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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for two connecting plates each being connected with a respective first or second baffle in one embodiment such as is noted in claim 2 from which claim 18 depends and as seen in figure 1 and 2, the specification does not reasonably provide enablement for claim 18. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Where claim 18 requires a third connecting plate that is connected to both the first and second baffle in one embodiment as this appears to be more akin to the embodiments of figure 3-5 which do not appear to be combinable with the embodiment of figure 1 and 2 with a first and second connecting plate that appears to be reflected in claim 2, from which claim 18 depends, since the examiner can find no instance of three connecting pates in the same embodiment in the disclosure as would be required by the limitations of claim 18.
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 5, 9 and 16 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.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites a relative dimension of a length of the baffle and a thickness of the fin but includes an additional parameter T2 that is not defined by the claim, as the parameter is not defined by the claim it is impossible to tell where metes and bounds of the claim lay and claim 5 has not been further examined for patentability.
Regarding claims 9 and 16, the claim limitations recite “a second first header” followed by “the second header “ throughout the rest of each claim. It is unclear if this is a simple typo and “a second first header” should be “a second header” or if an additional first header is being claimed. If this is the case then there would not be sufficient antecedent basis for “the second header” in the claims. For the purposes of examination this will be read as if it was a simple typo.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 17 depends from claim 2 and claim 17 is a substantial repeat of claim 2 and therefore does not appear to contain any limitations that further limit the subject matter of a claim from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-3, 7-9, 13-14 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Matsumoto et al. ( US 2014/0224463 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto discloses (Figure 1-7) a heat exchanger, comprising: a first heat exchange body and a second heat exchange body which are configured to transfer heat (the two adjacent heat exchange units 2 as seen in figure 1), the first heat exchange body and the second heat exchange body are connected with each other (via fitting portions 16 and 18), and a connecting gap being provided between the first heat exchange body and the second heat exchange body (at space 24 between the core portions 12 of adjacent heat exchange units 2 per paragraph 0038 and as seen in figures 1 and 5-6); and a first baffle and a second baffle, the first baffle and the second baffle being respectively located on two opposite sides of the first heat exchange body and the second heat exchange body (baffles at the joining portions 30 of the joining side plates 20 and 22 or 40 and 42 as seen in figures 1-6), the first baffle and the second baffle being oppositely disposed, and the connecting gap being located between the first baffle and the second baffle (as clearly seen in figures 5 and 6 the space 24 is between the joining portions 30 of plates 20 and 22 or plates 40 and 42).
Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 and Matsumoto further discloses a first connecting plate (at the connecting portion 32 connected to the side plate 20 or 40), the first connecting plate being connected with the first heat exchange body, and the first baffle being connected with the first connecting plate ( 32 is connected to one of the core portions 12 and the baffle at the joining portions 30 of the joining side plates 20 or 40 as seen in figures 1-6); and, a second connecting plate (at the connecting portion 32 connected to the side plate 22 or 42), the second connecting plate being connected with the second heat exchange body, and the second baffle being connected with the second connecting plate ( the second connecting portion 32 is connected to the other of the core portions 12 and the baffle at the joining portions 30 of the joining side plates 22 or 42 as seen in figures 1-6).
Regarding claim 3, Matsumoto discloses the claim limitations of claim 2 and Matsumoto further discloses the first connecting plate and the second connecting plate which are disposed parallel to each other (at the connecting portion 32 connected to the side plate 20 or 40 and the connecting portion 32 connected to the side plate 22 or 42 are parallel as seen in figure 5 and 6); and, the first connecting plate and the first baffle ( joining portion 30 of side plate 20 or 40) which are disposed perpendicular to each other (30 and 32 of plates 20 or 40 are perpendicular as seen in figure 5 or 6); and, the second connecting plate and the second baffle ( joining portion 30 of side plate 22 or 42) which are disposed perpendicular to each other (30 and 32 of plates 22 or 42 are perpendicular as seen in figure 5 or 6).
Regarding claim 7, Matsumoto discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 and Matsumoto further discloses (in the embodiment of figure 7) the heat exchanger comprises a third connecting plate, the third connecting plate is connected with the first heat exchange body (at the connecting portion 32 connected to the side plate 46 where the side plate 46 has a fist baffle at joining portion 30 and an oppositely disposed second baffle at bending portion 50 of the side plate 46) , and the first baffle and the second baffle are respectively connected with both ends of the third connecting plate (as seen in figure 7).
Regarding claim 8, Matsumoto discloses the claim limitations of claim 7 and Matsumoto further discloses (in the embodiment of figure 7) a third baffle and a fourth baffle which are spaced apart from each other ( on the side plate 48 which has a fist baffle at joining portion 30 and an oppositely disposed second baffle at bending portion 50 of the side plate 48), the third baffle and the fourth baffle are both connected with the second heat exchange body, and the third baffle and the fourth baffle are located between the first baffle and the second baffle (as seen in figure 7) .
