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 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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites “a set of heat exchanges” in lines 6-7 and later recites “at least one heat exchanger mounted on the same plate” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear if these are the same heat exchangers or separate heat exchangers. The first heat exchangers is required to be in a heat-exchange relationship with the plate and the second recited at least one heat exchanger is specifically mounted on the same plate. For the purpose of examination, the “at least one heat exchanger” is understood to refer to at least one of the set of heat exchangers.
Claim 1 recites “a heat conducting plate” in line 6 and then later recites “the at least one plate” and later recites “the plate” multiple times which renders the claims unclear as it is unclear first how many plates are required and if all of the plates mentioned are the “heat conductive plate”. For the purpose of examination, every recitation in claim 1of “the plate” or “the at least one plate” is understood to refer to the “heat conducting plate”.
Claim 2 recites ”a plurality of heat exchangers mounted on the same plate” which is considered indefinite as it unclear how it relates to the “at least on heat exchanger” and the “set of heat exchangers” in claim 1
as it appears to recite the same limitation as claim 1. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the at least one heat exchanger in claim 1 is specifically requiring there to be a plurality of heat exchangers of the set of heat exchangers.
Claim 2 recites “the heat exchangers” twice but it is unclear what of the recitations of previous heat exchangers it is referring to. For the purpose of examination, both recitation of “the heat exchangers” are understood to be to be referring to the plurality of heat exchangers.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "for example" 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). For the purpose of examination the limitations after “for example” are not considered to be required by the claim language.
Claim 5 recites “the return pipe” which is considered indefinite as two previous separate return pipes have been recited which renders it unclear which return pipe the claim is referring to. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be referring to the return pipe connecting the manifold to the refrigerator.
Claim 8 recites “the heat exchanger or heat exchangers” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear what of the heat exchangers referred to in claim 1 is being referred to. For the purpose of examination, based on the interpretation of claim 1, the above limitation is understood to refer to at least one of the set of heat exchangers of claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “the return pipe” which is considered indefinite as two previous separate return pipes have been recited which renders it unclear which return pipe the claim is referring to. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be referring to the return pipe connecting the manifold to the at least one heat exchanger.
Claim 9 recites “ a direction of distribution through the enclosure” which is considered indefinite. For the purpose of examination this limitation is understood to refer to along the length of the enclosure.
Claim 9 recites “a plurality of plates” as well as “a manifold” “at least one heat exchanger”, and “a transfer pipe” as part of the plates” which is considered indefinite as claim 1 has already recited a plate and as such it is unclear if this is an additional plurality of plates and if the originally recited components are included in these additional plates. The claim also only used the term “plates’ whereas claim 1 recites “a heat-conducting plate” so it is unclear if the additional plates are part of that configuration. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is considered that the plurality of plates includes the already recited heat conducting plate and that each of the plates is in the configuration of the heat conducting plate of claim 1 with respect to the heat exchanger, transfer pipe and manifold where each plate has their own respective components, the heat exchanger part of a respective set of heat exchangers per plate.
Claim 10 recites “respective conveying pipes” which are considered indefinite as it is unclear how this relates to the “a pipe conveying cycle fluid” in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, there is a “pipe conveying cycle fluid” to each respective manifold.
Claim 11 recites “the manifold of a first plate is supplied with cycle fluid by a fluid-conveying pipe” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear how it relates to the “pipe conveying fluid” already recited. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be the same pipe.
Claim 11 recites “the manifold… of a second plate being supplied with cycle fluid… via a set of linking pipes”; however, claim 10 has already recited the manifold is provided with fluid by a conveying pipe. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the set of linking pipes is required to be a single pipe conveying fluid.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "for example" 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). For the purpose of examination the limitations after “for example” are not considered to be required by the claim language.
Claim 14 recites “a peripheral border of the heat exchangers and/or manifold being in contact with a border that is conjugate of the respective heat exchangers, delimiting the housing” which is considered indefinite. The claims have not structurally defined the manifold or heat exchanger in a way that would make it clear if they had a border or where said border would be and further, it is unclear how a heat exchanger can have a border with itself. Additionally it is unclear which heat exchangers would be in contact with a manifold as the manifold does not have a respective heat exchanger. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood only that at least some of the heat exchangers or the manifold has a housing.
Claim 15 recites “are mounted in the respective housing in the plate by being inserted into said housings through movement that is transverse and/or parallel relative to the planes of the plates” which renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” For the purpose of examination, this limitation is considered to be that the components are “configured to be mounted”.
Claim 16 recites “the at least one manifold” and “the at least one plate” which are both considered indefinite as claim 1 has only required “a manifold” and “a heat conducting plate”. For the purpose of examination, these limitations are understood refer to the singular components respectively.
Claim 16 recites “the at least one heat exchanger” which is considered indefinite as it unclear how it relates to the “at least on heat exchanger” and the “set of heat exchangers” in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be rereferring to at least one of the set of heat exchangers of claim 1.
While this is meant to be a comprehensive list of all issues in regard to 35 USC 112 in the claims, due to the length and nature of the claims, it may not be possible to indicate every issue in regard to 35 USC 112 and the Applicant is requested to perform a thorough review of the claims for any outstanding issues in regard to 35 USC 112. The applicant is also requested to proof-read any future amendments for any potential issues in regard to 35 USC 112 that can arise from the amendments due to the complexity of the claims.
Claims 4, 6-7, 12 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “set of heat exchangers” in claim 1 is not considered to be limited to two heat exchangers but is understood that there is a plurality of heat exchangers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the limitation of “a manifold of the cryogenic refrigeration device which is mounted on the plate, the cycle-fluid circuit having at least one transfer pipe configured to transfer cycle fluid from the manifold to at least one heat exchanger mounted on the same plate” is considered to read over the closest prior art. While it is acknowledge that it is well known in the prior art that manifolds can be used to distribute fluid, a manifold used in this way on a plate in a cryogenic refrigeration device as claimed is not taught in the prior art. Jette (US PG Pub 20230135323) teaches a cryogenic refrigeration cycle where a heat exchanger is on a flange (112 on 101b) receiving fluid and returning fluid back to a liquefier (paragraphs 45 and 52) but there is no teaching of a manifold. Matthews (US PG Pub 20190383525) teaches a cryogenic refrigeration device which includes multiple plates (6-9) which each receive fluid via a flowpath (gas supply line 31) which can be seen in Figure 1 to be split from the gas supply line by a manifold to each of the respective plates (paragraphs 55-57); however, there is no manifold mounted on a plate nor is there is heat exchanger mounted to a plate as claimed and further the cryogenic cooler that is located both inside and outside of the enclosure as claimed (2, paragraph 52) is not using the cycle fluid as claimed as the cycle fluid comes from an independent source (32). Matthews (US PG Pub 20200370792) Figure 4 provides a similar teaching of a manifold (43’ and 44’ split from a feed 15’, paragraphs 46-47). Narasaki (EP 3477225) provides a similar teaching to that of Matthews and lacks the same limitations of the claims. Hideki (JP2008241215) provides a similar teaching with a manifold (see Figure 5 where two valves 56 split the refrigerant) and a part of the refrigerator is outside the enclosure (top of 68); however, there is no mounted manifolds as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached at 5712726681. 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.
/BRIAN M KING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights