DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicants’ Communication received on October 9, 2024 for application number 18/910,372. This Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, and Claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frank et al. (US PG Pub No. 2010/0258096 A1), hereinafter “Frank”.
Regarding claim 1, Frank discloses an intercooler assembly for an intercooler supercharger system (40), comprising: three separate, contiguous intercooler cores (Fig. 1 (30)), each including a top (Fig. 2 (top part of elements 30)) and a bottom (Fig. 2 (bottom parts of elements 30)), wherein two of the bottoms of the intercooler cores (Fig. 2 (bottom parts of elements 30)) are coplanar, and the bottom of the remaining intercooler core is not coplanar with the bottoms of the other two intercooler cores (Fig. 2 (bottom parts of elements 30)).
Regarding claim 2, Frank discloses the intercooler assembly of claim 1, wherein two of the bottoms of the intercooler cores (Fig. 2 (bottom parts of elements 30)) are disposed above the bottom of the remaining intercooler cores (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Frank discloses the intercooler assembly of claim 1, wherein two of the bottoms of the intercooler cores (Fig. 2 (bottom parts of elements 30)) are disposed below the bottom of the remaining intercooler core (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Frank discloses an intercooler assembly for an intercooler supercharger system (40), comprising: a plurality of separate, contiguous intercooler cores (Fig. 1 (30)), each including a top (Fig. 2 (top part of elements 30)) and a bottom (Fig. 2 (bottom parts of elements 30)), wherein at least two of the bottoms of the intercooler cores (Fig. 2 (bottom parts of elements 30)) are coplanar.
Regarding claim 5, Frank discloses the intercooler assembly of claim 4, wherein two of the bottoms of the plurality of separate, contiguous intercooler cores (Fig. 2 (bottom parts of elements 30)) are disposed above the bottom of a remaining of the plurality of separate, contiguous intercooler cores (Fig. 1 (30)).
Regarding claim 6, Frank discloses the intercooler assembly of claim 4, wherein two of the bottoms of the plurality of separate, contiguous intercooler cores (Fig. 2 (bottom parts of elements 30)) are disposed below the bottom of a remaining of the plurality of separate, contiguous intercooler cores (Fig. 1 (30)).
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,116,962. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 4 are basically claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,116,962 with minor English language syntax differences. Further on, claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,116,962 anticipates claims 1 and 4 of the instant present application. Still further, please refer to the following table for the correspondence of claims between the present application and U.S. Patent No. 12,116,962:
Application (18/910,372)
Claims
Patent (U.S. Patent No. 12,116,962)
Claims
1
8
4
1
Therefore, claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,116,962 anticipate claims 1-6 of the instant present application separately alone or altogether.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR MORALES whose telephone number is (571)272-5923. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached on (571)272-1196. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/O.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LINDSAY M LOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747