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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the motor vehicle, in particular an electric vehicle, which has a heat exchanger assembly must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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 “transferring heat between two fluids”, and the claim also recites “in particular a liquid and air” 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. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the air flow ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as “an air flow”.
The term “minimized” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimized” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as any degree of minimization.
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 14 recites the broad recitation “a motor vehicle”, and the claim also recites “in particular an electric vehicle” 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. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
Claims 2-13, 15 and 16 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 1-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Case (US6470961B1).
Regarding claim 1, Case teaches a heat exchanger assembly (see Figure 1) for transferring heat between two fluids, in particular a liquid and air (via fan), comprising a frame (12) with at least one fan (20), the frame (12) has two parallel side pieces (22L and 22R), each of which has a groove (14R) into which a heat exchanger (18) can be inserted (see Figure 1), the heat exchanger (18) is substantially perpendicular to the air flow passing through it, generated by the fan (see Figure 1 where the fan’s (20) rotation axis is perpendicular to the heat exchanger (18)) when the heat exchanger (18) is inserted into the groove (14R) such that the heat exchanger (18) is in an assembled state (see Figure 2), the heat exchanger (18) is configured to be inserted into the groove (14R) such that a seal is obtained (i.e. snug fit), and air leakage through the groove (14R) is at least minimized (see Col. 3 Lines [34-43]).
Regarding claim 2, Case further teaches wherein the heat exchanger (18) and fan (20) are substantially parallel to one another in the assembled state (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, Case further teaches wherein the side pieces (22L and 22R) each have at least two grooves (14R and 14C) for at least two heat exchangers (18 and 16) to be respectively inserted therein (see Figures 1 and 2), the at least two heat exchangers (18 and 16) when inserted into the respective two grooves are substantially parallel to one another and substantially perpendicular to the air flow passing through them, generated by the at least one fan (20: see Figure 1 where the fan’s (20) rotation axis is perpendicular to the heat exchangers (18 and 16)), the heat exchangers (18 and 16) are configured to be inserted into the grooves (14R and 14C) such that a seal is obtained, and air leakage through the grooves (14R and 14C) is at least minimized (see Col. 3 Lines [34-43]).
Regarding claim 4, Case further teaches wherein the at least two heat exchangers (18 and 16) can be inserted into the grooves (14R and 14C) from above (see Figure 1) or below.
Regarding claim 5, Case further teaches wherein characterized in that the frame (12) is an injection molded part made of plastic (see Col. 3 Lines [14-16]: The recitation " an injection molded part " is considered product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113)).
Regarding claim 7, Case further teaches wherein fastening contours (28a and 28b) are integrally formed on the frame (12) with which the heat exchanger assembly can be attached to a body of a motor vehicle (see Col. 4 Lines [45-50]).
Regarding claim 8, Case further teaches wherein the heat exchanger (18) is form-fit into the respective groove (14R) of the frame, without forming a gap (i.e. snug fit: see Col. 3 Lines [34-43]).
Regarding claim 9, Case further teaches further comprising a sealing contour (see Case’s Figure 1 annotated by Examiner) on the frame (12), which forms a seal for the grooves (14R).
PNG
media_image1.png
912
1058
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Case’s Figure 1 annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 10, Case further teaches wherein characterized in that the sealing contour is one of an elastic sealing lip, or a sealing fin (see in Case’s Figure 1 annotated by Examiner where the sealing contour is a sealing fin).
Regarding claim 11, Case further teaches wherein the heat exchanger (18) comprises reservoirs (18T) on opposite sides thereof, wherein the reservoirs (18T) slide into the grooves (14R) formed in the frame (12: see Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 13, Case further teaches wherein the heat exchanger (18) is one of a coolant cooler, condenser, or oil cooler (see Col. 3 Lines [34-43]).
Regarding claim 14, Case further teaches a motor vehicle, in particular an electric vehicle, which has a heat exchanger assembly according to claim 1 (see Col. 4 Lines [45-50] and the rejection of claim 1 where Case teaches a motor vehicle which has a heat exchanger assembly according to claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, Case further teaches wherein the frame (12) is made of a single piece of plastic (see Col. 3 Lines [14-16]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Case (US6470961B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of RISKI (US20240077088A1).
Regarding claim 12, Case does not teach wherein the heat exchanger assembly has a diffusor, wherein the diffusor is configured to be slid onto the heat exchanger.
RISKI teaches a heat exchanger assembly (1: see Figure 1) comprising a heat exchanger 5) and diffusor (4), wherein the diffusor is configured to be slid onto the heat exchanger (5: see Figure 1).
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 heat exchanger assembly of Case with a diffusor, wherein the diffusor is configured to be slid onto the heat exchanger, as taught by RISKI, such provision would provide the benefit of redirecting the air flow into the heat exchanger(s) thus increase the heat transfer rate.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Case (US6470961B1).
Regarding claim 16, Case does not teach wherein the heat exchanger is form-fit into the respective groove of the frame with a gap of 0.5 mm to 1.0 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the gap of the frame would result in a difference in function of the Case assembly. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the gap of Case, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the assembly would function as intended being given the claimed gap. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the heat exchangers fit in the grooves without forming gaps, or with gaps of between 0.5 mm and 1.0 mm (specification at Page 5. Lines [1-3]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range 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 frame of Case to have a gap of 0.5 mm to 1.0 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
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 /JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights