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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/08/2025 and 01/13/2026 were filed after the filing date of this application on 03/27/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings include photographs, which are both not the only practicable medium for illustration of the invention, but are also of insufficient clarity to actually illustrate the invention.
For example, it is unclear what Figure 13 illustrates. 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.
The applicant is directed to consult the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, section 608.02, and more specifically, 37 CFR 1.84, Standards for Drawings, section (b) (1), as quoted below:
(b) Photographs
(1) Black and white, Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. For example, photographs or photomicrographs of: electrophoresis gels, blots (e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern), auto-radiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo imaging, thin layer chromatography plates, crystalline structures, and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects, are acceptable. If the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent.
In this case, the examiner is requiring illustration by drawings in lieu of photographs or photograph/drawing combinations.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-7 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 1 recites the limitation “the other end in the stacking direction” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the other end in the stacking direction” will be interpreted as -- another end in the stacking direction --
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the other end of the first straight connecting pipe” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the other end of the first straight connecting pipe” will be interpreted as -- another end of the first straight connecting pipe --
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the first connecting pipe” in line 13 in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the first connecting pipe” will be interpreted as -- the first straight connecting pipe --
Claims 1-2 recite the limitations “…a material containing copper as a main component …” and “…a material containing copper as a main component …” which render the claims indefinite because the claims as written leave the structure ambiguous in nature as it become difficult to tell if the claims are referencing a previously claimed element or disclosing an element in addition to the previously claimed element.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the second connecting pipe” in lines 4 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the second connecting pipe” will be interpreted as -- the second straight connecting pipe --
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the other end of the second connecting pipe” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the other end of the second connecting pipe” will be interpreted as -- another end of the second straight connecting pipe --
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a connected surface of the first connecting pipe” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “a connected surface of the first connecting pipe” will be interpreted as -- the connected surface of the first straight connecting pipe --
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the first connecting pipe” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the first connecting pipe” will be interpreted as -- the first straight connecting pipe --
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the second connecting pipe” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the second connecting pipe” will be interpreted as -- the second straight connecting pipe --
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the first connecting pipe” in lines 3 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the first connecting pipe” will be interpreted as -- the first straight connecting pipe --
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “the method comprising: inserting the other end of the first straight connecting pipe of the refrigerant flow path module into the first refrigerant pipe; … the inserted first refrigerant pipe” which renders the claim indefinite. As recited, the claim is confusing because at first, the claim indicates that the first straight connecting pipe is inserted into the first refrigerant pipe. However, the disclosed “inserted first refrigerant pipe” would seem to indicate the opposite i.e. that the first refrigerant pipe is instead inserted into the first straight connecting pipe. More clarity is requested.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the first connecting pipe” in lines 3 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the first connecting pipe” will be interpreted as -- the first straight connecting pipe --
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the second connecting pipe” in lines 8 and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the second connecting pipe” will be interpreted as -- the second straight connecting pipe --
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “the method comprising: inserting the other end of the first straight connecting pipe of the refrigerant flow path module into the first refrigerant pipe; … the inserted first refrigerant pipe” which renders the claim indefinite. As recited, the claim is confusing because at first, the claim indicates that the first straight connecting pipe is inserted into the first refrigerant pipe. However, the disclosed “inserted first refrigerant pipe” would seem to indicate the opposite i.e. that the first refrigerant pipe is instead inserted into the first straight connecting pipe. More clarity is requested.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “inserting the other end of the second straight connecting pipe of the refrigerant flow path module into the second refrigerant pipe; … the inserted second refrigerant pipe” which renders the claim indefinite. As recited, the claim is confusing because at first, the claim indicates that the second straight connecting pipe is inserted into the second refrigerant pipe. However, the disclosed “inserted second refrigerant pipe” would seem to indicate the opposite i.e. that the second refrigerant pipe is instead inserted into the second straight connecting pipe. More clarity is requested.
Claim 6 is also rejected due to dependency.
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.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rehberg et al. (US 20040256083 A1, herein after referred to as Rehberg), in view of Nakadeguchi et al. (JPH09105592A, herein after referred to as Nakadeguchi), in view of Masuda (JP3161528U), and in further view of Xi et al. (CN108515323A, herein after referred to as Xi).
Regarding claim 1, Rehberg teaches a refrigerant flow path module (plate-type heat exchanger Fig. 3) comprising: a module body (stack 21 and outer plates 22-23 Fig. 3) having a refrigerant flow path (disclosed “flow passage spaces” in paragraph [0016]) therein and comprising a stack of plates (stack 21 Fig. 3 and paragraph [0016]); and a first straight connecting pipe (connection 24 connected to outer plate 22 Fig. 4) that is connected to the module body (Fig. 4), wherein the module body has a first surface (outer plate 22 Fig. 4) at one end (left end of the plate-type heat exchanger Fig. 4) in a stacking direction of the plates (corresponds to the stacking directions of single-/double-walled heat exchanger plates 1-2 Fig. 4) and a second surface (outer plate 23 Fig. 4) at another end (right end of the plate-type heat exchanger Fig. 4) in the stacking direction (Fig. 4), one end of the first straight connecting pipe (the right end of connection 24 is connected to outer plate 22 Fig. 4) is inserted into a first opening (corresponds to the opening accommodating connection 24 on outer plate 22 Fig. 4) on the first surface of the module body (Fig. 4).
Rehberg teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the refrigerant flow path module comprising: a stack of stainless steel plates; the first straight connecting pipe made of a material containing copper as a main component, another end of the first straight connecting pipe has a connected surface to which a first refrigerant pipe is connected”.
However, Nakadeguchi teaches a refrigerant flow path module (the plate stacked heat exchanger illustrated in Figs. 13-14 correspond to the refrigerant flow path module of Rehberg) comprising: a stack of stainless steel plates (end plate 1, heat exchange plate 2, and end plate 3 Fig. 13 and paragraph [0003]); a first straight connecting pipe (inlet pipe 4 Figs. 13-14 corresponds to the first straight connecting pipe of Rehberg) made of a material (paragraph [0003]) containing copper (paragraph [0003]) as a main component (paragraph [0003]), another end of the first straight connecting pipe (understood to be the end of inlet pipe 4 connected to the disclosed “brazed pipe” as described in paragraph [0004]) has a connected surface (understood to be the surface of inlet pipe 4 onto which the disclosed “brazed pipe” is connected as described in paragraph [0004]) to which a first refrigerant pipe (corresponds to the disclosed “brazed pipe” connected to inlet pipe 4 in paragraph [0004]) is connected (paragraph [0004]) to connect the refrigerant flow path module to an external cooling means (paragraph [0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Rehberg to include “the refrigerant flow path module comprising: a stack of stainless steel plates; the first straight connecting pipe made of a material containing copper as a main component, another end of the first straight connecting pipe has a connected surface to which a first refrigerant pipe is connected” in view of the teachings of Nakadeguchi to connect the refrigerant flow path module to an external cooling means.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the first refrigerant pipe made of a material containing copper as a main component”.
However, Masuda teaches a first refrigerant pipe (union socket 6 Fig. 5 corresponds to the first refrigerant pipe of Nakadeguchi) made of a material (paragraph [0013]) containing copper (paragraph [0013]) as a main component (paragraph [0013]) to provide a material that could be brazed with the first straight connecting pipe (paragraph [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the first refrigerant pipe made of a material containing copper as a main component” in view of the teachings of Masuda to provide a material that could be brazed with the first straight connecting pipe.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the first straight connecting pipe has a length of 25 mm or more and less than 56 mm”.
However, Xi teaches a first straight connecting pipe (connecting pipe B Figs. 1-2 corresponds to the first straight connecting pipe of Rehberg) has a length of 25 mm or more (paragraph [41] and Fig. 2 where c = 46 mm) and less than 56 mm (paragraph [41] and Fig. 2 where c = 46 mm) to reduce processing cost (paragraph [07]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the first straight connecting pipe has a length of 25 mm or more and less than 56 mm” in view of the teachings of Xi to reduce processing cost.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach further comprising: a second straight connecting pipe (bottom connection 24 connected to outer plate 23 Fig. 4 of Rehberg), made of a material (paragraph [0003] of Nakadeguchi where outlet pipe 5 Fig. 13 corresponds to the second straight connecting pipe of Rehberg) containing copper (paragraph [0003] of Nakadeguchi) as a main component (paragraph [0003] of Nakadeguchi), that is connected to the module body (Fig. 4 of Rehberg), wherein one end of the second straight connecting pipe (the left end of bottom connection 24 is connected to outer plate 23 Fig. 4 of Rehberg) is inserted into a second opening (corresponds to the opening accommodating bottom connection 24 on outer plate 23 Fig. 4 of Rehberg) on the second surface of the module body (Fig. 4 of Rehberg), another end of the second straight connecting pipe (understood to be the end of outlet pipe 5 connected to the disclosed “brazed pipe” as described in paragraph [0004] of Nakadeguchi) has a connected surface (understood to be the surface of outlet pipe 5 onto which the disclosed “brazed pipe” is connected as described in paragraph [0004] of Nakadeguchi) to which a second refrigerant pipe (corresponds to the disclosed “brazed pipe” connected to outlet pipe 5 in paragraph [0004] of Nakadeguchi), made of a material (paragraph [0013] of Masuda where union socket 6 Fig. 5 corresponds to the second refrigerant pipe of Nakadeguchi) containing copper (paragraph [0013] of Masuda) as a main component (paragraph [0013] of Masuda), is connected (paragraph [0004] of Nakadeguchi), and the second straight connecting pipe (connecting pipe B Figs. 1-2 of Xi corresponds to the second straight connecting pipe of Rehberg) has a length of 25 mm or more (paragraph [41] and Fig. 2 of Xi where c = 46 mm) and less than 56 mm (paragraph [41] and Fig. 2 of Xi where c = 46 mm).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach a refrigeration cycle apparatus (disclosed “external cooling means” in paragraph [0004] of Nakadeguchi) comprising: the first refrigerant pipe connected to the connected surface of the first straight connecting pipe of the refrigerant flow path module (paragraph [0004] of Nakadeguchi).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach a refrigeration cycle apparatus (disclosed “external cooling means” in paragraph [0004] of Nakadeguchi) comprising: the first refrigerant pipe connected to the connected surface of the first straight connecting pipe of the refrigerant flow path module (paragraph [0004] of Nakadeguchi); and the second refrigerant pipe connected to the connected surface of the second straight connecting pipe of the refrigerant flow path module (paragraph [0004] of Nakadeguchi).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach a method (corresponds to the method described in paragraphs [0013] and [0014] of Masuda) of manufacturing the refrigeration cycle apparatus (paragraphs [0013] and [0014] of Masuda), the method comprising: inserting the other end of the first straight connecting pipe of the refrigerant flow path module into the first refrigerant pipe (Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0013] to [0014] of Masuda where upper refrigerant pipe 4 corresponds to the first straight connecting pipe of Rehberg and union socket 6 corresponds to the first refrigerant pipe of Nakadeguchi); and brazing an inner peripheral surface (Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0013] to [0014] of Masuda) of the inserted first refrigerant pipe to the connected surface of the first straight connecting pipe (Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0013] to [0014] of Masuda).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach wherein the brazing is performed with the first surface of the module body of the refrigerant flow path module facing downward (understood to be the same as having the smaller diameter tube being placed above the bigger diameter tube during brazing operation which is taught by Masuda in paragraphs [0013] to [0014] and Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach a method (corresponds to the method described in paragraphs [0013] and [0014] of Masuda) of manufacturing the refrigeration cycle apparatus (paragraphs [0013] and [0014] of Masuda), the method comprising: inserting the other end of the first straight connecting pipe of the refrigerant flow path module into the first refrigerant pipe (Fig. 5 and paragraph [0013] of Masuda where upper refrigerant pipe 4 corresponds to the first straight connecting pipe of Rehberg and union socket 6 corresponds to the first refrigerant pipe of Nakadeguchi); brazing an inner peripheral surface (Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0013] and [0014] of Masuda) of the inserted first refrigerant pipe to the connected surface of the first straight connecting pipe (Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0013] to [0014] of Masuda) with the first surface of the module body of the refrigerant flow path module facing downward (paragraphs [0013] to [0014] and Fig. 5 of Masuda); inserting the other end of the second straight connecting pipe of the refrigerant flow path module into the second refrigerant pipe (Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0013] to [0014] of Masuda where lower refrigerant pipe 4 corresponds to the second refrigerant pipe of Nakadeguchi and connecting conduit 11 corresponds to the second straight connecting pipe of Rehberg); and brazing an inner peripheral surface (Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0013] to [0014] of Masuda) of the inserted second refrigerant pipe to the connected surface of the second straight connecting pipe (Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0013] to [0014] of Masuda) with the second surface of the module body of the refrigerant flow path module facing downward (Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0013] to [0014] of Masuda).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
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, Jerry -Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights