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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/10/2025 was filed before the first Office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Preliminary amendment
Acknowledgment is made of the preliminary amendment filed on 02/10/2025. Accordingly, Claims 1-4 are pending for consideration on the merits in this Office Action.
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:
Expansion mechanism in claim 1;
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.
expansion valve 70, Figure 1 and 0011 of Applicant Specification.
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
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto et al. (US20220194167A1) in view of Ye et al. (US20230339284A1)
Regarding Claim, Morimoto teaches a refrigerant circuit unit [a connection module 80 applied to a refrigeration cycle 10; 0027] comprising:
a refrigerant circuit [refrigeration cycle 10, Figure 3] including a compressor [compressor 11, Figure 3], a heater [heat exchanger 12, Figure 3;0045], an expansion mechanism [expansion valves 14a, 14b, 14d, Figure 3], a cooler [chiller 24, Figure 3;0096], and a channel module [connection module 80, Figure 1] in which at least a part of a refrigerant channel that distributes a refrigerant circulated in the compressor, the heater, the expansion mechanism, and the cooler, is integrally formed [where connection module 80 has body 81 that includes refrigerant flow path 82, Figure 6; 0027]; and
wherein the channel module includes a high-pressure side region [high-temperature-side flow path 82 a, Figure 6; 0231] provided with a high-pressure channel through which a high-pressure refrigerant flows [where high-pressure refrigerant flowing corresponds to the high-temperature side flow path 82a; 0231], a low-pressure side region [low-temperature-side flow bath 82b, Figure 6;0232] provided with a low- pressure channel through which a low-pressure refrigerant flows [where the low-pressure refrigerant flowing corresponds to the low-temperature side flow path 82b; 0232], and a partition [where a plurality of heat transfer inhibiting portions are formed in the body 81, Figure 6; 0228] that is provided between the high-pressure side region and the low-pressure side region to separate the high-pressure side region and the low-pressure side region [where each inhibiting portion 85 is disposed between the high-temperature-side flow path 82 a and the low-temperature-side flow path 82 b, and is formed so as to have lower thermal conductivity than the body 81, Figure 6; 0228].
Morimoto teaches the connection module [0200] may be configured by combining and integrating a plurality of blocks [0323] but does not explicitly teach a support plate that supports the refrigerant circuit.
However, Ye teaches a vehicular thermal management assembly [0004] including a support plate [annotated Figure 7] that supports the refrigerant circuit [where the support plate supports heat exchanger 5, cooler 6 and throttle element 61, annotated Figure 7] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., providing support beneath cantilevered components.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Morimoto to have a support plate that supports the refrigerant circuit in view of the teachings of Ye where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing support beneath cantilevered components.
Regarding Claim 2, Morimoto, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the partition [inhibiting portion 85, Figure 6] is a slit [where each of the heat transfer inhibiting portions 85 has a groove shape space in which air exists, Figure 6; 0229] provided between the high-pressure side region and the low-pressure side region in the channel module [where each inhibiting portion 85 is disposed between the high-temperature-side flow path 82 a and the low-temperature-side flow path 82 b, and is formed so as to have lower thermal conductivity than the body 81, Figure 6; 0228;0231;0232].
Regarding Claim 3, Morimoto, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 2 and further teaches where the slit [heat transfer inhibiting portion 85] may be filled with a material [the inside of the heat transfer inhibiting portion 85 may be filled with a material having low thermal conductivity; 0314] but does not teach wherein a part of the support plate is inserted into the slit.
However, Ye teaches a vehicular thermal management assembly [0004] including a support plate [annotated Figure 7] wherein a part of the support plate is inserted into the slit [where the support plate bolts into the channel module, annotated Figure 7] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., providing mounting support beneath cantilevered components of the channel module.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Morimoto to have wherein a part of the support plate is inserted into the slit in view of the teachings of Ye where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing mounting support beneath cantilevered components of the channel module.
Regarding Claim 4, Morimoto, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 3 and further teaches where the support plate [refer to Ye as applied to claim 3 above] is made of a material having a heat insulating property [where the inside of the heat transfer inhibiting portion 85 may be filled with a material having low thermal conductivity; 0314].
PNG
media_image1.png
632
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Calderone (US20190039440A1) discusses a plate-shaped manifold for an HVAC assembly, Figure 2, including a high-pressure fluid path and a low-pressure fluid path, openings and a slot, Figure 5, where the manifold may be constructed via a plurality of flat or planar or formed stamped plates, 0032-0033.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEONA LAUREN BANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-0426. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30- 5:00 EST.
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 5712705054. 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.
/KEONA LAUREN BANKS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights