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 .
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 exchange member.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “member” is a generic placeholder, (B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “heat exchange”), and (C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appear to be the corresponding structures for the aforementioned 112(f) limitation(s):
The specification defines heat exchange member, “the heat exchange member 200 may be replaced with the description of the contents that are publicly known in the related art in terms of heat exchangers for a vehicle or radiators for a vehicle”. Therefore, the heat exchange member will be construed as heat exchangers for a vehicle or radiators for a vehicle, and/or 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.
Claims 1-19 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the vehicle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets " the vehicle” to read as " a vehicle”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the other end”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets " the other end” to read as " an end”.
Regarding claim 19, the recitation of “a vehicle” is unclear since claim 1 recites “the vehicle”. Therefore, it’s unclear if the vehicle in both recitations is the same or different. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as if Applicant is claiming the same vehicle.
Claims 2-8 and 10-18 are rejected at least insofar as they are dependent on rejected claim(s), and therefore include the same error(s).
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.
Claims 1-3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by RISKI (US 20240077088 A1).
Regarding claim 1, RISKI teaches a cooling device (see Figure 1) comprising:
an inlet body (2) including an inlet region (3), which is opened toward an outside of the vehicle (see ¶ [0051]), and having therein a first space (4) that communicates with the inlet region (3: see Figure 1);
a heat exchange member (6) provided at one side of the inlet body and having a heat exchange region that communicates with the first space (see in Figure 1 where 6 is provided at one side of 2 and having exchange region and communicates with 4: see ¶¶ [0049-0052]); and
an outlet body (7) provided at one side of the heat exchange member (6: see Figure 1), having therein a second space (space of 7) configured to communicate with the heat exchange region (region of 6), and including an outlet region (opening of 7 that is on the side of 8) opened toward the outside (i.e. air flowing toward the outside),
wherein a direction extending perpendicularly to an imaginary plane formed in parallel with the inlet region is defined as a first normal direction (A1: see RISKI’s Figure 1 annotated by Examiner), a direction extending perpendicularly to an imaginary plane formed in parallel with the outlet region is defined as a second normal direction (A2), and a direction in which the heat exchange member faces the inlet body or the outlet body is defined as a facing direction (A3), and wherein the first normal direction, the second normal direction, and the facing direction intersect one another (see RISKI’s Figure 1 annotated by Examiner).
PNG
media_image1.png
577
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
RISKI’s Figure 1 annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 2, RISKI further teaches wherein the inlet body (2) includes a region recessed (RR) toward the first space (4: see RISKI’s Figure 1 annotated by Examiner).
Regarding claim 3, RISKI further teaches wherein the inlet body (2) and the outlet body (7) are provided to face each other with the heat exchange member (6) interposed therebetween (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 19, RISKI further teaches a vehicle (see ¶ [0047]) comprising the cooling device of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by RISKI (US 20240077088 A1).
Regarding claim 20, RISKI teaches a vehicle (see ¶ [0047]) comprising:
a cooling device (see Figure 1); and
a frame on which the cooling device is mounted (see ¶ [0047]: Examiner notes that it’s inherited that vehicles comprise frame),
wherein the cooling device comprises:
an inlet body (2) including an inlet region (3), which is opened toward an outside of the vehicle (see ¶ [0051]), and having therein a first space (4) that communicates with the inlet region (3: see Figure 1);
a heat exchange member (6) provided at one side of the inlet body and having a heat exchange region that communicates with the first space (see in Figure 1 where 6 is provided at one side of 2 and having exchange region and communicates with 4: see ¶¶ [0049-0052]); and
an outlet body (7) provided at one side of the heat exchange member (6: see Figure 1), having therein a second space (space of 7) configured to communicate with the heat exchange region (region of 6), and including an outlet region (opening of 7 that is on the side of 8) opened toward the outside (i.e. air flowing toward the outside),
wherein the inlet body (2) includes a region recessed (RR) toward the first space (4: see RISKI’s Figure 1 annotated by Examiner), and
wherein the recessed region (RR) of the inlet body (2) is provided to face a central region of the frame based on a leftward/rightward direction (see ¶ [0051]: Examiner notes that since the inlet region (3) and (A) is facing the front of the vehicle, then the recessed region (RR) is facing a central region of the frame: see RISKI’s Figure 1 annotated by Examiner).
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.
Claims 4-9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RISKI (US 20240077088 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Porsche’s 911 side radiator duct (shown in LYFE, K. (2020) Porsche 997 bumper removal and radiator cleaning DIY, YouTube. Available at: https://youtu.be/mpct4fTBYEY?si=cVPV6dOLr6ZsfGfr).