Regarding claim 9, Matsumoto discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 and Matsumoto further discloses a first header, the first header is connected with the first heat exchange body (at the header pipe 6 connected to the heat exchange unit 2 connected to plate 20); a second first header, the second header is connected with the second heat exchange body (at the header pipe 6 connected to the heat exchange unit 2 connected to plate 22); wherein the first header is provided with a first connecting piece for connected with the second header (at fitting portion 18 with enlarged end portion 6A); and, the second header is provided with a second connecting piece for connected with the first header (at fitting portion 18 with end portion 6a per paragraph 0040).
Regarding claim 13, Matsumoto discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 and Matsumoto further discloses a first connecting plate (at the connecting portion 32 connected to the side plate 20 or 40), the first connecting plate being connected with the first heat exchange body, and the first baffle being connected with the first connecting plate ( 32 is connected to one of the core portions 12 and the baffle at the joining portions 30 of the joining side plates 20 or 40 as seen in figures 1-6); or, a second connecting plate (at the connecting portion 32 connected to the side plate 22 or 42), the second connecting plate being connected with the second heat exchange body, and the second baffle being connected with the second connecting plate ( the second connecting portion 32 is connected to the other of the core portions 12 and the baffle at the joining portions 30 of the joining side plates 22 or 42 as seen in figures 1-6).
Regarding claim 14, Matsumoto discloses the claim limitations of claim 2 and Matsumoto further discloses the first connecting plate and the second connecting plate which are disposed parallel to each other (at the connecting portion 32 connected to the side plate 20 or 40 and the connecting portion 32 connected to the side plate 22 or 42 are parallel as seen in figure 5 and 6); or, the first connecting plate and the first baffle ( joining portion 30 of side plate 20 or 40) which are disposed perpendicular to each other (30 and 32 of plates 20 or 40 are perpendicular as seen in figure 5 or 6); or, the second connecting plate and the second baffle ( joining portion 30 of side plate 22 or 42) which are disposed perpendicular to each other (30 and 32 of plates 22 or 42 are perpendicular as seen in figure 5 or 6).
Regarding claim 16, Matsumoto discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 and Matsumoto further discloses a first header, the first header is connected with the first heat exchange body (at the header pipe 6 connected to the heat exchange unit 2 connected to plate 20); a second first header, the second header is connected with the second heat exchange body (at the header pipe 6 connected to the heat exchange unit 2 connected to plate 22); wherein the first header is provided with a first connecting piece for connected with the second header (at fitting portion 18 with enlarged end portion 6A); or, the second header is provided with a second connecting piece for connected with the first header (at fitting portion 18 with end portion 6a per paragraph 0040).
Regarding claim 17, Matsumoto discloses the claim limitations of claim 15 and Matsumoto further discloses a first connecting plate (at the connecting portion 32 connected to the side plate 20 or 40), the first connecting plate being connected with the first heat exchange body, and the first baffle being connected with the first connecting plate ( 32 is connected to one of the core portions 12 and the baffle at the joining portions 30 of the joining side plates 20 or 40 as seen in figures 1-6); and, a second connecting plate (at the connecting portion 32 connected to the side plate 22 or 42), the second connecting plate being connected with the second heat exchange body, and the second baffle being connected with the second connecting plate ( the second connecting portion 32 is connected to the other of the core portions 12 and the baffle at the joining portions 30 of the joining side plates 22 or 42 as seen in figures 1-6).
Regarding claim 18, Matsumoto discloses the claim limitations of claim 15 and Matsumoto further discloses (in the embodiment of figure 7) the heat exchanger comprises a third connecting plate, the third connecting plate is connected with the first heat exchange body (at the connecting portion 32 connected to the side plate 46 where the side plate 46 has a fist baffle at joining portion 30 and an oppositely disposed second baffle at bending portion 50 of the side plate 46) , and the first baffle and the second baffle are respectively connected with both ends of the third connecting plate (as seen in figure 6).
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 11-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. ( US 2014/0224463 A1) .
Regarding claim 4, Matsumoto discloses the claim limitations of claim 2 and Matsumoto further discloses the first heat exchange body comprises a plurality of connecting fins (fins 10) and a plurality of connecting pipes (tubes 8), the plurality of connecting fins and the plurality of connecting pipes are disposed alternately along a first direction in sequence (as seen in figure 1 and 3), and each of the plurality of connecting fins is connected with an adjacent connecting pipe (as seen in figure 1 and 3), wherein a length of the first connecting plate is L1 (As the length is not further defined the length of the connecting plate can be the length of the connecting portion 32 extending between headers 4 and 6), and an outer diameter of the connecting pipe is W ( at the outer thickness or width of the of the pipe at tube 8 as seen in figure 2 and 3), however Matsumoto is silent as to any specific dimensions and while the figures appear to disclose a structure that would meet the limitations of a length of the first connecting plate is L1 and an outer diameter of the connecting pipe is W, where L1≥1.1 W, since the drawings are not necessarily to scale the relative dimension are not necessarily explicitly disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Matsumoto to have the relatively longer length of the first connecting plate compared to the diameter of the connecting pipe since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04 IV A. In the instant case, the device of Matsumoto. would not operate differently with the claimed relative connecting plate length to the pipe diameter as the drawings appear to show a length to diameter that would meet the limitations. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the relative dimensions of one embodiment are be within the claimed ranges (per the fourth paragraph of page 2 of the clean copy of the substitute specification submitted 11/2022024).
