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 statement (IDS) submitted on 4/1/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 4/9/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a channel sectional area of the gas-liquid separation portion is larger than channel sectional areas of the inlet portion and the outlet portion” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 4 is 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 4 recites “a channel sectional area of the gas-liquid separation portion is larger than channel sectional areas of the inlet portion and the outlet portion” which renders the claim indefinite because the specification describes the channel sectional area of the gas-liquid separation portion 21b is larger than the channel sectional area of the inlet portion 21a and also describes the channel sectional area of the outlet portion 21e is smaller than the channel sectional area of the gas-liquid separation portion 21b so it’s unclear how “a channel sectional area of the gas-liquid separation portion is larger than channel sectional areas of the inlet portion and the outlet portion”. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Since there is no way of determining what are the metes and bounds of the claim, as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended (in the different configurations).
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Higashiiue et al (US 2024024786).
Regarding claim 1, Higashiiue teaches a manifold (101b) comprising a channel housing (1a) having a refrigerant channel (2a) through which a refrigerant (refrigerant, paragraph 0051) flows, wherein the channel housing internally includes a gas-liquid separator (SP1, SP2, SP3) configured to separate, from a gas refrigerant (gas, paragraph 0032) that is the refrigerant in gas (paragraph 0051) form flowing through the refrigerant channel, a liquid refrigerant (paragraph 0051) that is the refrigerant in liquid form contained in the gas refrigerant (paragraph 0054).
Regarding claim 2, Higashiiue teaches the gas-liquid separator includes an inlet portion (2a) into which the gas refrigerant flows, a gas-liquid separation portion (GLI) configured to separate the liquid refrigerant from the gas refrigerant flowing into the inlet portion, an accumulation portion (SP3) in which the liquid refrigerant separated in the gas- liquid separation portion is accumulated, an outlet portion (3a) from which the gas refrigerant flows out after the liquid refrigerant has been separated, and an extension portion (4) that establishes communication between the gas-liquid separation portion and the outlet portion.
Regarding claim 3, Higashiiue teaches the gas-liquid separator further includes a through passage (through hole, paragraph 0053) that establishes communication between an upstream end and a downstream end of the extension portion (arrows, fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, due to indefiniteness, Higashiiue teaches a channel sectional area of the gas-liquid separation portion (fig. 8 area with GLI) is larger than channel sectional areas of the inlet portion and the outlet portion (fig. 8); a downstream end of the inlet portion is disposed above an upstream end of the gas-liquid separation portion (fig. 8) and communicates with the gas-liquid separation portion (arrows, fig. 8); the extension portion is folded from a downstream end of the gas-liquid separation portion and extends downward (fig. 8); the outlet portion is disposed on a side of a downstream end of the extension portion (fig. 8); and the gas refrigerant flows downward from the inlet portion into the gas-liquid separation portion and flows out laterally from the outlet portion (arrows fig. 8).
Regarding claim 5, Higashiiue teaches the gas-liquid separation portion has an inner circumferential surface having an arc shape (arrow flow, fig. 8) when viewed in a vertical direction; a downstream end of the inlet portion is disposed on a side of an upstream end of the gas-liquid separation portion (fig. 8) and communicates with the gas-liquid separation portion; the extension portion is folded from a downstream end of the gas-liquid separation portion and extends downward (fig. 8);the outlet portion is disposed on a side of a downstream end of the extension portion (fig. 8); and the gas refrigerant flows in from the inlet portion along a direction perpendicular to the vertical direction and along a tangential direction of the inner circumferential surface of the gas-liquid separation portion, swirls along the inner circumferential surface, and flows out laterally from the outlet portion (arrows, fig. 8).
Regarding claim 6, Higashiiue teaches the gas-liquid separation portion has an inner circumferential surface having an arc shape (fig. 8)when viewed in a vertical direction, and a guide having a curved surface below the inner circumferential surface (fig. 7); a downstream end of the inlet portion is disposed on a side of an upstream end of the gas-liquid separation portion so as to overlap the guide at least in part when viewed in the vertical direction (figs 7-8), and communicates with the gas-liquid separation portion; the extension portion is folded from a downstream end of the gas-liquid separation portion and extends downward (fig. 8);the outlet portion is disposed on a side of a downstream end of the extension portion (fig. 8); and the gas refrigerant flows in from the inlet portion along a tangential direction of the inner circumferential surface of the gas-liquid separation portion so as to flow obliquely downward with respect to the vertical direction, swirls along the inner circumferential surface, and flows out laterally from the outlet portion (fig. 8).
Regarding claim 11, Higashiiue teaches wherein the gas-liquid separator includes a gas-liquid separation portion (SP2, GLI) configured to separate the liquid refrigerant from the gas refrigerant by impingement of the refrigerant (hitting along 4).
Regarding claim 12, Higashiiue teaches the gas-liquid separator further includes an inlet portion (2a) through which the gas refrigerant flows up to a point short of the gas-liquid separation portion (fig. 8), an accumulation portion (SP3) in which the liquid refrigerant separated in the gas-liquid separation portion is accumulated, an outlet portion (3a) from which the gas refrigerant flows out after the liquid refrigerant has been separated in the gas-liquid separation portion, and an extension portion (4) that establishes communication between the accumulation portion and the outlet portion; and an outflow suppression portion (6) configured to suppress outflow of the liquid refrigerant accumulated in the accumulation portion to the extension portion is formed to protrude as a projection at an outlet that is a boundary between the accumulation portion and the extension portion (fig. 8).
Regarding claim 13, Higashiiue teaches an inlet that is a boundary between the gas-liquid separation portion and the accumulation portion (fig. 8) and the outlet are disposed away from each other in both side regions facing each other on inner side surfaces that form the accumulation portion when viewed in a vertical direction (fig. 8)
Regarding claim 14, Higashiiue teaches a downstream end of the extension portion of the gas-liquid separator is provided in a central region between inner side surfaces when viewed in a vertical direction (fig. 7-8), and the gas-liquid separator further includes a through passage (through hole, paragraph 0053) that establishes communication between an upstream end and the downstream end of the extension portion (fig. 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 7, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Higashiiue et al (US 2024024786). The prior art of record teaches a gas-liquid separation portion has an inner circumferential surface having an arc shape in contrast to the claimed features of the gas-liquid separation portion has a plurality of grooves extending along the inner circumferential surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3840. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-3:00 CT pm M-F.
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.
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
