Art Unit 3763

Active Examiners

105

Examiner	Applications	Granted	Lifetime Grant Ratio	Avg OA / Grant
Adam D Moore	56	6	10.7%	1.17
Alexandra Elizabeth Lalonde	419	244	58.2%	2.99
An Bach Phan	20	0	0.0%	N/A
Ana M Vazquez	881	652	74.0%	1.77
Andrew Gilbert	705	458	65.0%	2.28
Anh T Bui	546	408	74.7%	2.11
Benjamin Koo	274	127	46.4%	2.83
Bigyan Bhattachan	14	0	0.0%	N/A
Bradley Osinski	1,226	895	73.0%	2.28
Brandy S. Lee	819	637	77.8%	2.83
Brian M King	855	548	64.1%	2.15
Cassey D. Bauer	910	622	68.4%	1.80
Christopher R. Zerphey	815	343	42.1%	2.61
Claire Rojohn Iii	584	350	59.9%	2.19
Courtney Fredrickson	436	273	62.6%	2.44
Daniel C. Comings	690	395	57.2%	2.28
Dario Antonio Deleon	243	94	38.7%	2.28
David J Teitelbaum	719	437	60.8%	2.05
Davis Hwu	1,538	1,200	78.0%	1.59
Deanna K. Hall	1,184	839	70.9%	1.92
Devon Russell	817	410	50.2%	2.19
Devon T Moore	251	58	23.1%	2.40
Dung T Ulsh	384	252	65.6%	1.90
Edelmira Bosques	585	366	62.6%	2.79
Edward F. Landrum	249	85	34.1%	2.32
Elizabeth J Martin	957	698	72.9%	1.70
Emily Schmidt	1,084	573	52.9%	2.55
Emmanuel Duke	1,156	750	64.9%	1.79
Enrico Miotto	5	0	0.0%	N/A
Eric S Ruppert	807	423	52.4%	2.17
Filip Zec	1,024	614	60.0%	1.96
For K Ling	480	213	44.4%	2.80
Gordon A Jones	619	327	52.8%	2.69
Gustavo A Hincapie Serna	451	234	51.9%	2.35
Hamza A. Darb	598	381	63.7%	2.49
Hans R. Weiland	543	261	48.1%	2.25
Harry E Arant	632	253	40.0%	3.18
Henry Crenshaw	999	727	72.8%	1.72
Henry F Canova	15	0	0.0%	N/A
Hong-Van N Trinh	282	151	53.5%	2.52
Ibrahim M Adeniji	151	64	42.4%	1.94
Imani Hayman	739	519	70.2%	2.67
James D Ponton	582	410	70.4%	2.30
Jason Flick	942	714	75.8%	1.88
Jenna M Hopkins	534	302	56.6%	2.32
Jennifer Gordon	110	6	5.5%	1.33
Jerry-Daryl Fletcher	471	213	45.2%	2.36
Jianying Atkisson	440	197	44.8%	2.45
Joel Attey	485	273	56.3%	2.13
John A Doubrava	323	215	66.6%	2.19
John F Pettitt	770	167	21.7%	3.32
Jon T. Schermerhorn	480	246	51.3%	2.15
Jonathan Bradford	1,202	850	70.7%	1.79
Joseph A Miller, Jr	1,284	816	63.6%	2.11
Joseph Trpisovsky	760	504	66.3%	1.99
Joshua M Stickel	1	0	0.0%	N/A
Justin L Zamory	556	358	64.4%	2.59
Kami A. Bosworth	1,052	650	61.8%	2.80
Kamran Tavakoldavani	486	346	71.2%	1.53
Keith Raymond	403	210	52.1%	2.40
Keith S Myers	146	40	27.4%	2.65
Keona Lauren Banks	78	6	7.7%	1.33
Khaled Al Samiri	166	45	27.1%	2.87
Kirstin U Oswald	571	297	52.0%	2.52
Kun Kai Ma	832	603	72.5%	1.81
Larry Furdge	810	447	55.2%	2.52
Laura A Bouchelle	1,237	923	74.6%	1.87
Lauren P Farrar	815	577	70.8%	2.65
Leah J Swanson	477	259	54.3%	2.75
Liliana Cerullo	1,034	95	9.2%	1.00
Lionel W Nouketcha	607	429	70.7%	1.70
Ljiljana (Lil) V. Ciric	902	645	71.5%	1.50
Manuel Mendez	1,238	1,010	81.6%	1.34
Marc E Norman	1,372	1,103	80.4%	1.37
Martha Tadesse	665	399	60.0%	2.19
Matthew F. Desanto	681	409	60.1%	2.07
Matthew John Moscola	136	63	46.3%	1.78
Meraj A Shaikh	507	260	51.3%	2.60
Miguel A Diaz	509	360	70.7%	1.78
Nael N Babaa	573	385	67.2%	1.95
Nathan R. Price	491	254	51.7%	2.24
Nelson Nieves	824	553	67.1%	1.65
Nicholas D Lucchesi	844	585	69.3%	1.69
Nicholas J Chidiac	261	103	39.5%	2.21
Nilay J Shah	650	422	64.9%	2.24
Orlando E. Aviles Bosques	330	158	47.9%	2.48
Paul Alvare	650	317	48.8%	2.27
Paul Schwarzenberg	397	209	52.6%	1.91
Phillip Gray	929	641	69.0%	2.40
Quynh-Nhu H. Vu	1,030	653	63.4%	2.19
Rebecca E. Eisenberg	839	688	82.0%	1.74
Samba Nmn Gaye	211	87	41.2%	2.45
Schyler S Sanks	546	352	64.5%	2.16
Scott Medway	928	562	60.6%	3.02
Shefali Patel	810	418	51.6%	2.95
Steve Tanenbaum	796	497	62.4%	1.58
Tasnim M Ahmed	458	327	71.4%	1.69
Tavia Sullens	563	238	42.3%	3.05
Theodore Stigell	1,289	951	73.8%	2.07
Tho V. Duong	1,227	768	62.6%	1.90
Tiffany Legette	424	316	74.5%	2.29
Travis Ruby	869	417	48.0%	2.39
Webeshet Mengesha	481	190	39.5%	2.77
William Carpenter	1,055	523	49.6%	2.74
William R Frehe	435	220	50.6%	3.33

Inactive or Potentially Inactive Examiners

Based on the last observed office action month in the available data.

Examiner	Applications	Granted	Lifetime Grant Ratio	Avg OA / Grant
Aarti Bhatia Berdichevsky	651	518	79.6%	1.86
Ade R Gordon	7	6	85.7%	1.00
Afewerki H Birhane	5	2	40.0%	1.00
Alexis Cox	561	323	57.6%	2.43
Allen Flanigan	657	339	51.6%	1.70
Amanda P. Setiawan	138	4	2.9%	3.75
Amber Stiles	751	635	84.6%	1.75
Antonio R. Febles	223	109	48.9%	2.42
Bejeir Brooks	48	24	50.0%	3.00
Bhisma Mehta	318	199	62.6%	2.47
Birhanu Weldetensi	19	11	57.9%	1.27
Bradley G. Thomas, Jr	271	171	63.1%	2.54
Brooke Matney	187	124	66.3%	2.59
Carnot Joseph	1	1	100.0%	1.00
Chang H Park	108	74	68.5%	1.96
Christopher C Pillow	37	14	37.8%	1.93
Christopher D. Koharski	354	264	74.6%	1.91
Dae Hyun Jin	11	7	63.6%	1.43
Diva Ranade	328	254	77.4%	1.49
Erik Mendoza-Wilkenfeld	520	383	73.7%	1.93
Esmeralda Arreguin-Martinez	59	14	23.7%	1.86
Evan J. Cusick	7	4	57.1%	1.75
Gerald Landry Ii	664	561	84.5%	1.74
Glen Janson	10	8	80.0%	2.25
Heather J Huddle	13	7	53.8%	1.43
Ian K. Holloway	213	126	59.2%	2.35
Jason Thompson	673	343	51.0%	2.57
Jenna Zhang	726	487	67.1%	2.83
Jenner Yeh	22	3	13.6%	1.00
Joanna Rosario	9	2	22.2%	1.50
Jose O. Class-Quinones	298	180	60.4%	2.08
Justin Jonaitis	954	586	61.4%	1.71
Larry R. Wilson	391	223	57.0%	3.37
Laura Schell	463	245	52.9%	3.75
Leah Stohr	250	187	74.8%	1.77
Leonard R. Leo	779	303	38.9%	2.53
Maria E. Doukas	77	10	13.0%	2.00
Marie C. Black	17	5	29.4%	1.40
Matthew A. Engel	302	208	68.9%	3.69
Melissa A. Snyder	522	413	79.1%	1.91
Melodee Jefferson	114	46	40.4%	3.26
Melvin Jones	875	750	85.7%	1.40
Michael J. Anderson	320	213	66.6%	2.32
Morgan Lee	26	13	50.0%	1.85
Nawal Boufrou	3	3	100.0%	1.00
Nicholas R. Hector	31	16	51.6%	2.50
Nicholas W. Meghri	41	22	53.7%	2.05
Niyati D. Shah	69	34	49.3%	1.71
Pritesh Patel	225	144	64.0%	2.45
Raheena R Malik	602	437	72.6%	2.35
Rodrigo Royo	10	8	80.0%	1.50
Stephanus Chung	15	8	53.3%	2.00
Tareq Alosh	292	100	34.2%	2.70
Tezita Watts	124	84	67.7%	3.32
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	1	0	0.0%	N/A
Tien Tran	4	2	50.0%	1.50
Versie T. Cuthbert	2	0	0.0%	N/A
Victoria P. Campbell	335	224	66.9%	2.25
Weng Lee	312	208	66.7%	3.62