into the cabin. In other words by forming the cabin evaporator 222 of Calderone as a plate type heat exchanger as taught by Kim a simple coolant may be used to transfer heat from the cabin to the evaporator.
Regarding claim 4, Calderone and Kim further discloses the second heat exchanger is arranged between the first heat exchanger and the third heat exchanger (as shown in figure 8 the second heat exchanger 226 is between the first heat exchanger 206 and the connection of third heat exchanger 222; as modified by Kim the third heat exchanger is provided to the support 202).
Regarding claim 5, Calderone and Kim further disclose the first heat exchanger, the second heat exchanger and the third heat exchanger each have a length and a width (all of the heat exchangers are 3-dimensional objects),
wherein the length of each of the first heat exchanger, second heat exchanger and third heat exchanger defining a direction of longitudinal extension respectively,
wherein the directions of longitudinal extension of the second heat exchanger and the third heat exchanger are parallel, and
wherein the direction of longitudinal extension of the first heat exchanger is perpendicular to the directions of longitudinal extension of the second heat exchanger and the third heat exchanger (the longitudinal directions of each of the heat exchangers may be selected such that the above limitations are satisfied).
Regarding claim 6, Calderone and Kim further disclose the first heat exchanger (206) is arranged in a first refrigerant circulation zone of the support, for the circulation of the refrigerant at high pressure (206 is a condenser which is a high pressure heat exchanger connected to high pressure ports of the support 202), and wherein the second heat exchanger and the third heat exchanger (226 and 222) are arranged in a second refrigerant circulation zone of the support, for the circulation of the refrigerant at high pressure and/or the circulation of the refrigerant at low pressure (226 and 222 are evaporators connecting to low pressure ports or to high pressure ports which may later be depressurized, with expansion valve 220).
Regarding claim 7, Calderone and Kim further disclose the first refrigerant circulation zone extends substantially in a first plane and the second refrigerant circulation zone extends substantially in a second plane, and wherein the first plane of the first refrigerant circulation zone and the second plane of the second refrigerant circulation zone are different (the first and second plane both lie on the first face of the support each plane is a subset of the area of the face; while a plane can be infinite it can also be within one or more boundaries).
Regarding claim 8, Calderone and Kim further disclose the first refrigerant circulation zone and the second refrigerant circulation zone are connected by a first common edge (the zones may be arbitrarily defined in boundaries having a common edge).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calderone (US 11,440,376).
Regarding claim 10, Calderone discloses the support further comprises a bottle (210). Calderone lacks that the bottle is on the second face of the support.
It has been held that the particular position of an element does not render a claim non-obvious when rearranging said element would not have modified the operation of the device. Further the particular location can be regarded as an obvious matter of design choice. MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. In this instance relocating the bottle (which is a receiver-drier) to the second face increase available area on the first face or otherwise aids in resolving design/installation constraints.
Alternatively, an accumulator may also be regarded as a bottle. The examiner takes official notice that accumulators are old and well known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Calderone with an accumulator in order to prevent liquid suction at the compressor and increase charge storage. Moreover it follows to provide the accumulator at the second face as it relates to compressor suction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koberstein et al (US 11,453,267) refrigerant manifold.
Collier (US 6,516,523) refrigerant manifold.
Hayashi (US 6,438,985) refrigerant manifold.
Hayashi (US 2026/0084493) refrigerant manifold.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights