| Gerald Landry Ii |
84.4% |
1.74 |
April 2018
Appears inactive |
| Aarti Bhatia Berdichevsky |
79.0% |
1.86 |
April 2018
Appears inactive |
| Henry Crenshaw |
82.5% |
1.72 |
June 2026
Potentially inactive |
| Davis Hwu |
86.8% |
1.59 |
May 2026
Potentially inactive |
| Jenna Zhang |
60.4% |
2.83 |
May 2025
Appears inactive |
| Amber Stiles |
79.6% |
1.75 |
May 2025
Appears inactive |
| Diva Ranade |
77.4% |
1.49 |
January 2015
Appears inactive |
| Melissa A. Snyder |
76.5% |
1.91 |
November 2022
Appears inactive |
| Christopher D. Koharski |
74.8% |
1.91 |
September 2020
Appears inactive |
| Brandy S. Lee |
76.6% |
2.83 |
June 2026
Potentially inactive |
| Raheena R Malik |
84.3% |
2.35 |
September 2025
Appears inactive |
| Victoria P. Campbell |
69.6% |
2.25 |
September 2021
Appears inactive |
| Jason Thompson |
57.4% |
2.57 |
February 2026
Appears inactive |
| Leah Stohr |
74.7% |
1.77 |
February 2015
Appears inactive |
| Weng Lee |
64.5% |
3.62 |
February 2022
Appears inactive |
| Matthew A. Engel |
69.7% |
3.69 |
November 2019
Appears inactive |
| Leonard R. Leo |
49.4% |
2.53 |
March 2023
Appears inactive |
| Pritesh Patel |
64.1% |
2.45 |
July 2014
Appears inactive |
| Ian K. Holloway |
59.2% |
2.35 |
June 2013
Appears inactive |
| Anh T Bui |
76.6% |
2.11 |
April 2026
Potentially inactive |
| Erik Mendoza-Wilkenfeld |
79.3% |
1.93 |
August 2022
Appears inactive |
| Laura Schell |
54.3% |
3.75 |
May 2020
Appears inactive |
| Brooke Matney |
65.9% |
2.59 |
May 2014
Appears inactive |
| Jose O. Class-Quinones |
70.1% |
2.08 |
June 2022
Appears inactive |
| Melvin Jones |
91.5% |
1.40 |
December 2019
Appears inactive |
| Larry R. Wilson |
69.5% |
3.37 |
September 2021
Appears inactive |
| Alexis Cox |
68.3% |
2.43 |
July 2022
Appears inactive |
| Allen Flanigan |
83.0% |
1.70 |
September 2019
Appears inactive |
| Bradley G. Thomas, Jr |
73.6% |
2.54 |
May 2016
Appears inactive |
| Chang H Park |
67.3% |
1.96 |
October 2022
Appears inactive |
| Melodee Jefferson |
47.8% |
3.26 |
September 2021
Appears inactive |
| Tareq Alosh |
61.0% |
2.70 |
January 2020
Appears inactive |
| Michael J. Anderson |
71.7% |
2.32 |
March 2014
Appears inactive |
| Esmeralda Arreguin-Martinez |
28.0% |
1.86 |
August 2025
Appears inactive |
| Niyati D. Shah |
56.0% |
1.71 |
October 2013
Appears inactive |
| Bejeir Brooks |
50.0% |
3.00 |
July 2023
Appears inactive |
| Nicholas W. Meghri |
53.7% |
2.05 |
November 2015
Appears inactive |
| Bhisma Mehta |
36.1% |
2.47 |
October 2021
Appears inactive |
| Christopher C Pillow |
36.1% |
1.93 |
December 2023
Appears inactive |
| Tezita Watts |
32.3% |
3.32 |
August 2020
Appears inactive |
| Morgan Lee |
50.0% |
1.85 |
February 2016
Appears inactive |
| Jenner Yeh |
13.6% |
1.00 |
November 2009
Appears inactive |
| Amanda P. Setiawan |
15.0% |
3.75 |
July 2023
Appears inactive |
| Birhanu Weldetensi |
57.9% |
1.27 |
August 2022
Appears inactive |
| Jianying Atkisson |
46.7% |
2.45 |
June 2026
Potentially inactive |
| Stephanus Chung |
53.3% |
2.00 |
December 2022
Appears inactive |
| Heather J Huddle |
53.8% |
1.43 |
August 2020
Appears inactive |
| Antonio R. Febles |
58.3% |
2.42 |
March 2019
Appears inactive |
| Dae Hyun Jin |
63.6% |
1.43 |
August 2022
Appears inactive |
| Glen Janson |
80.0% |
2.25 |
August 2014
Appears inactive |
| Rodrigo Royo |
80.0% |
1.50 |
June 2021
Appears inactive |
| Henry F Canova |
0.0% |
N/A |
July 2026
Potentially inactive |
| Joanna Rosario |
22.2% |
1.50 |
July 2020
Appears inactive |
| Marie C. Black |
44.4% |
1.40 |
April 2018
Appears inactive |
| Ade R Gordon |
85.7% |
1.00 |
April 2019
Appears inactive |
| Evan J. Cusick |
57.1% |
1.75 |
September 2021
Appears inactive |
| Maria E. Doukas |
0.0% |
2.00 |
March 2026
Appears inactive |
| Nicholas R. Hector |
66.7% |
2.50 |
February 2019
Appears inactive |
| Afewerki H Birhane |
40.0% |
1.00 |
April 2020
Appears inactive |
| Tien Tran |
50.0% |
1.50 |
June 2014
Appears inactive |
| Nawal Boufrou |
100.0% |
1.00 |
December 2016
Appears inactive |
| Versie T. Cuthbert |
0.0% |
N/A |
December 2022
Appears inactive |
| Carnot Joseph |
100.0% |
1.00 |
December 2020
Appears inactive |
| Justin Jonaitis |
0.0% |
1.71 |
December 2023
Appears inactive |
| The Entire Disclosure. If The Patent Is In The Nature Of An Improvement In An Old Apparatus, Process, Product, Or Composition, The Abstract Should Include The Technical Disclosure Of The Improvement. The Abstract Should Also Mention By Way Of Example Any Preferred Modifications Or Alternatives. Where Applicable, The Abstract Should Include The Following: (1) If A Machine Or Apparatus, Its Organization And Operation; (2) If An Article, Its Method Of Making; (3) If A Chemical Compound, Its Identity And Use; (4) If A Mixture, Its Ingredients; (5) If A Process, The Steps. Extensive Mechanical And Design Details Of An Apparatus Should Not Be Included In The Abstract. The Abstract Should Be In Narrative Form And Generally Limited To A Single Paragraph Within The Range Of 50 To 150 Words In Length. Figure 1 Is Included In The Bottom Of The Abstract, This Should Be Deleted. See Mpep § 608.01(B) For Guidelines For The Preparation Of Patent Abstracts. Claim Objections Claims 4-15 Objected To Under 37 Cfr 1.75(C) As Being In Improper Form Because A Multiple Dependent Claim According To One Of The Preceding Claims. See Mpep § 608.01(N). Accordingly, The Claims 4-15 Not Been Further Treated On The Merits. Claim Interpretation 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 Use The Word “Means” Or “Step” But Are Nonetheless Not Being Interpreted Under 35 U.S.C. 112(F) Or Pre-Aia 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph Because The Claim Limitation(S) Recite(S) Sufficient Structure, Materials, Or Acts To Entirely Perform The Recited Function. Such Claim Limitation(S) Are: “By Means Of Caulking With The Heat Exchanger” In Claim 3 Will Be Interpreted As “The Invention Advantageously Understands The Term "Caulking" To Be A Joining Process, In The Case Of Which A Positive Connection Is Or Will Be Realized By Means Of Caulking Two Joining Partners And Which Is Characterized In That The One Joining Partner, Which Is Made Of Softer Material, For Example Said Plug-In Parts, Is Cut And/Or Partially Peeled And/Or Plastically Deformed By The Joining Partner, Which Is Made Of Harder Material, For Example The Heat Exchanger, Whereby The Two Joining Partners Are Wedged Together In A Positive Manner Detachably Or Non-Detachably As Well As Without Play. It Could Thus Also Be Defined That By Means Of Caulking With The Heat Exchanger, The First Plug-In Parts And/Or The Second Plug-In Parts Form A Caulking Or Positive Connection With Said Heat Exchanger, Within Which The First Plug-In Parts And/Or The Second Plug-In Parts Are Wedged Together In A Positive Manner Releasably Or Non-Releasably As Well As Without Play With The Heat Exchanger, Whereby The First Plug-In Parts And/Or The Second Plug-In Parts Are Fixed In A Positive Manner Detachably Or Non-Detachably And Without Play To The Heat Exchanger” Per The Definition In The Specification [0011]. Because This/These Claim Limitation(S) Is/Are Not Being Interpreted Under 35 U.S.C. 112(F) Or Pre-Aia 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph, It/They Is/Are Not Being Interpreted To Cover Only The Corresponding Structure, Material, Or Acts Described In The Specification As Performing The Claimed Function, And Equivalents Thereof. If Applicant Intends 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 Remove The Structure, Materials, Or Acts That Performs The Claimed Function; Or (2) Present A Sufficient Showing That The Claim Limitation(S) Does/Do Not Recite Sufficient Structure, Materials, Or Acts To Perform The Claimed Function. 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. Claims 1-3 Are Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. 112(B), Second Paragraph, As Being Indefinite For Failing To Particularly Point Out And Distinctly Claim The Subject Matter Which The Inventor Or A Joint Inventor (Or For Applications Subject To Pre-Aia 35 U.S.C. 112, The Applicant), Regards As The Invention. The Term “Fixed In A Positive Manner” In Claims 1-3 Renders The Claim Indefinite Because It Is Unclear What It Means For Something To Be Fixed In A Positive Manner Differs From Being Fixed In A Negative Manner. The Term “Can Be Locked” Is Indefinite As It Is Unclear If The First And Second Plug-In Parts Are To Be Locked To Each Other Or If The First And Second Plug-In Parts Are To Be Locked Individually To Other System Components. For Purposes Of Examination, The Examiner Will Interpret The First And Second Plug-In Parts To Be Locked To Each Other. Claims 2-3 Are Also Rejected By Virtue Of Their Dependency On Claim 1. 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. (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. Claims 1 And 3 Are Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) And (A)(2) As Being Clearly Anticipated By Wilinson (Us Patent No. 10,274,267), Hereinafter Wilkinson. Regarding Claim 1 See Annotated Figure 1 Below, Wilkinson Teaches A Heat Exchanger Assembly (Abstract; Figure 1) For A Vehicle (Col. 2, Lines 15-17), - Comprising A Heat Exchanger (Fig. 1, Heat Exchanger 10) And Two Lateral Enclosures (Fig. 1, Bracket 110), Which Hold Said Heat Exchanger And Which Are Arranged On Opposite Sides (Fig. 1, First And Second Header Tanks 12, 14) Of The Heat Exchanger (Fig. 1, Heat Exchanger 10) In Order To Each Enclose A Section (Fig. 1, First And Second Header Tanks 12, 14)Of A Circumferential Edge (Col. 2, Lines 23-29) Of The Heat Exchanger (Fig. 1, Heat Exchanger 10) And Which Are Configured To Fix The Heat Exchanger Assembly (Abstract; Figure 1) To A Structural Component (30) Of The Vehicle (Col. 2, Lines 15-17, 30-33), Characterized In - That The Lateral Enclosures (Fig. 1, Bracket 110) Each Have A First Plug-In Part (Annotated Fig. 1, First Plug In Part (R), First Plug In Part (L)), Which Is Fixed In A Positive Manner To The Heat Exchanger (Col. 2, Lines 55-61), A Second Plug-In Part (Annotated Fig. 1, Second Plug In Part (R), Second Plug In Part (L)), Which Is Fixed In A Positive Manner To The Heat Exchanger (Col. 2, Lines 55-61), As Well As A Fixing Part (Fig. 2, Mountain Portion 150), Which Is Arranged On The First Plug-In Part (Annotated Fig. 1, First Plug In Part (R), First Plug In Part (L)) And/Or On The Second Plug-In Part (Annotated Fig. 1, Second Plug In Part (R), Second Plug In Part (L)), For Fixing The Respective Lateral Enclosure (Fig. 1, Bracket 110) To The Structural Component (Fig. 1, Mounting Structure 30, Via The Mounting Portion 150 Which Connects To The Bracket 110; Col. 2, Lines 15-17, 30-33). Png Media_Image1.Png 427 745 Media_Image1.Png Greyscale Annotated Fig. 1 Of Wilkinson Regarding Claim 3, Wilkinson Teaches The Heat Exchanger Assembly According To Claim 1 (See The Rejection Of Claim 1 Above) Characterized In - That The First Plug-In Parts (Annotated Fig. 1, First Plug In Part (R), First Plug In Part (L)) And/Or The Second Plug-In Parts (Annotated Fig. 1, Second Plug In Part (R), Second Plug In Part (L)) Are Fixed In A Positive Manner To The Heat Exchanger (Fig. 1, Heat Exchanger 10) By Means Of Caulking With The Heat Exchanger (Col. 2, Lines 55-61). Claim Rejections - 35 Usc § 103 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. Claim(S) 2 Is/Are Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. 103 As Being Unpatentable Over Wilkinson As Applied To Claim 2 Above, And Further In View Of Pawel (Us Patent Number Us 20200217600) Hereinafter Pawel. Regarding Claim 2, Wilkinson Teaches The Heat Exchanger Assembly According To Claim 1 (See The Rejection Of Claim 1 Above). Wilkinson Does Not Teach The First And Second Plug-In Parts Can Each Be Locked Or Are Each Locked In A Positive Manner With The Other. For The Purpose Compact Prosecution, The Claim Will Be Interpreted As The First Plug-In Parts Are Locked In A Positive Manner With The Second Plug-In Parts, See 112(B) Rejections Above. Pawel Teaches The First Plug-In Part (Receiving Element Fig. 9, 291) And Second Plug-In Part (Tubular Element, Fig. 9, 292) Can Each Be Locked Or Are Each Locked In A Positive Manner With The Other (Connection, Fig. 2, 142). Therefore, It Would Be Obvious Before The Effective Filing Date Of The Claimed Invention To Modify The Heat Exchanger Assembly Of Wilkinson Of Claim 1 Wherein The First And Second Plug-In Parts Are Locked In A Positive Manner As Taught By Pawel. One Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Would’Ve Been Motivated To Make This Modification Based On The Accessibility To The Connection Between The Heat Exchanger And Rest Of The Circuits Being Sought In Order To Facilitate Assembly And Maintenance Operations. Conclusion The Following Are Additional Pertinent Art But Not Relied Upon: Kalbacher Et. All (De102009031695A1) Shows A Similar Heat Exchanger Assembly Green Et. All (Us20160341696A1) Shows A Similar Heat Exchanger Assembly Any Inquiry Concerning This Communication Or Earlier Communications From The Examiner Should Be Directed To Kyle Andrew Smith |
0.0% |
N/A |
March 2025
Appears inactive |
