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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 2/14/2025 and 5/14/2026 was/were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “its length” and should recite “a length of the flat tube structure” for complete clarity.
Claim 6 recites “protruding sheets” and should recite “one or more protruding sheets” for proper antecedent basis and complete clarity.
Claim 12 should recite - - the flat tube structure is provided with a second liquid inlet collector tube on one side perpendicular to the first inlet collector tube, and the flat tube structure is provided with a second liquid outlet collector tube on an other side perpendicular to the first inlet collector; the flat tube structure is provided with a plurality of second micro-channel structures longitudinally parallel to each other, a second micro-channel structure interconnects the second liquid inlet collector tube and the second liquid outlet collector tube; the first inlet collector tube and the second inlet collector tube share the flow inlet; the first liquid outlet collector tube and the second liquid outlet collector tube share the flow outlet; the first micro-channel structure and the second micro-channel structure are staggered from each other - - for proper antecedent basis, clarity, and consistency.
Claim 13 should recites - - the micro-channel refrigerating evaporator as described in claim 1 - - for proper antecedent basis, clarity, and consistency.
Claim 16 recites “the form” and should recite “a form” for proper antecedent basis, clarity, and consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 2-16 are objected to as being dependent from an objected claim.
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: a heating device in claim 14.
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.
To clarify, the “heating device” is considered “hot air, heating blanket, microwave and other prior art” (para. 0093 of the originally filed specification) or equivalents.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the other end”. It is unclear what “other end” is being referred to because there is a lack of antecedent basis for an “other end”. For purposes of examination “the other end” will be considered - - an other end - - .
Claim 1 recites “the first micro-channel structure”. It is unclear what specific “first micro-channel structure” is being referred to because while antecedent basis is provided for a “plurality of first micro-channel structures” there is a lack of antecedent basis for a “first micro-channel structure”. For purposes of examination “the first micro-channel structure” will be considered - - a first micro-channel structure of the plurality of micro-channel structures - - .
Claim 1 recites “the flat tube structure is encircled along a length of the flat tube structure”. It is unclear how a structure can encircle itself. For purposes of examination the encircling of the flat tube structure will be considered as the flat tube structure having circular form along a length of the structure.
Claim 2 recites “the center point”. It is unclear what “center point” is being referred to because there is a lack of antecedent basis for a “center point”. For purposes of examination “the center point” will be considered - - a center point - - .
Claim 2 recites “the micro-channel structure”. It is unclear what “micro-channel structure” is being referred to because there is a lack of antecedent basis for a “micro-channel structure”. For purposes of examination “the micro-channel structure” will be considered - - the first micro-channel heat exchanger - - .
Claim 2 recites “the inner wall side”. It is unclear what “inner wall side” is being referred to because there is a lack of antecedent basis for a “inner wall side”. For purposes of examination “the inner wall side” will be considered - - a inner wall side - - .
Claim 2 recites “after it is surrounded”. It is unclear what “it” is referring to. For purposes of examination “after it is surrounded” will be considered - - after the center point is surrounded - - .
Claim 3 recites “the distance”. It is unclear what “distance” is being referring to because there is a lack of antecedent basis for a “distance”. For purposes of examination “the distance” will be considered - - a distance - - .
Claim 3 recites “the boundary”. It is unclear what “boundary” is being referring to because there is a lack of antecedent basis for a “boundary”. For purposes of examination “the boundary” will be considered - - a boundary - - .
Claim 3 recites “the micro-channel wall thickness”. It is unclear what “micro-channel wall thickness” is being referring to because there is a lack of antecedent basis for a “micro-channel wall thickness”. For purposes of examination “the micro-channel wall thickness” will be considered - - a micro-channel wall thickness - - .
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation between 0.3 mm and 5 mm, and the claim also recites preferably between 0.3 mm and 1 mm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 6 recites “the center of the rectangle”. It is unclear what “center” and “rectangle” are being referred to because there is a lack of antecedent basis for a “center” of a “rectangle”. For purposes of examination “the center of the rectangle” will be considered - - a center of the rectangular cross-section - - .
Claim 7 recites “mesh-like recessed structure”. The phrase "like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by " like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination “mesh-like” will be considered - - mesh - - .
Claim 8 recites “the side near the first liquid outlet collector tube”. It is unclear what “side near the first liquid outlet collector tube” is being referred to because there is a lack of antecedent basis for a “side”. For purposes of examination “the side near the first liquid outlet collector tube” will be considered - - a side near the first liquid outlet collector tube - - .
Claim 9 recites “the parallel first micro-channel structures”. It is unclear what “parallel first micro-channel structures” are being referred to because there is a lack of antecedent basis for “parallel first micro-channel structures”. For purposes of examination “the parallel first micro-channel structures” will be considered - - parallel first micro-channel structures - - .
Claim 9 recites “the end of the last first micro-channel structure”. It is unclear what “end of the last first micro-channel structure” is being referred to because there is a lack of antecedent basis for an “end” of a “last first micro-channel structure”. For purposes of examination “end of the last first micro-channel structure” will be considered - - an end of a last first micro-channel structure - - .
Claim 10 recites “the direction”. It is unclear what “direction” is being referred to because there is a lack of antecedent basis for a “direction”. For purposes of examination “the direction” will be considered - - a direction - - .
Claim 10 recites “its first liquid inlet collector tube and the first liquid outlet collector tube”. It is unclear what “its” is referring to. For purposes of examination the “its first liquid inlet collector tube and the first liquid outlet collector tube” will be considered - - the multiple uniform segments of the first liquid inlet collector tube and the first liquid outlet collector tube - - .
Claim 10 recites “the collector partition plates are disposed at the same position as the segmentation of the flat tube structure is located”. It is unclear what “same position as the segmentation” refers to because there is a lack of antecedent basis for a “same position” or a “segmentation”. For purposes of examination “the collector partition plates are disposed at the same position as the segmentation of the flat tube structure is located” will be considered - - the collector partition plates are disposed at a same position as a segmentation of the flat tube structure is located - - .
Claim 11 recites “the next”. It is unclear what “next” is being referred to because there is a lack of antecedent basis for a “next”. For purposes of examination “the next” will be considered - - a next - - .
Claim 14 recites “the side wall of the drying chamber”. It is unclear what “side wall” is being referred to because there is a lack of antecedent basis for a “side wall”. For purposes of examination “the side wall” will be considered - - a side wall - - .
Claim 14 recites “the bottom of the drying chamber”. It is unclear what “bottom wall” is being referred to because there is a lack of antecedent basis for a “bottom wall”. For purposes of examination “the bottom wall” will be considered - - a bottom wall - - .
Claim 14 recites “the interior of the drying chamber”. It is unclear what “interior” is being referred to because there is a lack of antecedent basis for an “interior”. For purposes of examination “the interior” will be considered - - an interior - - .
Claim 15 recites “the other side”. It is unclear what “other side” is being referred to because there is a lack of antecedent basis for an “other side”. For purposes of examination “the other side” will be considered - - an other side - - .
Claim 15 recites “the device”. It is unclear what “device” is being referred to because there is a lack of antecedent basis for a “device”. For purposes of examination “the device” will be considered - - the freeze-drying system - - .
Claim(s) 2-16 are rejected to as being dependent from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reifel et al. (US 20090084131).
Per claim 1, Reifel teaches a micro-channel refrigerating evaporator, characterized in that, comprising
a rectangular flat tube structure (fig. 16),
the flat tube structure (fig. 16) is encircled along a length of the flat tube structure (see figure 16 showing the structure have a circular form along a vertical length),
the flat tube structure (fig. 16) is provided with a plurality of first micro-channel structures circumferentially parallel (2190);
the flat tube structure (fig. 16) is connected at one end to a width-extending first liquid inlet collector tube (2191; see fig. 6) and at an other end to a width-extending first liquid outlet collector tube (2191; see fig. 6);
the first inlet collector (2191), the first outlet collector (2191) and a first micro-channel structure ( upper most 2190) of the plurality of first micro-channel structures are interconnected (see figure 16);
the first liquid inlet collector tube (2191), the first liquid outlet collector tube (2191) are connected to a flow inlet (260) and a flow outlet (270), respectively.
Per claim 2, Reifel meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Reifel teaches that a center point (center of circular structure shown in figure 16) of the first micro-channel structure is closer to an inner wall side (wall of 2190) facing inside of circular structure shown in figure 16) of the flat tube structure after the center point is surrounded (see figure 16 showing the center point of the structure being surrounded by the inner side wall of the flat tube structure).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reifel et al. (US 20090084131).
Per claim 3, Reifel meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 2. Further, Reifel teaches that a distance of the inner side wall of the flat tube structure from a boundary of the micro-channel structure is set to be a micro-channel wall thickness but fails to explicitly teach the micro-channel wall thickness is valued at between 0.3 mm and 5 mm, preferably between 0.3 mm and 1 mm.
However, one skilled in the art would know that heat exchanger wall thickness has a determinative effect on tube strength and heat transfer effectiveness. Therefore the wall thickness is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that as the wall thickness is adjusted the strength and heat transfer effectiveness will be adjusted. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. the micro-channel wall thickness was disclosed in the prior art by Reifel, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable value of the wall thickness by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the micro-channel wall thickness disclosed by Reifel being between 0.3 mm and 1 mm.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reifel et al. (US 20090084131) in view of Bhatti et al. (US 7080683).
Per claims 4-7, Reifel meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Reifel fails to explicitly teach that the first micro-channel structure is provided with an enhanced-flow structure on the inner wall (claim 4), that the enhanced-flow structure comprises one or more protruding sheets distributed in the first micro-channel structure (claim 5), that the first micro-channel structure has a rectangular cross-section, with the one or more protruding sheets being provided at four vertices and extending towards the center of the rectangle (claim 6), and the enhanced-flow structure causes the inner wall of the first micro-channel structure to have a mesh-like recessed structure (claim 7).
However, Bhatti teaches a heat exchanger including a micro-channel structure (144) is provided with an enhanced-flow structure (see annotated figure below) on an inner wall (see annotated figure below) (claim 4), the enhanced-flow structure (see annotated figure below) comprises a protruding sheet (see annotated figure below) distributed in the first micro-channel structure (144) (claim 5), the first micro-channel structure has a rectangular cross-section (see figure 10), with the protruding sheet (see annotated figure below) being provided at four vertices and extending toward a center of the rectangular cross-section (see annotated figure below) (claim 6), and the enhanced-flow structure (see annotated figure below) causes the inner wall of the first micro-channel structure to have a mesh recessed structure (see figure 10 showing recesses meshed) (claim 7) for enhanced heat transfer (col. 2, lines 30-32). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a micro-channel structure is provided with an enhanced-flow structure on an inner wall (claim 4), the enhanced-flow structure comprises a protruding sheet distributed in the first micro-channel structure (claim 5), the first micro-channel structure has a rectangular cross-section, with the protruding sheet being provided at four vertices and extending toward a center of the rectangular cross-section (claim 6) and the enhanced-flow structure causes the inner wall of the first micro-channel structure to have a mesh-like recessed structure (claim 7), as taught by Bhatti in the invention of Reifel, in order to advantageously enhance the heat transfer of the heat exchanger (col. 2, lines 30-32).
PNG
media_image1.png
372
667
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per claims 10-11, Reifel meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Reifel fails to explicitly teach the flat tube structure is divided into multiple uniform segments in a direction of the multiple uniform segments first liquid inlet collector tube and the first liquid outlet collector tube, and the first liquid inlet collector tube and the first liquid outlet collector tube are provided with collector partition plates which are spaced apart, and the collector partition plates are disposed at a same position as a segmentation of the flat tube structure is located, so that a series path is formed between the first liquid inlet collector tube, the first micro-channel structure and the first liquid outlet collector tube (claim 10) and three segments of the flat tube structure are connected in parallel as an integral channel and in series to a next set of three segmented channels, and so on (claim 11).
However, Bhatti teaches a heat exchanger including a flat tube structure (fig. 5) divided into multiple uniform segments (P1-P3) in a direction of the multiple uniform segments of a first liquid inlet collector tube (42,62) and a first liquid outlet collector tube (42,64), and the first liquid inlet collector tube (42,62) and the first liquid outlet collector tube (42,64) are provided with collector partition plates (68) which are spaced apart, and the collector partition plates (68) are disposed at a same position as a segmentation of the flat tube structure is located (see figure 5), so that a series path is formed between the first liquid inlet collector tube (42,62), the first micro-channel structure (44), and the first liquid collector outlet tube (42,64) (see figure 5) (claim 10),
three segments (three adjacent elements of 44 in P1) of the flat tube structure (44) are connected in parallel as an integral channel and in series to a next set of three segmented channels (three adjacent channels of 44 in P2) , and so on (see figure 5) (claim 11) for enhanced heat transfer (col. 2, lines 30-32). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a flat tube structure divided into multiple uniform segments in a direction of the multiple uniform segments of a first liquid inlet collector tube and a first liquid outlet collector tube, and the first liquid inlet collector tube and the first liquid outlet collector tube are provided with collector partition plates which are spaced apart, and the collector partition plates are disposed at a same position as a segmentation of the flat tube structure is located, so that a series path is formed between the first liquid inlet collector tube, the first micro-channel structure, and the first liquid collector outlet tube (claim 10), three segments of the flat tube structure are connected in parallel as an integral channel and in series to a next set of three segmented channels, and so on (claim 11), as taught by Bhatti in the invention of Reifel, in order to advantageously enhance the heat transfer of the heat exchanger (col. 2, lines 30-32).
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reifel et al. (US 20090084131) in view of Li et al. (CN107062813).
Per claims 14-16, Reifel teaches the micro-channel refrigerating evaporator as described in claim 1 and the flat tube structure is made of aluminum (“aluminum (e.g., an aluminum alloy)”, para. 0119) but fails to explicitly teach a freeze-drying system, characterized in that, comprising the micro-channel refrigerating evaporator as described in claim 1, a compressor, a drying chamber, a vacuum device, a heating device; the micro-channel refrigerating evaporator is set up around the side wall of the drying chamber; the vacuum device and the bottom of the drying chamber are connected to each other; the heating device is set up in the interior of the drying chamber, and the compressor is connected to the micro-channel refrigerating evaporator (claim 14),
the compressor is selected as an air-cooled compressor and is connected to the other side of the micro-channel refrigerating evaporator away from the drying chamber, so that the whole freeze-drying system has a positive polygonal layout of the device (claim 15), the drying chamber is in the form of a cylinder (claim 16).
However, Li teaches a freeze drying system comprising a refrigerating evaporator (4), a compressor (1), a drying chamber (5), a vacuum device (7), a heating device (11); the refrigerating evaporator (4) is set up around a side wall of the drying chamber (5) (see figure 1); the vacuum device and a bottom of the drying chamber are connected to each other (all elements of an assembly are either directly/indirectly, mechanically/thermally connected to one another); the heating device (11) is set up in an interior of the drying chamber (5) (see figure 1), and the compressor (2) is connected to the refrigerating evaporator (4) (claim 14), the compressor (1) is an air-cooled compressor (inherently cooled in the ambient air environment) and is connected to an other side of the evaporator (4) away from the drying chamber (5), so that the whole freeze-drying system has a positive polygonal layout of the freeze-drying system (see figure 1 showing multiple sides thus having a positive polygonal layout) (claim 15), the drying chamber (5) is in a form of a cylinder (see figure 1) (claim 16) for maintaining a structure under freeze drying conditions (pg. 1 of translation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a compressor, a drying chamber, a vacuum device, a heating device; the refrigerating evaporator is set up around a side wall of the drying chamber; the vacuum device and a bottom of the drying chamber are connected to each other; the heating device (11) is set up in an interior of the drying chamber, and the compressor is connected to the refrigerating evaporator (claim 14), the compressor is an air-cooled compressor and is connected to an other side of the evaporator away from the drying chamber, so that the whole freeze-drying system has a positive polygonal layout of the freeze-drying system (claim 15), the drying chamber is in a form of a cylinder (claim 16), as taught by Li in the invention of Reifel, in order to advantageously provide freeze drying and maintaining a product structure under freeze drying conditions (pg. 1 of translation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 8-9, 12-13 is/are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wakamatus (JPH11281291) teaches an encircled heat exchanger.
Beamer (US 20070204978) teaches an encircled heat exchanger.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J TEITELBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5142. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm 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, 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.
/DAVID J TEITELBAUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights