`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313- 1450
`wwwnsptogov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`
`
`
`
` F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`12/442,815
`
`03/25/2009
`
`Makoto Sugiyama
`
`MAT— 10271US
`
`4006
`
`EXAMINER
`RATNERPRESTIA —
`”8’20” —
`7590
`52473
`PO. BOX 980
`SOULE, IANB
`VALLEY FORGE, PA 19482-0980
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`ART UNIT
`
`37 85
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`10/18/2012
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Application No.
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`
` 12/442,815 SUGIYAMA ET AL.
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`IAN SOULE
`3785
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS,
`WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1. 136(a).
`In no event however may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1)|Zl Responsive to communication(s) filed on 02 May 2012.
`
`2a)|:l This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)IXI This action is non-final.
`
`3)|:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:l Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`5)IXI Claim(s) 12123 and 24 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s) _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`6)|:| Claim(s) _ is/are allowed.
`
`7)|Xl Claim(s) 1 -21 23 and24 is/are rejected.
`
`8)|:| Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`9)|:I Claim(s) _ are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)|:I The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11)I:| The drawing(s) filed on _ is/are: a)|:| accepted or b)|:| objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`12)|:I The oath or declaration is objected to by the Examiner. Note the attached Office Action or form PTO-152.
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`13)]Xl Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`
`a)|Z AII
`
`b)|:l Some * c)I:I None of:
`
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.|:l Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. _
`
`SIXI Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`
`
`1) I] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`2) I] Notice of Draftsperson‘s Patent Drawing Review (PTO-948)
`3) IZI Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date M2012.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`4) I] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper N0(S )/Mai| Date. _
`5)I:I Notice 0f Informal Patent Application
`6)I:I Other:—
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 03-11)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20121015
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/442,815
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 3785
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This action is in response to the RCE filed 5/2/2012. Claims 1 and 23—24 have
`
`been amended (23—24 have been amended into independent form), claim 22 has been
`
`cancelled, and claims 1—21, 23—24 are pending.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`2.
`
`The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
`
`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.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 1—21, 23—24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as
`
`being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
`
`matter which applicant regards as the invention.
`
`Regarding claim 1, the limitations “and a respective one of the rectification
`
`portions being connected to a corresponding one of the inlet ports and a corresponding
`
`one of the outlet ports of the flow channels” and “wherein the inlet port and the outlet
`
`port of a longest one of the flow channels are the largest inlet port and outlet port of
`
`the flow channels for adjusting ventilation resistances of the flow channels” render the
`
`claim indefinite.
`
`It is unclear what structural limitation these phrases impart upon
`
`the claim.
`
`It is unclear what is meant by the language ”corresponding” in the former
`
`case, and "the longest one of the flow channels” in the latter.
`
`Regarding claims 23—24, it is unclear what the difference between “bended
`
`portion”, “widen portion” [sic], and "projected portion“ in the context of the rectification
`
`portions, and it is unclear what structural limitation these phrases may impart on the
`
`claims. Moreover, the language further defining the limitations is unclear (e.g. ”in the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/442,815
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 3785
`
`vicinity of‘, ”starts from the corresponding one of the inlet ports and the...”, and ”in
`
`the flow channels except for the longest flow channel“).
`
`The remaining claims are rejected as being dependent from a rejected
`
`independent claim.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`4.
`
`The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can
`
`be found in a prior Office action.
`
`5.
`
`Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by
`
`MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC IND CO LTD (Japanese Patent Publication number 2004—
`
`286419, hereinafter Matsushita, previously cited).
`
`Regarding claim 1, Matsushita discloses in the abstract and figure 1 (see all
`
`figures, for variations) a heat exchanging element for performing heat exchange by
`
`circulating a primary airflow and a secondary airflow through corresponding air
`
`passages alternately formed between a plurality of heat exchanger plates (A1, B2)
`
`laminated on each other with a predetermined spacing (par. [0065]); the heat
`
`exchanging element including counterflow regions in which the primary airflow and
`
`the secondary airflow flow opposite to each other with the heat exchanger plates
`
`therebetween (see figure 1, par. [0065]); shield portions (see figure 27) for preventing
`
`airflow leakage from regions other than inlet ports and outlet ports of the primary
`
`airflow and the secondary airflow in the air passages (also pars. [0067, 0074]); flow
`
`channel division portions (6) for dividing each of the air passages into a plurality of
`
`flow channels, the flow channels divided by the flow channel division portions having
`
`different flow channel lengths from each other (see figure 1); and rectification portions
`
`(elements 8 in combination with the pattern of element 6, the area around the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/442,815
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 3785
`
`inlet/ outlet) arranged in the air passages, the rectification portions providing a
`
`predetermined flow velocity distribution of the primary airflow and the secondary
`
`airflow circulating through the counterflow regions in the flow channels divided by the
`
`flow channel division portions (see figure 1); ); further that the respective one of the
`
`rectification portions being connected to a corresponding one of the inlet ports and a
`
`corresponding one of the outlet ports of the flow channels; also that the longest one of
`
`the flow channels have the largest inlet and outlet port for adjusting ventilation
`
`resistances of the flow channels.
`
`It is believed that Matsushita discloses that the
`
`longest flow channel may have both the largest inlet and the largest outlet (see figure 1
`
`which shows inlet / outlet pair 4 and 7 are not equal in size, depending on the fluid
`
`flow either may be the inlet or outlet). Further, applicant cites in the response (page
`
`10, paragraph 3) that the limitation reads ”the inlet port and the outlet port of a
`
`longest one of the flow channels are the largest inlet port and outlet port of the flow
`
`channels”. Applicant contends that this “...means that the inlets and the outlets in
`
`Applicants’ invention have different sizes (i.e. one port is “larger” than another).”
`
`Based on this argument, one could assume that as Matsushita discloses one port
`
`being larger than another (see figure 1, elements 4 and 7) that Matsushita still
`
`completely anticipates amended claim 1.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`6.
`
`The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can
`
`be found in a prior Office action.
`
`7.
`
`Claims 1—21, 23—24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC IND CO LTD (Japanese Patent Publication number
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/442,815
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 3785
`
`2004—286419, hereinafter Matsushita, previously cited) in view of Shah et al.
`
`(Fundamentals of Heat Exchanger Design, 2003, p378—404, previously cited).
`
`Regarding claims 1—2, Matsushita discloses in the abstract and figure 1 (see all
`
`figures, for variations) a heat exchanging element for performing heat exchange by
`
`circulating a primary airflow and a secondary airflow through corresponding air
`
`passages alternately formed between a plurality of heat exchanger plates (A1, B2)
`
`laminated on each other with a predetermined spacing (par. [0065]); the heat
`
`exchanging element including counterflow regions in which the primary airflow and
`
`the secondary airflow flow opposite to each other with the heat exchanger plates
`
`therebetween (see figure 1, par. [0065]); shield portions (see figure 27) for preventing
`
`airflow leakage from regions other than inlet ports and outlet ports of the primary
`
`airflow and the secondary airflow in the air passages (also pars. [0067, 0074]); flow
`
`channel division portions (6) for dividing each of the air passages into a plurality of
`
`flow channels, the flow channels divided by the flow channel division portions having
`
`different flow channel lengths from each other (see figure 1); and rectification portions
`
`(elements 8 in combination with the pattern of element 6, the area around the
`
`inlet/ outlet) arranged in the air passages, the rectification portions providing a
`
`predetermined flow velocity distribution of the primary airflow and the secondary
`
`airflow circulating through the counterflow regions in the flow channels divided by the
`
`flow channel division portions (see figure 1); and the rectification portions are located
`
`in the air passages except the counterflow regions (see figure 1); further that the
`
`respective one of the rectification portions being connected to a corresponding one of
`
`the inlet ports and a corresponding one of the outlet ports of the flow channels; also
`
`that the longest one of the flow channels have the largest inlet and outlet port for
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/442,815
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 3785
`
`adjusting ventilation resistances of the flow channels.
`
`It is believed that Matsushita
`
`discloses that the longest flow channel may have both the largest inlet and the largest
`
`outlet. However, if it is shown to not, Shah et al. disclose (see sections 6.1, 6.5, 6.6
`
`including subsections for all; especially p398 last two lines, continuing on 399, first
`
`two lines) that it is old and well known in the art for channel length and channel cross
`
`sectional area/ shape to be controlling parameters in flow resistance and pressure
`
`drop (where longer length and smaller cross sectional area both increase flow
`
`resistance and pressure drop), and further that it is advantageous to provide uniform
`
`flow through plate passages by controlling pressure drop characteristics. Hence, it
`
`would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the
`
`invention was made to modify the heat exchanger of Matsushita with the optimized
`
`flow resistance (e.g. not including additional flow resistance to the length limited
`
`longest flow channel) of Shah et al. in order to provide more uniform flow through the
`
`plate passages, thus increasing overall heat transfer efficiency. For clarity, the
`
`relationships provided in Shah et al. render obvious the control of inlet and outlet
`
`area, flow length, and shape in order to provide more uniform flow through the plate
`
`passages, thus increasing overall heat transfer efficiency. This rationale applies to all
`
`claims as modified by Shah et al.
`
`Regarding claims 3—6 Matsushita disclose all claimed limitations including that
`
`the rectification portions are ventilation resistance members (their shape necessitates
`
`this, as elements 8 decrease the cross sectional area of the inlets / outlets w.r.t. the
`
`cross section of the main flow path, further the L—shape defined by elements 6
`
`includes a 90 degree bend, which increases ventilation resistance by default) shaped
`
`to increase ventilation resistances of flow channels. Matsushita discloses in figure 1
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/442,815
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 3785
`
`that the resistance members are applied to channels other than the longest flow
`
`channel having the longest flow channel length of all the flow channels (e.g. included
`
`in the shorter channels); the rectification portions are partially or Wholly located in
`
`inlet ports of the flow channels other than the longest flow channel so that an opening
`
`area of each of the inlet ports of the flow channels other than the longest flow channel
`
`can be smaller than an opening area of an inlet port of the longest flow channel (see
`
`figure 1, pattern near the opening area of the inlet port of the longest flow channel is
`
`larger than the others); the rectification portions are partially or Wholly located in
`
`outlet ports of the flow channels other than the longest flow channel so that an
`
`opening area of each of the outlet ports of the flow channels other than the longest
`
`flow channel can be smaller than an opening area of an outlet port of the longest flow
`
`channel; and the rectification portions are partially or Wholly located in inlet ports and
`
`outlet ports of the flow channels other than the longest flow channel so that an
`
`opening area of each of the inlet ports and an opening area of each of the outlet ports
`
`of the flow channels other than the longest flow channel can be smaller than an
`
`opening area of an inlet port and an opening area of an outlet port, respectively, of the
`
`longest flow channel.
`
`Regarding claims 15—16, Matsushita disclose in figure 1 the rectification
`
`portions that increase ventilation resistances of the flow channels divided by the flow
`
`channel division portions are formed as projections on the heat exchanger plates; and
`
`the projections are formed between one side surface of the heat exchanger plates and
`
`a reverse side of the flow channel division portions.
`
`Regarding claims 17— 18, Matsushita disclose the heat exchanger plates are
`
`integrally molded with resin frames using an injection molding process so as to form a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/442,815
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 3785
`
`plurality of unit elements, the heat exchanger plates being made of paper or resin and
`
`having heat conductivity, moisture permeability, and a gas shielding property, the
`
`resin frames being made of synthetic resin and forming the air passages including the
`
`shield portions, the flow channel division portions, and the rectification portions, and
`
`the plurality of unit elements being laminated on each other; and the heat exchanger
`
`plates made of thermoplastic resin are each provided with an uneven surface structure
`
`so as to form the shield portions, the flow channel division portions, and the
`
`rectification portions thereon so as to form the unit elements, the unit elements being
`
`laminated on each other (see par [0081], and figure 1).
`
`It is noted that claims 17—18
`
`contain a product by process limitations (e.g. integrally molded, laminated, made from
`
`thermoplastic resin, etc.) and that the product by process limitation does not limit the
`
`claim to recite the step, just the structure obtained by performing the step. Further,
`
`in product—by—process claims, "once a product appearing to be substantially identical
`
`is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/ 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the
`
`applicant to show an unobvious difference.“ MPEP 21 13. This rejection under 35
`
`U.S.C. 102/ 103 is proper because the "patentability of a product does not depend on
`
`its method of production." In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
`
`Regarding claims 19—20, Matsushita further disclose the primary airflow and
`
`the secondary airflow circulating the flow channels divided by the flow channel
`
`division portions are subjected to heat exchange in order of being at a right angle or
`
`an oblique angle to each other, being opposite to each other, and being at a right angle
`
`or an oblique angle to each other with the heat exchanger plates therebetween (e.g. L—
`
`shaped counterflow, see figures); and the heat exchanging element has a rectangular
`
`plane in a lamination direction, inlet ports of the primary airflow on a short side, inlet
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/442,815
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 3785
`
`ports of the secondary airflow on the other short side, and outlet ports of the primary
`
`airflow and outlet ports of the secondary airflow on a long side (see figures).
`
`Regarding claims 13 and 21, Matsushita disclose in figure 1 the rectification
`
`portions that increase ventilation resistances of the flow channels divided by the flow
`
`channel division portions are integrally formed with the shield portions, the
`
`rectification portions being formed as projections on some or all surfaces of the shield
`
`portions that are in contact with opening sections of the flow channels; and the
`
`projections are high on an opening side and low on an inner side (inner side taken to
`
`mean interior of the flow passages defined by the plate pairs).
`
`Regarding claim 3, Matsushita disclose all claimed limitations including that
`
`the rectification portions are ventilation resistance members (their shape necessitates
`
`this, as elements 8 decrease the cross sectional area of the inlets / outlets w.r.t. the
`
`cross section of the main flow path, further the L—shape defined by elements 6
`
`includes a 90 degree bend, which increases ventilation resistance by default) shaped
`
`to increase ventilation resistances of flow channels.
`
`It is believed that Matsushita
`
`disclose in figure 1 that the resistance members are applied to channels other than the
`
`longest flow channel.
`
`If this text is read to be exclusive of the longest flow channel,
`
`that is intended that the resistance members not be applied to the longest flow
`
`channels, it is not clear (however in figure 1 it appears that the longest flow channels
`
`have different configurations of the aforementioned resistance members). However,
`
`Shah et al. disclose (see sections 6.1, 6.5, 6.6 including subsections for all; especially
`
`p398 last two lines, continuing on 399, first two lines) that it is old and well known in
`
`the art for channel length and channel cross sectional area/ shape to be controlling
`
`parameters in flow resistance and pressure drop (where longer length and smaller
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/442,815
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 3785
`
`cross sectional area both increase flow resistance and pressure drop), and further that
`
`it is advantageous to provide uniform flow through plate passages by controlling
`
`pressure drop characteristics. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to modify the heat
`
`exchanger of Matsushita With the optimized flow resistance (e.g. not including
`
`additional flow resistance to the length limited longest flow channel) of Shah et al. in
`
`order to provide more uniform flow through the plate passages, thus increasing overall
`
`heat transfer efficiency. For clarity, the relationships provided in Shah et al. render
`
`obvious the control of inlet and outlet area, flow length, and shape in order to provide
`
`more uniform flow through the plate passages, thus increasing overall heat transfer
`
`efficiency. This rationale applies to all claims as modified by Shah et al.
`
`Regarding claims 4—6, Matsushita as modified (see Matsushita figure 1, in light
`
`of the teachings regarding pressure drop characteristics and control of Shah et al.
`
`above) disclose the rectification portions are partially or Wholly located in inlet ports of
`
`the flow channels other than the longest flow channel so that an opening area of each
`
`of the inlet ports of the flow channels other than the longest flow channel can be
`
`smaller than an opening area of an inlet port of the longest flow channel; the
`
`rectification portions are partially or Wholly located in outlet ports of the flow channels
`
`other than the longest flow channel so that an opening area of each of the outlet ports
`
`of the flow channels other than the longest flow channel can be smaller than an
`
`opening area of an outlet port of the longest flow channel; the rectification portions are
`
`partially or Wholly located in inlet ports and outlet ports of the flow channels other
`
`than the longest flow channel so that an opening area of each of the inlet ports and an
`
`opening area of each of the outlet ports of the flow channels other than the longest
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/442,815
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 3785
`
`flow channel can be smaller than an opening area of an inlet port and an opening area
`
`of an outlet port, respectively, of the longest flow channel.
`
`Regarding claims 7—10, Matsushita as modified (see Matsushita figure 1, in light
`
`of the teachings regarding pressure drop characteristics and control of Shah et al.
`
`above) disclose the rectification portions are shaped to decrease ventilation resistances
`
`of flow channels having flow channel lengths longer than an average flow channel
`
`length of the flow channels divided by the flow channel division portions and to
`
`increase ventilation resistances of flow channels having flow channel lengths shorter
`
`than the average flow channel length; the rectification portions are partially or Wholly
`
`located in the inlet ports of the flow channels so that an opening area of each of the
`
`inlet ports of the flow channels having longer flow channel lengths than the average
`
`flow channel length can be larger than an average opening area of the inlet ports, and
`
`that an opening area of each of the inlet ports of the flow channels having shorter flow
`
`channel lengths than the average flow channel length can be smaller than the average
`
`opening area of the inlet ports; and the rectification portions are partially or Wholly
`
`located in the outlet ports of the flow channels so that an opening area of each of the
`
`outlet ports of the flow channels having longer flow channel lengths than the average
`
`flow channel length can be larger than an average opening area of the outlet ports,
`
`and that an opening area of each of the outlet ports of the flow channels having
`
`shorter flow channel lengths than the average flow channel length can be smaller than
`
`the average opening area of the outlet ports; and the rectification portions are partially
`
`or Wholly located in the inlet ports and the outlet ports of the flow channels so that an
`
`opening area of each of the inlet ports and an opening area of each of the outlet ports
`
`of the flow channels having longer flow channel lengths than the average flow channel
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/442,815
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 3785
`
`length can be larger than an average opening area of the inlet ports and an average
`
`opening area of the outlet ports, respectively, and that an opening area of each of the
`
`inlet ports and an opening area of each of the outlet ports of the flow channels having
`
`shorter flow channel lengths than the average flow channel length can be smaller than
`
`the average opening area of the inlet ports and the average opening area of the outlet
`
`ports, respectively. See also the teachings regarding pressure drop characteristics and
`
`control of Shah et al. above.
`
`Regarding claims 11, 12, and 14, Matsushita as modified disclose the flow
`
`channel division portions are partially integrated with the rectification portions (see
`
`figure 1), and the rectification portions are formed by bending parts of the flow
`
`channel division portions in such a manner that an opening area of flow channels
`
`having longer flow channel lengths than an average flow channel length of the flow
`
`channels divided by the flow channel division portions can be larger than an average
`
`opening area, and that an opening area of flow channels having shorter flow channel
`
`lengths than the average flow channel length can be smaller than the average opening
`
`area (see Matsushita figure 1, and the discussion of the teachings regarding pressure
`
`drop characteristics and control of Shah et al. above); the rectification portions that
`
`increase ventilation resistances of the flow channels divided by the flow channel
`
`division portions are integrally formed With the flow channel division portions, the
`
`rectification portions being formed as projections on surfaces of the flow channel
`
`division portions that are in contact with the flow channels (see Matsushita figure 1,
`
`and the discussion of the teachings regarding pressure drop characteristics and
`
`control of Shah et al. above); and the projections are high on an opening side and low
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/442,815
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 3785
`
`on an inner side (see Matsushita figure 1, inner side interpreted to mean interior to
`
`the flow passages defined by the plate pairs).
`
`Regarding new claims 23—24 as best understood, Matsushita as modified by
`
`Shah above appear to disclose all claimed limitations as discussed in the above
`
`presented claims, notwithstanding 35 U.S.C. 112 issues.
`
`8.
`
`Claims 7—9, 23—24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC IND CO LTD (Japanese Patent Publication number
`
`2004—286419, hereinafter Matsushita, previously cited) and Shah et al. (Fundamentals
`
`of Heat Exchanger Design, 2003, p378—404, previously cited), in view of DAIKIN IND
`
`LTD (Japanese Patent Publication number 2000—146467, hereinafter Daikin,
`
`previously cited).
`
`Regarding claims 7—9, 23—24, it is believed Matsushita as modified may fail to
`
`explicitly disclose rectification members to decrease the ventilation resistance of flow
`
`channels that have longer flow length, although they do disclose modified opening
`
`areas of the inlet/ outlet for the longest flow lengths (see wider inlet/ outlet at 2).
`
`Daikin disclose shaped rectification members (figs. 7—1 1) for decreasing flow
`
`resistance. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art, at the time the invention was made to modify the heat exchanger of Matsushita
`
`with the shaped rectification members in order to decrease flow resistance in certain
`
`flow paths, thus modifying the pressure drop characteristics to be more constant w.r.t.
`
`the different flow paths, thus increasing overall heat transfer efficiency.
`
`It is noted
`
`that this rationale could also be applied to other characteristics involving length,
`
`shape, and cross sectional area of the flow paths.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/442,815
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 3785
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`9.
`
`Applicant‘s arguments, see pages 10—1 1, filed 3/30/201 1, with respect to the
`
`rejections under 35 U.S.C. 1 12 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
`
`Applicant has not responded to each of the issues outlined in the Final Rejection.
`
`With the exception of the deletion of the language "for adjusting ventilation resistances
`
`of the flow channels", the 35 U.S.C. 1 12 (2) issues remain pending.
`
`10.
`
`Applicant believes that the newly added limitation “each of the rectification
`
`portions is a bended portion of the corresponding one of the flow channel division
`
`portions, and the bended portion is located in a vicinity of the corresponding one of
`
`the inlet ports and the corresponding one of the outlet ports, respectively"
`
`distinguishes over Matsushita. This is not persuasive. As interpreted, Matsushita still
`
`anticipates claim 1. However, a similar rejection is given in the possibility that it may
`
`be determined that Matsushita does not anticipate the claim.
`
`1 1.
`
`It is noted that Applicant has failed to respond to the 103(a) rejection utilizing
`
`only Matsushita and Shah.
`
`12.
`
`Applicant argues (page 11) w.r.t. claims 7—9 using Matsushita with Shah and
`
`Daikin, neither of the combined references make up for the alleged deficiencies for
`
`Matsushita. However, applicant gives no reasoning and this amounts to a general
`
`allegation of patentability.
`
`Applicant argues (page 1 1) that Examiner has used Figures which appear in the
`
`Matsushita patent as prohibited by MPEP 2125. This is not persuasive. MPEP 2125
`
`is unambiguous in this regard: “[T]he description of the article pictured can be relied
`
`on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 193 USPQ 332 (CCPA 1977)".
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/442,815
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 3785
`
`That is, Examiner has correctly relied upon the drawings in both the 102 and 103
`
`rejections set forth in the previous action.
`
`Claims 23—24 now in independent form rely on the same language allegedly
`
`distinguishing claim 1 from the prior art, and are thus not allowable.
`
`Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.11 1(b) because they
`
`amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without
`
`specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them
`
`from the references.
`
`Applicant‘s arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.11 1(c) because they do not
`
`clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in
`
`view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made.
`
`Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
`
`In response to applicant‘s arguments against the references individually, one
`
`cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections
`
`are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ
`
`871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck 86 Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
`
`Applicant has not structurally overcome the prior art of record. Applicant is
`
`invited to point out specific claim language that distinguishes structurally over the
`
`prior art of record.
`
`Applicant argues the alleged allowability of dependent claims based on the
`
`alleged allowability of the independent claims. As shown, the independent claims are
`
`not allowable, and thus the dependent claims remain rejected.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/442,815
`
`Page 16
`
`Art Unit: 3785
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to IAN SOULE Whose telephone number is (571)270—
`
`1853. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday, 0730—
`
`1 700.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, J.J. Swann can be reached on (571) 272—7075. The fax phone number for
`
`the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571—273—8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Priva