Regarding claim 4, RISKI further teaches wherein a direction perpendicular to the first normal direction and the facing direction is defined as an upward/downward direction (see in RISKI’s Figure 1 annotated by Examiner where A2 is an upward/downward direction).
Although RISKI teaches, in ¶ [0049], that the inlet body (2) is sealed with respect to the outer environment between the inlet region (3) and the outlet body (7), RISKI is silent regarding the three-dimensional detail of the inlet body (2). Therefore, RISKI does not teach wherein the inlet body includes: an inlet lower surface configured to define a lower surface of the inlet body; an inlet upper surface provided to be spaced apart upward from the inlet lower surface; and an inlet lateral surface configured to connect the inlet lower surface and the inlet upper surface, and wherein the inlet lateral surface includes a first inlet lateral surface including a shape convexly protruding outward.
However, such configuration is old and well known in the art, as evidenced by Porsche’s 911 side radiator duct shown in LYFE, K, see time 9:25 to 10:07 and photo of Porsche’s 911 side radiator duct annotated by Examiner, where the inlet body (i.e. side radiator duct) comprises inlet region (IR), an inlet lower surface configured to define a lower surface of the inlet body; an inlet upper surface provided to be spaced apart upward from the inlet lower surface; and an inlet lateral surface configured to connect the inlet lower surface and the inlet upper surface, and wherein the inlet lateral surface includes a first inlet lateral surface including a shape convexly protruding outward.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the inlet body of RISKI with wherein the inlet body includes: an inlet lower surface configured to define a lower surface of the inlet body; an inlet upper surface provided to be spaced apart upward from the inlet lower surface; and an inlet lateral surface configured to connect the inlet lower surface and the inlet upper surface, and wherein the inlet lateral surface includes a first inlet lateral surface including a shape convexly protruding outward, since as evidenced by Porsche’s 911 side radiator duct, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of improving the air resistance by having smooth and curved air duct/path.
PNG
media_image2.png
738
1012
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Porsche’s 911 side radiator duct annotated by Examiner Part#: 997-575-321-02
Regarding claim 5, RISKI as modified further teaches wherein the inlet upper surface includes a shape recessed toward the first space (see photo of Porsche’s 911 side radiator duct annotated by Examiner).
Regarding claim 6, RISKI as modified further teaches wherein a cross-section, which is made by cutting the inlet upper surface in a direction perpendicular to the first normal direction, includes a curved shape recessed inward or a line segment shape (see in Porsche’s 911 side radiator duct annotated by Examiner where the shape recessed, from left to right point of view, includes a curved shape recessed inward).
Regarding claim 7, RISKI as modified further teaches wherein an upper end of the first inlet lateral surface includes a section having a gradient that increases as the section becomes closer to the heat exchange member (see in Porsche’s 911 side radiator duct annotated by Examiner where the height of the upper end section of first inlet lateral surface increases as the section becomes closer to the heat exchange member. Cf. LYFE, K, see time 9:25 to 10:07).
Regarding claim 8, RISKI as modified further teaches wherein the inlet lateral surface further includes a second inlet lateral surface provided to face the first inlet lateral surface with the inlet upper surface interposed therebetween, and wherein the second inlet lateral surface includes a flat shape (see in Porsche’s 911 side radiator duct annotated by Examiner where the second inlet lateral surface includes a flat shape (i.e. flat side) and provided to face the first inlet lateral surface with the inlet upper surface interposed therebetween).
Regarding claim 9, RISKI as modified further teaches wherein the other end of the second inlet lateral surface, which is opposite to one end facing the heat exchange member, is connected to the first inlet lateral surface (see in Porsche’s 911 side radiator duct annotated by Examiner where the first and second inlet lateral surfaces are connected to each other via the inlet upper surface in an end that is opposite to one end facing the heat exchange member).
Regarding claim 18, RISKI as modified further teaches the inlet lower surface includes a shape recessed toward the first space (see photo of Porsche’s 911 side radiator duct annotated by Examiner).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RISKI (US 20240077088 A1).
Regarding claim 17, RISKI further teaches wherein the outlet body (7) includes an outlet lateral surface (14) configured to define a lateral surface of the outlet body (see Figure 4).
RISKI does not teach wherein the outlet lateral surface includes a shape convex outward.
However, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the shape of the outlet lateral surface of the outlet body would result in a difference in function of the outlet body of RISKI in view of Porsche. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the shape of the outlet lateral surface of RISKI in view of Porsche, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed shape. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed shape solves any stated problem, indicating that the shape of the outlet lateral surface “may” include a curved shape convex outward, be formed in the curved shape, or be a rectangular shape, (specification Page 17. Lines [17-22]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on shape of the outlet lateral surface as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the division wall member of RISKI in view of Porsche to have the outlet lateral surface includes a shape convex outward as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RISKI (US 20240077088 A1) in view of Porsche’s 911 side radiator duct (shown in LYFE, K. (2020) Porsche 997 bumper removal and radiator cleaning DIY, YouTube. Available at: https://youtu.be/mpct4fTBYEY?si=cVPV6dOLr6ZsfGfr) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view Abeysinghe (US 11725569 B1).
Regarding claim 10, RISKI in view of Porsche does not teach further comprising: one or more division wall members provided inside the inlet body and protruding upward from the inlet lower surface, wherein the division wall member extends from the inlet region toward the heat exchange member.
However, it’s old and well known for automotive’s air duct to have one or more division wall members, as evidenced by Abeysinghe, see Abeysinghe’s Figures 1-1B and 8 where a cooling device (see Figure 1) comprises an air duct (10) having one or more division wall members (282a and 282b) provided inside the air duct (10) and protruding upward from an inlet lower surface (lower surface of 10: see Col 8 Lines [30-33]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the inlet body of RISKI in view of Porsche with one or more division wall members provided inside the inlet body and protruding upward from the inlet lower surface, wherein the division wall member extends from the inlet region toward the heat exchange member, since as evidenced by Abeysinghe, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of uniformly discharges the introduced outside air, thereby improving the cooling efficiency, see Abeysinghe’s Col 8 Lines [25-30].
Regarding claim 11, RISKI as modified above further teaches wherein the division wall member (282a and 282b of Abeysinghe) extends in parallel with the first inlet lateral surface (see in Abeysinghe’s Figure 8 where each of 282a and 282b extends in parallel with a corresponding lateral surface).
Regarding claim 12, RISKI as modified above further teaches wherein the division wall member (282a and 282b of Abeysinghe) extends from the inlet lower surface to the inlet upper surface (see Abeysinghe’s Col 8 Lines [30-32]).
Regarding claim 13, RISKI as modified above further teaches wherein the division wall member (282a and 282b of Abeysinghe) extends from the inlet lower surface and is provided to be spaced apart from the inlet upper surface (see Abeysinghe’s Col 8 Lines [32-34]).
Regarding claim 14, RISKI as modified above further teaches wherein the division wall member (282a and 282b of Abeysinghe) includes: a section extending from the inlet lower surface to the inlet upper surface (see Abeysinghe’s Col 8 Lines [30-32]).
RISKI as modified does not teach wherein the division wall member includes: a section extending from the inlet lower surface to the inlet upper surface and a section extending from the inlet lower surface and provided to be spaced apart from the inlet upper surface.
However, Abeysinghe also teaches in different embodiment that the division wall member (282a and 282b of Abeysinghe) may extends from the inlet lower surface and provided to be spaced apart from the inlet upper surface, see Abeysinghe’s Col 8 Lines [32-34].
Moreover, there is no evidence of record that establishes that combining both configurations of the division wall member would result in a difference in function of the air duct of RISKI in view of Porsche and Abeysinghe. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the division wall member of RISKI in view of Porsche and Abeysinghe, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed configurations. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed configurations solves any stated problem, indicating that the division wall member “may” extend from the inlet lower surface to the inlet upper surface or extend from the inlet lower surface and provided to be spaced apart from the inlet upper surface or combining both configurations, (specification Page 15. Lines [6-19]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on combining both configurations of the division wall member as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the division wall member of RISKI in view of Porsche and Abeysinghe to have the division wall member includes: a section extending from the inlet lower surface to the inlet upper surface and a section extending from the inlet lower surface and provided to be spaced apart from the inlet upper surface as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 15, RISKI as modified above further teaches wherein a width of the division wall member (282a and 282b of Abeysinghe) in the upward/downward direction is constant (see Abeysinghe’s Figure 8 where width of 282a and 282b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 16 is containing allowable subject matter since RISKI in view of Porsche and Abeysinghe fails to teach further comprising: a partition member extending from the division wall member and configured to partition the first space in the upward/downward direction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALED AL SAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-8685. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM~3:30PM, M-F (E.S.T.).
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.
/KHALED AHMED ALI AL SAMIRI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights