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:
“bottle distancing element” in claim 4.
“primary attachment arrangement” in claim 8.
“secondary attachment arrangement” in claim 8.
“bottle attachment element” in claim 16.
“bottle attachment arrangement” in claim 16.
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 § 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanfranco et al. (US 20120222837), hereinafter referred to as Lanfranco, in view of Ficek et al. (EP 4166885), hereinafter referred to as Ficek.
Re claim 1 and 10, Lanfranco teaches a heat exchanger device comprising a heat exchanger (e.g. 1) with a bottle (e.g. 7a and 7b), and a protective grid (e.g. 10) including a front face (face shown in Fig 5) and a rear face (face shown in Fig 6), opposed to the front face, the protective grid being attached to the heat exchanger so that the rear face faces a side of the heat exchanger (see Fig 1), wherein the protective grid extends over the bottle see Fig 1 where it shows 14a or 14b extending over the bottle).
Lanfranco does not teach the limitation of the bottle having a curvature and wherein the protective grid follows a curvature of said bottle.
However, Ficek teaches the limitation of a heat exchanger comprising a curvature bottle (110) and a protective grid (see Fig 3) extending over the bottle and following a curvature of the bottle (see Fig 1, 3-4).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lanfranco and integrated the bottle having a curvature and wherein the protective grid follows a curvature of said bottle, as taught by Ficek, in order to reduce installation effort (see Ficek ¶ 3).
Re claim 2 and 11, Lanfranco, as modified, teaches the protective grid according to claim 1 and the heat exchanger device according to claim 10. Lanfranco further teaches the limitation of wherein the protective grid includes a first portion extending along a flat plane (see section with 11). Ficek further teaches the limitation of wherein the protective grid includes a second portion extending along a curved plane, with the second portion enveloping the bottle (see Fig 1 and 4).
Re claim 3, Lanfranco, as modified, teaches the protective grid according to claim 2. Ficek further teaches the limitation of wherein the second portion is tubular (see Fig 1 and 4).
Re claim 4, Lanfranco, as modified, teaches the protective grid according to claim 2. Lanfranco further teaches the limitation of wherein the second portion (14a or 14b) includes a bottle distancing element (see Fig 6 element above 14e) protruding from the rear face, intended to ensure a distance between the rear face and the bottle (the examiner notes that the element is fully capable of performing said function).
Re claim 5, Lanfranco, as modified, teaches the protective grid according to claim 2. Ficek further teaches the limitation of wherein the front face and the rear face at the second portion extend along the curved plane in the same manner (see Fig 1 and 4).
Re claim 6, Lanfranco, as modified, teaches the protective grid according to claim 2. Lanfranco further teaches the limitation of wherein the second portion (14a or 14b) extends beyond the first portion in a direction perpendicular to a general plane of extension of the front face (see Fig 5-6).
Re claim 7, Lanfranco, as modified, teaches the protective grid according to claim 2. Lanfranco further teaches the limitation of wherein the first portion includes a primary section (section having 11) configured to cover tubes (5) of the heat exchanger. Ficek teaches wherein the first portion includes a primary section (302A) and a secondary section (302B) remote with respect to the primary section and configured to extend beyond the bottle, with the second portion being arranged between the primary section and the secondary section (see Fig 3-4).
Re claim 12, Lanfranco, as modified, teaches the heat exchanger device according to claim 10. Lanfranco further teaches the limitation of wherein the heat exchanger includes a plurality of tubes (5) extending between a first collecting tank (7b) and a second collecting tank (7a), wherein the bottle is arranged by the second collecting tank, wherein the protective grid extends over the second collecting tank (see Fig 1).
Re claim 13, Lanfranco, as modified, teaches the heat exchanger device according to claim 12. Lanfranco further teaches the limitation of wherein the protective grid extends over the first collecting tank (see Fig 1).
Re claim 14, Lanfranco, as modified, teaches the heat exchanger device according to claim 12. Lanfranco further teaches the limitation of wherein the first collecting tank includes a fluid block (the examiner notes that is implicit that the header is a fluid block in this configuration and is either an inlet or an outlet) configured as an inlet or outlet for a heat exchange fluid, wherein the protective grid extends over the fluid block (see Fig 1).
Re claim 15, see rejection for claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (see PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON NIEVES whose telephone number is (571)270-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm.
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.
/NELSON J NIEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 06/22/2026
Prosecution Insights