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 module,” “heat exchange part,” and “accommodation part” used throughout the claims.
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.
For the record:
“Heat exchange module” has been interpreted according to the structure corresponding to reference numeral 40 as described in the specification and illustrated in the figures, and equivalents thereof.
“Heat exchange part” has been interpreted according to the structure corresponding to reference numeral 41 as described in the specification and illustrated in the figures, and equivalents thereof.
“Accommodation part” has been interpreted according to the structure corresponding to reference numeral 60 as described in the specification and illustrated in the figures, 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 9-14 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 9 recites “a first blocking wall,” “a second blocking wall,” and “a third blocking wall” but previously already recites “a central blocking wall.” Since the “central blocking wall” is itself implicitly a “first” blocking wall, the further recitations of “a first blocking wall,” “a second blocking wall,” and “a third blocking wall” are rendered indefinite. The limitations of “a first blocking wall,” “a second blocking wall,” and “a third blocking wall” should be further limited to clearly distinguish from the central blocking wall (i.e., by being recited as “a first radial blocking wall,” etc.).
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2026/0034847 A1).
The applied reference has a common inventor and assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
As per claim 1, Kim discloses a receiver dryer 150 configured to remove moisture from refrigerant discharged through a condenser 140 and supplied to an inside of a housing (Fig. 1; etc.) and to separate the refrigerant into liquid refrigerant and gaseous refrigerant at the inside of the housing, the receiver dryer comprising: a heat exchange module (combination of valve 222 and heat exchange pipe 155) connected to a radiator 228 through a coolant line 7 so as to enable coolant passing through the radiator to be supplied to the heat exchange module, the heat exchange module being configured to selectively perform heat exchange between the coolant supplied from the radiator and the refrigerant inside of the housing (via valve 222).
As per claim 3, Kim discloses wherein the heat exchange module comprises a heat exchange part (pipe 155) configured to allow the coolant to pass through an inside thereof, the heat exchange part configured to perform the heat exchange between the coolant flowing through the inside of the heat exchange part and the refrigerant inside of the housing (Fig. 1; etc.).
As per claim 5, Kim discloses wherein the heat exchange module comprises: a heat exchange part (pipe 155) configured to perform the heat exchange between the coolant flowing through an inside of the heat exchange part and the refrigerant inside of the housing; a bypass flow path part 8 configured to allow the coolant to bypass the heat exchange part without passing through the heat exchange part; and a valve device 222 configured to control a flow of the coolant so as to allow the coolant supplied from the radiator to selectively flow through the heat exchange part or the bypass flow path part (Figs. 1, 3, 5-7; etc.).
As per claim 15, Kim discloses wherein: the heat exchange module (the portion thereof including heat exchange pipe 155) is installed at the inside of the housing, and the coolant supplied from the radiator is configured to exchange heat with the refrigerant filling the inside of the housing and an outside of the heat exchange module, while passing through the heat exchange module inside the housing (Fig. 1; etc.).
As per claim 20, Kim discloses a vehicle thermal management device comprising: a radiator 228 configured to perform heat exchange between coolant and air; a condenser 140 configured to perform heat exchange between refrigerant and the air; a receiver dryer 150 configured to remove moisture from the refrigerant discharged through the condenser, and to separate the refrigerant into liquid refrigerant and gaseous refrigerant; and a heat exchange module (combination of valve 222 and heat exchange pipe 155) connected to the radiator so as to allow the coolant to move therebetween, the heat exchange module configured to selectively perform heat exchange between the refrigerant in the receiver dryer and the coolant supplied from the radiator (Fig. 1; etc.), wherein the heat exchange module comprises a heat exchange part 155 disposed inside the receiver dryer, the heat exchange part configured to perform the heat exchange between the coolant and the refrigerant (Fig. 1; etc.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 2, 4, 6-7, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kim.
The applied reference has a common inventor and assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
As per claim 2, Kim discloses wherein the heat exchange module is coupled to an upper end of the housing or a lower end of the housing (Fig. 1, etc., show the heat exchange module connected at the bottom portion of the housing). While not explicitly a lower “end” of the housing, such positioning is considered a simple rearrangement of existing parts that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application easily arrived at through routine experimentation and not affecting the basic functioning of the system.
As per claim 4, Kim shows a schematic of a spiral pipe 155 (Fig. 1; etc.), although does not explicitly state in the specification that the heat exchange pipe 155 having a spirally wound coil spring shape. Official notice is taken that spiral heat exchangers are generally common in the art and that providing pipe 155 as a spirally wound pipe constitutes a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the purpose of improving heat exchange by increasing the heat exchange surface area of between the coolant and the refrigerant.
As per claim 6, Kim does not teach wherein the heat exchange module further comprises a module case configured to allow the coolant to pass therethrough, wherein the module case comprises: a coolant inlet configured to allow the coolant passing through the radiator to be introduced thereinto; and a coolant outlet configured to allow the coolant passing through an internal space of the module case to be discharged therethrough. However, providing a case to hold valve 222 to the housing is considered a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the purpose of protecting and mounting the valve in place.
As per claim 7, Kim also does not teach wherein the module case further comprises an accommodation part configured to allow an end of the housing to be inserted and coupled thereto. Regarding “accommodation part,” see interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), above. Official notice is taken that simply providing a coupling for the housing to the module would have been an obvious mechanical expedient to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the simple purpose of holding the housing in place.
As per claim 16, Kim does not teach wherein the heat exchange module comprises: a heat exchange pipe forming a straight coolant flow path; and heat dissipation fins installed on an outer side of the heat exchange pipe. Official notice is taken that providing fins along a straight section of pipes is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the purpose enhancing heat exchange by providing increased surface area along the pipe.
As per claim 17, Kim discloses wherein: the heat exchange pipe is arranged whereby a coolant inlet and a coolant outlet are respectively disposed in the opposite ends of the heat exchange pipe, wherein each of the coolant inlet and the outlet is connected to the coolant line and is configured to allow the coolant to be introduced thereinto or discharged therethrough (Fig. 1; etc.), but does not specifically teach the heat exchange pipe is a straight pipe disposed at the inside of the housing and installed in a longitudinal direction of the housing, and the heat exchange pipe has opposite ends respectively located at opposite ends of the housing. Official notice is taken that such an arrangement is a simple rearrangement of existing parts that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to arrive at through routine experimentation as an alternative arrangement without affecting the basic functioning of the system.
As per claim 18, Kim does not teach wherein: the housing comprises a housing body and caps respectively installed at opposite ends of the housing body, the heat exchange pipe is installed to vertically pass through an inside of the housing body, and the coolant inlet and the coolant outlet are respectively located at the opposite ends of the heat exchange pipe, and the opposite ends of the heat exchange pipe are respectively inserted into and coupled to the caps, thereby allowing the coolant to vertically pass through the inside of the housing along the heat exchange pipe. Official notice is taken that providing mounting caps for connecting the heat exchange pipe to the housing is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application that would have been easily arrived at through routine experimentation for the purpose of facilitating assembly and holding the pipe in place.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kim in view of Gyotoku et al. (US 2023/0099489 A1).
The applied reference has a common inventor and assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
As per claim 8, Kim does not teach wherein the valve device comprises:
a valve body rotatably disposed in the internal space of the module case, wherein the valve body is configured to cause the coolant inlet to selectively communicate with, depending on a rotation position of the valve body, the heat exchange part or the bypass flow path part such that the coolant flows through a selected one of the heat exchange part or the bypass flow path part; an actuator configured to rotate the valve body; and a valve controller configured to control an operation of the actuator. Gyotoku et al. teach the a three-way valve comprising a valve body rotatably disposed in the internal space of the module case, wherein the valve body is configured to cause the coolant inlet to selectively communicate with, depending on a rotation position of the valve body, the heat exchange part or the bypass flow path part such that the coolant flows through a selected one of the heat exchange part or the bypass flow path part; an actuator configured to rotate the valve body; and a valve controller configured to control an operation of the actuator (Figs. 2-7; etc.). This basic valve structure of Gyotoku et al. is considered applicable to three-way valve design generally. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application utilize a valve such as that of Gyotoku et al. within the system of Kim as simply a particular valve structure for controlling the three-way flow.
Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kim in view of Hosokawa et al. (US 2007/0017248 A1).
The applied reference has a common inventor and assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
As per claim 19, Kim does not teach wherein: the housing includes a plurality of the heat dissipation fins provided at the inside of the housing, the heat dissipation fins being disposed along the heat exchange pipe with a predetermined interval therebetween, and the heat exchange pipe includes a filter installed thereon and configured to partition the inside of the housing into an upper chamber and a lower chamber, the filter configured to allow the refrigerant to flow through the filter between the upper chamber and the lower chamber. Again, providing a plurality of fins along a heat exchange pipe is a common and obvious mechanical expedient for enhancing heat exchange by increasing surface area as already discussed above. Further, Hosokawa et al. teach the concept of providing a filter 130 within a receiver dryer 10 in a manner that partitions the housing into upper and lower portions (Fig. 1; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application provide a filter within the receiver dryer of Kim for the same purpose of filtering any contaminants from the refrigerant therein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-14 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:
As per claim 9 (and thus claims 10-14 which depend therefrom), there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to further modify the system of Kim wherein the valve body comprises a plurality of blocking walls including: a central blocking wall located at a central portion of the valve body, wherein the central blocking wall has an open shape on one side of a cross section thereof; a first blocking wall and a second blocking wall, each disposed and extending from the central blocking wall in a radial direction; and a third blocking wall disposed at a position spaced apart from the second blocking wall, the third blocking wall extending from the central blocking wall in the radial direction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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 571-272-6681. 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.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights