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 because some of the figures contain impermissible black shading (i.e., Figures 5 through 15). 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.
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Specification
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 phrases which can be implied (i.e., “is disclosed” in the first sentence; note that the first sentence of an abstract need not be a complete sentence), because it appears to include at least one incomplete statement (i.e., “configured to allow a heat exchange medium to exchange heat” appears to have a word or words missing immediately following “to exchange heat” because, as written, there is not clear with which element(s) the heat exchange medium exchanges heat), and because a word or words appear missing from the last sentence of the abstract as amended (i.e., “A portion of the first flow path at least passes through the first heat exchange region has a sealing structure” is not a complete thought). 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).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph [0017] of the specification, applicant has stated that “the fluid flowing through the first heat exchange medium and the fluid flowing through the second heat exchange medium may be identical or different”. The aforementioned statement is unclear because it appears that it is asserting that a fluid is flowing through each of the heat exchange media even though the heat exchange media are themselves fluids. This statement does not make sense when taken in the context of the entire disclosure relating to the instant invention.
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 heat exchange region”, “second heat exchange region”, and “sealing structure” appearing in claim 1 and in all claims depending therefrom.
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 12 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 contain grammatical and idiomatic errors. Examples of limitations in the claims which are unclear due to idiomatic or grammatical errors/informalities are: “based on any one plate among the stacked plates” [claim 1, lines 7-8]; “based on the through-hole” [claim 5, line 3]; “within a range of a second diameter from an edge of the through-hole” [claim 6, lines 2-3]; “within a range of a first diameter from a position spaced apart from the edge of the through-hole by the second diameter” [claim 6, lines 4-6]; and, “based on a center in a longitudinal direction of the plate” [claim 11, lines 2-3].
Also, for example, with regard to the limitation “and configured to allow a heat exchange medium to exchange heat” [claim 1, lines 2-3], it is not entirely clear with which element(s) the heat exchange medium is to exchange heat, thus rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim and by all claims depending therefrom.
Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for the following limitations in the claims: “the flow path” [claim 1, line 9]; “the plates” [claim 1, line 10; claim 3, line 1]; “the first flow path” [claim 1, line 12; claim 2, lines 4-5; claim 3, line 6; claim 7, line 2; claim 7, line 5 claim 8, line 2; claim 10, line 6; claim 11, lines 1-2]; “the plate” [claim 2, line 2]; “the through-hole” [claim 2, line 4; claim 3, lines 5-6; claim 4, lines 3-4; claim 5, line 3; claim 6, line 3; claim 6, lines 5-6; claim 7, line 5]; and, “the adjacent plate” [claim 2, line 5; claim 3, line 6-7].
The limitations “wherein the fluid flowing through the first heat exchange medium and the fluid flowing through the second heat exchange medium are identical or different” in lines 1 through 3 of claim 9 are generally incomprehensible as written. First of all, the aforementioned limitations appear to recite that a fluid is flowing through each of the first heat exchange medium and through the second heat exchange medium. However, a fluid can be a heat exchange medium and a heat exchange medium is implicitly a fluid. Therefore, it appears that applicant is reciting that a fluid flows through each of the heat exchange media which are also fluids per the disclosure. The aforementioned limitations are unclear because it appears that these are reciting that a fluid is flowing through each of the heat exchange media even though the heat exchange media are themselves fluids. These limitations as written therefore do not make sense when taken in the context of the entire disclosure relating to the instant invention, thus further rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim. Furthermore, with regard to the aforementioned limitations, any two heat exchange media (i.e., including the first heat exchange medium and the second heat exchange medium) are inherently either identical to each other or different from each other. Therefore, the intended scope of protection sought by the claim is even more unclear and indefinite.
Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected at least as being dependent on a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitations “wherein the fluid flowing through the first heat exchange medium and the fluid flowing through the second heat exchange medium are identical or different” appear in lines 1 through 3 of claim 9. With regard to the aforementioned limitations, any two heat exchange media (i.e., including the first heat exchange medium and the second heat exchange medium as claimed) are inherently either identical to each other or different from each other. Therefore, the aforementioned limitations (which are the only limitations in claim 9) fail to further limit base claim 1 from which claim 9 depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 through 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bruckner et al. (U.S. Patent 11,486,658 B2).
With regard to base claim 1 of the instant application, Bruckner et al. discloses a plate-type heat exchanger 1 comprising: a core formed by stacking a plurality of plates 2 and configured to allow a heat exchange medium to exchange heat; and a plurality of flow paths 4a/4b/7a/7b formed by through-holes 5 continuously formed in the stacked plates 2 so that a fluid flows in the core, wherein the core is divided into a first heat exchange region 16 at one side and a second heat exchange region 16 at the other side based on any one plate 2 among the stacked plates 2 (i.e., as shown in Figure 5), wherein the flow path comprises at least one first flow path disposed at one end in a stacking direction of the plates 2 and connected to the second heat exchange region 16, and wherein a portion of the first flow path at least passing through the first heat exchange region 16 has a sealing structure including dome rims 6, for example.
With regard to claim 2 of the instant application, Bruckner et al. discloses the plate-type heat exchanger 1 of claim 1, wherein at least a part of the plate 2 included in the first heat exchange region 16 comprises a first depressed portion (i.e., inside dome rims 6 as shown in at least Figures 1 through 3) depressed in a 'U' shape toward the other side so that a part of a periphery of the through-hole 5 constituting the first flow path is in surface contact with the adjacent plate 2 (i.e., as shown in at least Figures 1 through 3).
With regard to claim 3 of the instant application, Bruckner et al. discloses the plate-type heat exchanger 1 of claim 2, wherein the plates 2 constituting the first heat exchange region 16 comprise: first plates comprising the first depressed portion; and second plates comprising a second depressed portion depressed toward the other side so that a part of the periphery of the through-hole 5 constituting the first flow path is in surface contact with the adjacent plate 2, and wherein the first plates and the second plates are disposed alternately (i.e., at least as shown in in Figures 1 through 3).
With regard to claim 4 of the instant application, Bruckner et al. discloses the plate-type heat exchanger 1 of claim 3, wherein the sealing structure including dome rims 6 is formed as the first depressed portion is continuously in surface contact with the second plate 2 to seal the periphery of the through-hole 5 (i.e., at least as shown in Figures 1 through 3).
With regard to claim 5 of the instant application, Bruckner et al. discloses the plate-type heat exchanger 1 of claim 4, wherein the first depressed portion corresponding to dome rims 6 is formed outward of the second depressed portion based on the through-hole 5 (i.e., at least as shown in Figures 1 through 3).
With regard to claim 6 of the instant application, Bruckner et al. discloses the plate-type heat exchanger 1 of claim 5, wherein the second depressed portion is depressed within a range of a second diameter from an edge of the through-hole 5, wherein the first depressed portion is depressed within a range of a first diameter from a position spaced apart from the edge of the through-hole 5 by the second diameter, and wherein the first diameter is larger than the second diameter (i.e., at least as shown in Figures 1 and 2).
With regard to claim 7 of the instant application, Bruckner et al. discloses the plate-type heat exchanger 1 of claim 3, wherein the plates 2 disposed at a portion at least constituting the first flow path among the plates 2 constituting the second heat exchange region 16 comprise: the second plates; and third plates comprising the through-hole 5 of the first flow path, and wherein the second plates and the third plates are disposed alternately (i.e., at least as shown in the various figures).
With regard to claim 8 of the instant application, Bruckner et al. discloses the plate-type heat exchanger 1 of claim 7, wherein a portion of the first flow path passing through the second heat exchange region 16 has an open structure (i.e., having hollow spaces 3a and 3b) at least as broadly interpreted as required for pending claims.
With regard to claim 9 of the instant application, Bruckner et al. discloses the plate-type heat exchanger 1 of claim 1, wherein the fluid flowing through the first heat exchange medium and the fluid flowing through the second heat exchange medium are identical or different.
With regard to claim 10 of the instant application, Bruckner et al. discloses the plate-type heat exchanger of claim 1, wherein a connection flange is provided at one end of the core and connects an inlet pipe, through which a refrigerant is introduced into the core, and an outlet pipe through which the refrigerant is discharged to the outside from the core, and wherein the first flow path is connected to any one of the inlet pipe and the outlet pipe.
With regard to claim 11 of the instant application, Bruckner et al. discloses the plate-type heat exchanger 1 of claim 1, wherein the first flow path is configured to be biased toward any one side based on a center in a longitudinal direction of the plate 2.
With regard to claim 12 of the instant application, Bruckner et al. discloses the plate-type heat exchanger of claim 1, wherein the core comprises a partition plate or rib structure 12 configured to physically separate the first heat exchange region 16 and the second heat exchange region 16 (i.e., at least as shown in Figures 5 through 7).
The reference thus reads on the claims.
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