Regarding claim 6, Matsumoto discloses the claim limitations of claim 4 and Matsumoto further discloses a thickness of the connecting pipe in the first direction is T1 ( at the outer thickness of the of the pipe at tube 8 as seen in figure 2 and 3), and a thickness of the first baffle and the second baffle are T2 (at the thickness of the baffle at joining portion 30), However Matsumoto is silent as to any specific dimensions and while the figures appear to disclose a structure that would meet the limitations of a thickness of the connecting pipe in the first direction is T1, and a thickness of the first baffle and the second baffle are T2, where T1≤T2≤2 T1, since the drawings are not necessarily to scale the relative dimension are not necessarily explicitly disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Matsumoto to have the relatively equal or larger thickness of the baffle to a thickness of the connecting pipe since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04 IV A. In the instant case, the device of Matsumoto. would not operate differently with the claimed relative thicknesses as the drawings appear to shoo relative thicknesses that could meet the limitations. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that some embodiments have the relative dimensions within the claimed ranges (per the paragraph spanning pages 3 and 4 of the clean copy of the substitute specification submitted 11/2022024).
Regarding claim 11, Matsumoto discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 and Matsumoto further discloses a height of the connecting gap (any dimension that can be interpreted as a height of the space 24 such as between baffles at joining portion 30) is H1, a length of the first baffle (any dimension that can be interpreted as a length of the baffle at 30 of side plate 20) is L3, however Matsumoto is silent as to any specific dimensions and while the figures appear to disclose a structure that would meet the limitations of a height of the connecting gap is H1, a length of the first baffle is L3, where 2 H1>L3>H1., since the drawings are not necessarily to scale the relative dimension are not necessarily explicitly disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Matsumoto to have the relatively longer length of the first baffle compared to height of the gap since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04 IV A. In the instant case, the device of Matsumoto would not operate differently with the claimed relative baffle length compared to the height of the gap as the drawings appear to show a length to relative height that would meet the limitations. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the relative dimensions of one embodiment are be within the claimed ranges (per the second and third paragraph of page 9 of the clean copy of the substitute specification submitted 11/2022024).
Regarding claim 12, Matsumoto discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 and Matsumoto further discloses a height of the connecting gap (any dimension that can be interpreted as a height of the space 24 such as between baffles at joining portion 30) is H1, a length of the second baffle (any dimension that can be interpreted as a length of the baffle at 30 of side plate 22), however Matsumoto is silent as to any specific dimensions and while the figures appear to disclose a structure that would meet the limitations of a height of the connecting gap is H1, a length of the first baffle is L2, where 2 H1>L2>H1., since the drawings are not necessarily to scale the relative dimension are not necessarily explicitly disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Matsumoto to have the relatively longer length of the second baffle compared to height of the gap since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04 IV A. In the instant case, the device of Matsumoto would not operate differently with the claimed relative baffle length compared to the height of the gap as the drawings appear to show a length to relative height that would meet the limitations. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the relative dimensions of one embodiment are be within the claimed ranges (per the second and third paragraph of page 9 of the clean copy of the substitute specification submitted 11/2022024).
Regarding claim 15, Matsumoto discloses the claim limitations of claim 4 and Matsumoto further discloses a thickness of the connecting pipe in the first direction is T1 ( at the outer thickness of the of the pipe at tube 8 as seen in figure 2 and 3), and a thickness of the first baffle or the second baffle are T2 (at the thickness of the baffle at joining portion 30), However Matsumoto is silent as to any specific dimensions and while the figures appear to disclose a structure that would meet the limitations of a thickness of the connecting pipe in the first direction is T1, and a thickness of the first baffle and the second baffle are T2, where T1≤T2≤2 T1, since the drawings are not necessarily to scale the relative dimension are not necessarily explicitly disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Matsumoto to have the relatively equal or larger thickness of the baffle to a thickness of the connecting pipe since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04 IV A. In the instant case, the device of Matsumoto. would not operate differently with the claimed relative thicknesses as the drawings appear to shoo relative thicknesses that could meet the limitations. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that some embodiments have the relative dimensions within the claimed ranges (per the paragraph spanning pages 3 and 4 of the clean copy of the substitute specification submitted 11/2022024).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sanada et al. (US 20050217832 A1), Dziubinschi et al. (US 20180038652 A1) and Nagasaka et al. (US 5197538 A) all appear to disclose structures that could at least read on the independent claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANS R. WEILAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-3 EST and alternating Fridays.
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.
/HANS R WEILAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights