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.
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 first and second orthographic projections as recited in claim 3 must be shown or the features 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.
Specification
Receipt and entry of the substitute specification and of the amended abstract filed on November 22, 2024 are acknowledged.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not avoid referring to the purported merits and speculative uses of the invention (i.e., in the last sentence, “thereby improving the performance of the heat exchanger, the air conditioning system, and the heat exchange system”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 through 8, 15, 16, 21 through 25, 27, and 32 through 35 are objected to because of the following informalities: one or more words appear to be missing either immediately preceding “or in a first heat exchanger” [claim 1, line 27] or immediately following “or” [claim 1, line 27] because, as written, the last five or so lines of claim 1 appear to be incomplete and/or out of context; “a wind resistance” [claim 1, line 30; claim 34, line 2] should be replaced with “the wind resistance” since the wind resistance/pressure drop is an inherent characteristic of the heat exchanger; “a ratio” [claim 2, line 4; claim 2, line 7; claim 2, line 10; claim 3, line 5; claim 5, line 5; claim 5, line 8; claim 6, line 5; claim 6, line 8; claim 7, line 11; claim 7, line 21; claim 8, line 12; claim 8, line 21; claim 35, line 4; claim 35, line 7] should be replaced with “the ratio” because once two values are compared to each other, the relative ratio between the two exists inherently; “degree” [claim 4, line 4] should be replaced with “degrees” for improved grammatical and idiomatic correctness; “and being different from” [claim 15, line 5] should be replaced with “and different from” for improved readability and grammatical/idiomatic correctness; and, “a number” [claim 23, line 1; claim 23, lines 2-3] should be replaced with “the number” for improved readability and for improved grammatical/idiomatic correctness since there is an inherent number of sub-fins.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “first connection segment” (i.e., as recited throughout the claims); “second connection segment” (i.e., as recited throughout the claims); “first wind resistance region” (i.e., as recited throughout the claims); “second wind resistance region” (recited throughout the claims); “refrigerant distribution device” (i.e., as recited in claim 32), and, “refrigerant collection device” (i.e., as recited in claim 32).
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.
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 through 8, 15, 16, 21 through 25, 27, and 32 through 35 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
First of all, as previously noted above, one or more words appear to be missing either immediately preceding “or in a first heat exchanger” [claim 1, line 27] or immediately following “or” [claim 1, line 27] because, as written, the last five or so lines of claim 1 appear to be incomplete and/or out of context, and rendering indeterminate and generally indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim and by all claims depending therefrom.
Second of all, as noted above, claim 1 recites (or appears to recite) a set of alternative limitations. Each of dependent claims 2, 5 through 8, 16, 21 through 25, 27, 32, and 35 also recites one or more limitations in the alternative (i.e., preceded by “or” and or by “and/or”). The effect of the plural, cumulative alternative limitations is the same as that of improperly dependent claims, thus generally rendering entirely indeterminate and indefinite the scope of protection sought by the aforementioned dependent claims 2, 5 through 8, 16, 21 through 25, 27, 32, and 35.
Thirdly, claim 1 recites the limitations “and parallel to a first plane in which the first main segment of the first heat exchanger core is located”. However, given that the first main segment of the first heat exchanger core is at least a two-dimensional surface and likely a three-dimensional portion of the first heat exchanger core, there is no single plane in which the first main segment is located. Rather, there are an infinite number of planes having an infinite number of orientations in which the first main segment is located. Given this, the aforementioned limitations are either so broadly readable as to be non-limiting or are indefinite because it is not clear to which of the infinite number of planes the aforementioned recitation of “a first plane” is to be limited. Furthermore, it is not at all clear which previously recited element(s) in claim 1 are to be “parallel to a first plane” as recited in the aforementioned limitations of claim 1 because the aforementioned limitations are not clearly tied to a subject that precedes the same in the claim..
Additionally, each of claims 2, 5 through 8, 22, 27, and 35 each recite the “size” of each of various components of the inventive heat exchanger as well as reciting ratios of the recited “sizes” without specifying which particular dimension or dimensions of the respective various components are intended to be encompassed by the term “size. For example, in each instance where the term “size” appears in the claims, it is not clear at all whether the term “size” is intended to refer to a volume and/or to an area and/or to a linear dimension of each of the various respective components of the inventive heat exchanger, thus rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claims..
Any claim not specifically mentioned is at least rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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.
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claims 1, 3, 4, 15, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0168038 A1, published June 1, 2023).
With regard to base claim 1 of the instant application, Li et al. discloses a heat exchanger 100 comprising: a first heat exchanger core 1 and a second heat exchanger core 2 arranged side by side in a first direction (i.e., side to side or left to right in Figure 1), the first heat exchanger core 1 comprising: a first main segment, the first main segment of the first heat exchanger core 1 comprising a plurality of first heat exchange tubes 8 arranged in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (i.e., up and down as shown in Figure 1); a first connection segment 5A connected with the first main segment; and a first header 6A connected and fluidly communicated with the plurality of first heat exchange tubes 8A on a side of the first main segment of the first heat exchanger core 1 opposite to the first connection segment 5A, the second heat exchanger core 2 comprising: a second main segment, the second main segment of the second heat exchanger core 2 comprising a plurality of second heat exchange tubes 8B arranged in the second direction; a second connection segment 5B connected with the second main segment; and a second header 6B connected and fluidly communicated with the plurality of second heat exchange tubes 8B on a side of the second main segment of the second heat exchanger core 2 opposite to the second connection segment 5B, wherein the plurality of first heat exchange tubes 8A of the first main segment of the first heat exchanger core 1 and the plurality of second heat exchange tubes 8B of the second main segment of the second heat exchanger core 2 are interconnected and in fluid communication by the first connection segment 5A of the first heat exchanger core 1 and the second connection segment 5B of the second heat exchanger core 2, and wherein the first main segment of the first heat exchanger core 1 comprises a first wind resistance region (i.e., readable on the second portion 12) and a second wind resistance region (i.e., readable on the first portion 11) arranged in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, or in a first heat exchanger core extension direction perpendicular to the second direction and parallel to a first plane in which the first main segment of the first heat exchanger core 1 is located, the second wind resistance region or first portion 11 being adjacent to the first header 6A, and a wind resistance of the second wind resistance region or first portion 11 being smaller than that of the first wind resistance region or second portion 12 (i.e., see paragraph [0060]).
With regard to claim 3 of the instant application, Li et al. discloses the heat exchanger 100 according to claim 1, wherein the first heat exchanger core 1 has a first orthographic projection on a second plane in which the second main segment of the second heat exchanger core 2 is located (i.e., see paragraph [0023]), the second heat exchanger core 2 has a second orthographic projection on the second plane in which the second main segment of the second heat exchanger core 3 is located, and a ratio of an overlapping area between the first orthographic projection of the first heat exchanger core 1 and the second orthographic projection of the second heat exchanger core 2 to an area of the second orthographic projection of the second heat exchanger core 2 is greater than or equal to 50% and less than or equal to 100% at least as broadly interpreted for pending claims as required.
With regard to claim 4 of the instant application, Li et al. discloses the heat exchanger 100 according to claim 1, wherein an angle between the first main segment of the first heat exchanger core 1 and the second main segment of the second heat exchanger core 2 is greater than or equal to 0 degrees and less than or equal to 45 degrees (i.e., 0 degrees as shown in at least Figure 1).
With regard to claim 15 of the instant application, Li et al. discloses the heat exchanger according to claim 1, wherein the first main segment of the first heat exchanger core 1 further comprises: a first fin 9 connected with the first heat exchange tubes 8A, the first fin 9 comprising a first sub-fin or fin louver 91 located in the first wind resistance region or second portion 12, and a second sub-fin 91 located in the second wind resistance region or first portion 11 and being different from the first sub-fin 91 (i.e., at least as broadly interpreted as required, the sub-fins are inherently different or separate/distinct from each other as shown in Figure 11 and in Figure 12; also see paragraph [0060]).
With regard to claim 33 of the instant application, Li et al. discloses the heat exchanger 100 according to claim 1, wherein the first heat exchanger core 1 and the second heat exchanger core 2 are formed by bending a flat heat exchanger, and the first connection segment 5A and the second connection segment 5B are bent segments (i.e., as shown in at least Figure 1).
The reference thus reads on the claims.
Additional Prior-Art-Related Patentability Comments
The non-application of prior art against claims 2, 5 through 8, 16, 21 through 25, 27, 32, and 35 should not be considered an indication of allowable subject matter in the claims, but rather as an indication of the degree to which these claims are indefinite due to the inadvertently omitted limitations in base claim 1, due to the plural compounded alternative limitations in the claims, and/or due to the lack of any clarity regarding the intended meaning of the term “size” appearing in the claims. The degree of indefiniteness in the aforementioned claims is such that the examiner, in making any patentability determination relative to the prior, would need to resort to considerable speculation relating to the intended scope of protection sought by these claims in making any patentability determination related to these claims. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. See MPEP 2173.06.
Conclusion
The additional related and/or prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LJILJANA V CIRIC whose telephone number is (571)272-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Saturday, flexible.
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.
/Ljiljana V. Ciric/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
LJILJANA (Lil) V. CIRIC
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights