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 16 January, 2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks/Amendments filed on 16 January, 2026.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-11, 14-16, 18-19, and 21-25 are pending.
Claims 3, 12-13, 17, and 20 have been cancelled.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-11, 14-16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRUCATO (US 2019/0041136 A1 – published 7 February, 2019), in view of LABRAND (US 4,269,267 – published 26 May, 1981) and SPECIAL METALS (NPL: “Incoloy ® alloy 825 – Special Metals – published September 2004).
As to claim 1, BRUCATO discloses a heat exchanger (14 or 16, in combination with the conduits as claimed below, 1, 1’, and/or 100; abstract) comprising first (one of the plurality of conduits, 8; par. 30-31) and second conduits (another one of the plurality of conduits, 8; par. 30-31) being configured to carry, in use, process medium (par. 1 and 31), and a heat transfer member (14 and/or 16) thermally connecting the first and second conduits to one another to define a heat transfer member between the first and second conduits (par. 36, and 42-43), wherein the heat transfer member includes first and second support formations (16A or 14A; figure 4A, 4B; par. 45-51) configured to position and support said respective first and second conduits in the heat exchanger;
wherein the heat transfer member has a higher heat conductivity than the materials used for the first and second conduit (par. 6, 78, and 85, in comparison to par. 45 and 81; see Table 2 of SPECIAL METALS).
While BRUCATO does not expressly state pressure ratings of the conduits, in absence of the heat transfer member, or operational pressure ratings with the single or plurality of similar heat transfer members, BRUCATO discusses the application of the heat exchanger being subjected to high pressure, high temperature, and corrosive/toxic chemical species applications (par. 1, 10, and 78-79). BRUCATO recognizes wherein it is known to select the material of the conduits and heat transfer member based on the needs dictated by the chemical compositions and pressures of the working fluid (par. 10 and 78), in addition to applying the conduits and heat transfer members based on application of the heat exchanger (par. 10 and 78). Applicant is advised "the
selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness", and that the selection of a material known within the heat
exchanger art is not inventive, as it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
within the art to select the material based on known principles (e.g., needs of the heat
exchanger piping to sustain, at least, pressures of the working fluids (par. 78)). See
MPEP § 2144.07. Therefore, with regards to the present application, it would have been
obvious for one having selected the conduit material, so as to have a pressure rating
within the range of 5 to 75 bar, and selection of the combination of conduit and heat transfer material to be able to operate at pressures within 100 to 300 bar, as one having ordinary skill within the heat exchanger art knows to select the material based on needs of the system based on the working fluid pressures (par. 78), as taught by BRUCATO.
More so, BRUCATO discloses wherein the first and second conduits are combined with the heat transfer member, but BRUCATO does not expressly disclose the process wherein the first and second conduits are made with an intentional expansion of the conduit material into an expanded fit with the heat transfer member. First, it remains that the limitation is merely a product-by-process, such that providing the first and second conduit within the heat transfer member, as the defined product of the claim limitation, is fully disclosed by BRUCATO (see figures 1 and 2; par. 44-51). See MPEP § 2113-I. Second, such features are known within the ordinary skill within the art, pertaining to method of manufacturing heat exchangers. LABRAND (abstract) teaches a heat exchanger (col.1, lines 5-6) which includes conduits (11) configured to carry a process medium (col. 1, lines 10-12) and a heat transfer member between the conduits (col.2, lines 44-46; figure 2). Particularly, LABRAND teaches wherein it is known to provide the conduits formed with an intentional expansion of the conduit material into an expanded fit with the heat transfer member (col. 1, lines 13-23; col. 3, lines 10-18) for the purpose of applying known techniques with known, predictable outcomes, of enhancing contact between the tube and heat transfer member to result in enhancements in thermal conductivity (col.1, lines 13-23). Therefore, in arguendo, if the process of forming the conduits with the heat transfer member were required by the claims, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify BRUCATO, in view of the teachings of LABRAND, for the purpose of enhancing contact between the heat exchanger components and thermal conductivity.
As to claim 2, BRUCATO, as modified, previously taught, although not required in light of the limitations being merely product-by-process claims, expansion of the conduit material into an expanded fit with the heat transfer member (see rejection of claim 1).
More so, BRUCATO does not expressly disclose the process of expansion occurs by using mechanical and/or hydraulic expansion. First, it remains that the limitation is merely a product-by-process, such that providing the first and second conduit within the heat transfer member, as the defined product of the claim limitation, is fully disclosed by BRUCATO (see figures 1 and 2; par. 44-51). See MPEP § 2113-I. Second, such features are known within the ordinary skill within the art, pertaining to method of manufacturing heat exchangers. LABRAND (abstract), further, teaches wherein the expansion occurs by using mechanical expansion (col.3, lines 10-21; figures 1 and 3). Again, LABRAND teaches wherein it is known to provide the conduits formed with an expansion of the conduit material into an expanded fit with the heat transfer member (col. 1, lines 13-23; col. 3, lines 10-18), by way of mechanical expansion, for the purpose of applying known techniques with known, predictable outcomes, of enhancing contact between the tube and heat transfer member to result in enhancements in thermal conductivity (col.1, lines 13-23). Therefore, in arguendo, if the process of forming the conduits with the heat transfer member were required by the claims, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify BRUCATO, in view of the teachings of LABRAND, for the purpose of enhancing contact between the heat exchanger components and thermal conductivity.
As to claim 5, BRUCATO, as modified, further disclose wherein the support formation of a heat transfer member contacts only a part of the surface of each of the at least two conduits and the heat exchanger(figures 1-2; 4A, 4B, 4C, and 4D, in view of par. 44-51) is designed to be joined as an individual component with a plurality of similar individual heat exchangers to form a collective assembly (MPEP § 2113 – product-by-process; MPEP § 2114 – II, wherein joining of a plurality of individual heat exchangers is seen as an intended use of the operation of the heat exchanger, so as to provide the necessary heat transfer; figures 1-2; 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 8, 9A-9B, 10, and 11).
As to claim 6, BRUCATO, as modified, further discloses wherein individual heat exchangers comprises a heat transfer member having engagement surfaces to facilitate assembly of a plurality of individual heat exchangers into a collective assembly (figures 1-2; 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 8, 9A-9B, 10, and 11, in view of par. 44-51).
As to claim 7, BRUCATO, as modified, further discloses wherein an individual heat exchanger is symmetrical about a first axis which passes through the heat transfer member and center of each of the at least two conduits and is further symmetrical about a second axis which passes through the center of the heat transfer member and which is perpendicular to the first axis (see annotated figure 2; par. 34)
PNG
media_image1.png
814
1002
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
As to claim 8, BRUCATO, as modified, further discloses wherein the heat transfer member has an I-shaped profile (figure 4A, 4B, 4C, and 4D) with support formations as two semi-circular indentations each bounded by flat engagement surfaces that are perpendicular to the first axis (see annotated figure 2).
As to claim 9, BRUCATO, as modified, further discloses wherein an individual heat exchanger is symmetrical about a first axis which passes through the heat transfer member and center of each of the at least two conduits (see annotated figure 2) of the first axis and is adapted to be joined (See MPEP § 2113 – product-by-process; MPEP § 2114 – wherein joining of a plurality of individual heat exchangers is seen as an intended use of the operation of the heat exchanger so as to provide the necessary heat transfer) with a plurality of similar individual heat exchangers as an array by having a heat transfer member with engagement surfaces that extend at angle relative to the first axis (figure 8, 10, and 11).
However, BRUCATO, as modified, does not expressly define the tapering/wedge shape from one side of the first axis to the other side (wider on one side of the first axis and narrow on the other side of the first axis) and the joining of the plurality of similar heat exchangers as a circular array.
That being noted, the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design, as it has been held by the courts as“ a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed [structure] was significant.” In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP §2144.04 – IV(B). More so, looking at the disclosure of the instant application, the Applicant fails to provide any criticality or evidence of new or unexpected results of such shapes, as claimed. See Figures 1-3 (par. [0064]) which provide an I-shaped linear heat exchanger array with a non-tapered shape. See Figures 8-9b (par. [0118]) which provide a hexagonal heat exchanger array with a non-tapered shape. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify BRUCATO to have the resulting shapes, as claimed, in view of an obvious engineering design choice.
As to claim 10, BRUCATO, as modified, further discloses wherein the first and second support formations are configured to abut a contact portion of a respective first and second conduit (figure 2, 4A-4C; par. 46), the remaining portion of each first and second conduit being exposed relative to the respective support formation (figure 2, 4A-4C; par. 46, such as respective to the opposite upper or lower portions of 14 or 16 that do not form the respective upper or lower support formations for the upper or lower portions of the first and second conduits).
As to claim 11, BRUCATO, as modified, teach the heat exchanger according to claim 1 (see associated rejection) and wherein a plurality of heat exchangers (14 with associated conduits, 8, and 16 with associated conduits, 8) are arranged adjacent to one another (figure 4D) so that neighboring heat transfer members share a conduit (figures 4C and 4D, in view of figure 2).
As to claim 14, BRUCATO, as modified, does not expressly define wherein the heat transfer member has an I-shaped profile.
That being noted, the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design, as it has been held by the courts as“ a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed [structure] was significant.” In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP §2144.04 – IV(B). More so, looking at the disclosure of the instant application, the Applicant fails to provide any criticality or evidence of new or unexpected results of such shapes, as claimed. See Figures 1-3 (par. [0064]) which provide an I-shaped profile heat transfer member with a non-tapered shape. See Figures 4-6b (par. [0084]-[0087]) which provides a tapered shape of the heat transfer member. See Figures 8-9b (par. [0118]) which shows a polygonal shape to the heat transfer member. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify BRUCATO to have the resulting shape of the heat transfer member, as claimed, in view of an obvious engineering design choice.
As to claim 15, BRUCATO, as modified, teaches the heat exchanger of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), which is capable of being a thermochemical biomass converter (MPEP § 2114 – II).
As to claim 16, BRUCATO, as modified, teaches the heat exchanger of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2), which is capable of being a thermochemical biomass converter (MPEP § 2114 – II).
As to claim 18, BRUCATO, as modified, teaches the heat exchanger of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5), which is capable of being a thermochemical biomass converter (MPEP § 2114 – II).
As to claim 19, BRUCATO, as modified, teaches the heat exchanger of claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7), which is capable of being a thermochemical biomass converter (MPEP § 2114 – II).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRUCATO (US 2019/0041136 A1 – published 7 February, 2019), in view of LABRAND (US 4,269,267 – published 26 May, 1981), SPECIAL METALS (NPL: “Incoloy ® alloy 825 – Special Metals – published September 2004), and ÖSTBO (US 4,782,892 – published 8 November, 1988).
As to claim 4, BRUCATO, as modified, does not further disclose wherein the heat transfer member is a single piece providing support formation contacting the entire surface of the conduits such that the heat exchanger is functional without requirement for joining a plurality of individual heat exchangers into a collective form.
First, as the instant specification is silent to unexpected results it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to join the two heat transfer member portions (portions of 14 and 16) of BRUCATO, since such modification would have involved making elements integral. Making elements integral is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). See MPEP §2144.04 – V(B).
More so, ÖSTBO is within the field of endeavor provided a heat exchanger (abstract). ÖSTBO teaches wherein conduits (11) are held within support formations (figure 3 or 5, for example, wherein the conduits, 11, are shown to be positioned within the respective support formations of the heat transfer member,12 or 20), such that the entire surface of the conduits are contacted thereby the support formation, and is functional without requirement for joining a plurality of individual heat exchangers in collective form (figures 3 and 5 show cross sections of the heat exchangers, which include only a singular element; col.2, lines 61-65; col.15-18; MPEP §2114 – II, wherein joining of a plurality of individual heat exchangers or lack of joining of a plurality of heat exchangers is, further, seen as an intended use of the operation of the heat exchanger so as to provide the necessary heat transfer). In particular, embedding the conduits within the single piece, as required by the claims, enables high heat transfer due to the at least one block with at least one tube embedded therein (col. 1, lines 8-22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify BRUCATO further in view of the teachings of ÖSTBO to include the heat transfer member as a single piece providing support formations contacting the entire surface of the conduits such that the heat exchanger is functional without requirement for joining a plurality of individual heat exchangers into a collective form to provide high heat transmission through having embedding the conduits fully within the heat transfer member.
Claim(s) 21-22 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRUCATO (US 2019/0041136 A1 – published 7 February, 2019), in view of MAURER (US 9,464,847 B2 – published 11 October, 2016).
As to claim 21, BRUCATO discloses a heat exchanger (14 or 16, in combination with the conduits as claimed below,) comprising an array of segments (figures 1-2; 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D) wherein each of the segments comprises - first (one of the plurality of conduits, 8; par. 30-31) and second conduits (another one of the plurality of conduits, 8; par. 30-31) being configured to carry, in use, process medium (par. 1 and 31), and a heat transfer member (14 and/or 16) thermally connecting the first and second conduits to one another to define a heat transfer member between the first and second conduits (par. 36, and 42-43), wherein the heat transfer member includes first and second support formations (16A or 14A; figure 4A, 4B; par. 45-51) configured to position and support said respective first and second conduits in the heat exchanger;
wherein the heat transfer member has a higher heat conductivity than the materials used for the first and second conduit (par. 6, 78, and 85, in comparison to par. 45 and 81; see Table 2 of SPECIAL METALS),
wherein the first support formation abuts a contact portion of the first conduit, and the second support formation abuts a contact portion of the second conduit with the remainder of the first and second conduits which is not being supported by the support formations being left exposed (figures 1-2; 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D; par. 46 and 48-51),
wherein the support formations are formed as semi-circular indentations (par. 46-47) within the heat transfer member,
wherein the heat transfer member includes engagement surfaces (see annotated figure 2), which are configured to engage with an engagement surface of a further segment(another one of 14 or 16, as shown in figure 2), which engagement surfaces are formed at either side of the support formations and extend at an angle relative to a first axis A1 which passes through the heat transfer member and the center of the both first and second conduit so as to about another engagement surface of a further segment so as to enable arrangement of the segments relative to one another (see annotated figure 2), and
wherein said array is formed by arrangement of adjacent segments such that heat transfer members of neighboring segments share a conduit in that what was the exposed portion of each conduit of each conduit is received by a support formation of a neighboring heat transfer member (see annotated figure 2).
However, BRUCATO, as modified, does not expressly define the joining of the plurality of segments is a circular array, such that the segments are radial relative to one another, in addition to wherein the heat transfer member tapers from a wider potion on one side of the first axis A1 to a narrower portion on the other side of the first axis A1, wherein the narrow portion of the heat transfer member coincides with a centre of the circular array and the wider portion coincides with a circumference of the circular array, wherein the heat exchanger is symmetrical about a second axis A2 which passes through the centre of the heat transfer member and is perpendicular to the first axis A1.
That being noted, the change in form or shape of the heat transfer member and resulting heat exchanger, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design, as it has been held by the courts as“ a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed [structure] was significant.” In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP §2144.04 – IV(B). More so, looking at the disclosure of the instant application, the Applicant fails to provide any criticality or evidence of new or unexpected results of such shapes, as claimed. See Figures 1-3 (par. [0064]) which provide an I-shaped linear heat exchanger array. See Figures 8-9b (par. [0118]) which provide a hexagonal heat exchanger array. See Figures 1-3 (par. [0064]) which provide an I-shaped profile heat transfer member with a non-tapered shape. See Figures 4-6b (par. [0084]-[0087]) which provides a tapered shape of the heat transfer member. See Figures 8-9b (par. [0118]) which shows a polygonal shape to the heat transfer member. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify BRUCATO to have the resulting shapes of the heat transfer member and resulting heat exchanger, as claimed, in view of an obvious engineering design choice.
Further to this point, MAURER is within the field of endeavor provided a heat exchanger (abstract). MAURER teaches a heat transfer member (82 and/or 84) which tapers from a wider portion (92, figure 5; exterior side shown in figures 6D- 6E) at one side of a first axis (along dotted lines shown in figure 5; along adjacent surfaces between adjacent heat transfer members, 84 shown in figure 6D-6E) to a narrower portion (101; figure 5; interior side shown in figures 6D-6E) on the other side of the first axis, wherein the narrow portion corresponds with a center of the circular array (98; figures 4 and 5; figures 6D-6E at the center of the circular array shown) and the wider portion corresponds with a circumference of the circular array (figure 4; figure 6D-6E), wherein the heat exchanger is symmetrical about the axis which passes through the centre(figure 4-6D), which is perpendicular to the first axis (the centre axis is along the extension length of the heat exchanger, while the first axis is along a radial direction of the heat exchanger). This is strong evidence that modifying BRUCATO as claimed was well within the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art and would produce predictable results to one skilled in the art, (i.e., forming the heat exchanger with efficient heat transfer members positioned and shaped, as such). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify BRUCATO by MAURER such that the heat transfer member tapers from a wider potion on one side of the first axis A1 to a narrower portion on the other side of the first axis A1, wherein the narrow portion of the heat transfer member coincides with a centre of the circular array and the wider portion coincides with a circumference of the circular array, wherein the heat exchanger is symmetrical about a second axis A2 which passes through the centre of the heat transfer member and is perpendicular to the first axis A1, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of forming the heat exchanger with efficient heat transfer members positioned and shaped, as such.
As to claim 22, BRUCATO, as modified, further discloses wherein there are included 6 conduits (figure 2).
As to claim 24, BRUCATO, as modified, teaches the heat exchanger of claim 24 (see rejection of claim 21), which is capable of being a thermochemical biomass converter (MPEP § 2114 – II).
As to claim 25, BRUCATO, as modified, teaches the heat exchanger of claim 22 (see rejection of claim 22), which is capable of being a thermochemical biomass converter (MPEP § 2114 – II).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRUCATO (US 2019/0041136 A1 – published 7 February, 2019), in view of MAURER (US 9,464,847 B2 – published 11 October, 2016) and LABRAND (US 4,269,267 – published 26 May, 1981).
As to claim 23, BRUCATO, as modified, discloses wherein the first and second conduits are combined with the heat transfer member, but BRUCATO does not expressly disclose the process wherein the first and second conduits are made with an intentional expansion of the conduit material into an expanded fit with the heat transfer member. First, it remains that the limitation is merely a product-by-process, such that providing the first and second conduit within the heat transfer member, as the defined product of the claim limitation, is fully disclosed by BRUCATO (see figures 1 and 2; par. 44-51). See MPEP § 2113-I. Second, such features are known within the ordinary skill within the art, pertaining to method of manufacturing heat exchangers. LABRAND (abstract) teaches a heat exchanger (col.1, lines 5-6) which includes conduits (11) configured to carry a process medium (col. 1, lines 10-12) and a heat transfer member between the conduits (col.2, lines 44-46; figure 2). Particularly, LABRAND teaches wherein it is known to provide the conduits formed with an intentional expansion of the conduit material into an expanded fit with the heat transfer member (col. 1, lines 13-23; col. 3, lines 10-18) for the purpose of applying known techniques with known, outcomes, of enhancing contact between the tube and heat transfer member to result in enhancements in thermal conductivity (col.1, lines 13-23). Therefore, in arguendo, if the process of forming the conduits with the heat transfer member were required by the claims, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify BRUCATO, in view of the teachings of LABRAND, for the purpose of enhancing contact between the heat exchanger components and thermal conductivity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 January, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states throughout the remarks at pages 6-9, “the Examine has already acknowledged that ‘product-by-process” obviousness over JOHANNSEN (US 2017/10233327) in view of BRUCATO of the limitation “wherein the first and second conduits are made with an intentional expansion of the first conduit material into an expanded fit with the heat transfer member” has been sufficiently rebutted by the Applicant’s extensive, detailed presentation.” This is a mischaracterization of the remarks provided within the PTO-90C mailed on 12 December, 2025. The remarks provided merely provide that the arguments overcame the prior art rejections (i.e., prior art rejections made within the Final Office Action mailed on 20 March, 2025). Furthermore, a new grounds of rejection being presented within the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 18 November, 2025 to provide evidence of known expansion fit within the prior art at the time the instant application was effectively filed, all while it is still considered that the limitation remains to be a interpreted as product-by-process limitation. The response did not nor currently acquiesce that the “intentional expansion fit” is critical through unexpected results, and thereby, obvious, in view of the new grounds rejection set forth within the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 18 November, 2025 and rejection presented herein.
At page 6, Applicant alleges the new rejection of BRUCATO, in view of LABRAND is found to be an “obvious to try” rejection. This is inaccurate. The rejection is not based on the principles set forth within MPEP § 2143 – I(E), but rather “Applying a Known Technique to a Known Device (Method, or Product) Ready for Improvement To Yield Predictable Results” analysis as provided by MPEP § 2143 – I(D). See rejection of claim 1 at pages 3-5 of the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 18 November, 2025. See rejection of claim 23 at pages 15-16 of the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 18 November, 2025. As such, the arguments directed to an “obvious to try analysis” are not persuasive, as this obviousness rational was not relied upon to make the rejection.
At page 7, Applicant alleges that LABRAND fails to provide “the inventive expansion method provides any improvement of heat-exchange properties compared with a manufacturing process based on welding. The utility of LABRAND’s invention is its ease of manufacturing”. To set forth an obviousness rejection based on “Applying a Known Technique to a Known Device (Method, or Product) Ready for Improvement To Yield Predictable Results” analysis, the rejection provided wherein the improvement was the increased contact among components so as to increase thermal conductivity. See MPEP § 2143 – I(D). See rejection of claim 1 at pages 3-5 of the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 18 November, 2025. See rejection of claim 23 at pages 15-16 of the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 18 November, 2025. For this, the argument is not persuasive.
At pages 7-8, Applicant alleges that the intentional fit taught by LABRAND does not provide an improvement (“it does not suggest that intentional expansion is, itself, a means of improving heat exchange compared with the previously applied means of manufacture…The ‘expected result’ of intentional expansion compared with welding in the case of tube-and-fin heat exchanger s taught by LABRAND was no improvement of heat exchange efficiency”), which appears to question the validity of the teachings of LABRAND. “Every patent is presumed to be valid. See 35 U.S.C. 282, first sentence. Public policy demands that every employee of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) refuse to express to any person any opinion as to the validity or invalidity of, or the patentability or unpatentability of any claim in any U.S. patent…” See MPEP § 1701. To this end, no further analysis will be provided, as it is inappropriate to address when “[t]he question of validity or invalidity is otherwise exclusively a matter to be determined by a court.”.
With regards to the rational to provide motivation to modify the teachings of BRUCATO, LABRAND teaches increased contact between components, such as the fin (defined as the heat transfer member) and the conduit the fin is positioned about, so as provide enhanced thermal conductivity between components. This is an entirely reasonable motivation to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify the system of BRUCATO to include such intentional expansion fit to decrease any spaces or gaps between the heat transfer member and conduits of BRUCATO, so as to include the enhanced thermal conductivity. To this end, the arguments against the teaching of LABRAND to set forth an obviousness type rejection are not persuasive as the rejection would reasonably provide it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within could have applied the known technique, as taught by LABRAND, to the device of BRUCATO which is ready for improvement, as BRUCATO at best provides wherein the joining of the heat transfer member and conduits can be through “screwing of the bolts, the elements themselves are squeezed together, or else via welding, or via any other known method capable of compacting the aforesaid elements 14 and 16 together” (par. 67 of BRUCATO), to yield a predictable results of enhancing thermal conductivity by increasing contact between joined components(col.1, lines 13-23 of LABRAND). For this the arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA M MARONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM to 4PM, 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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/JENNA M MARONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 3/25/2026
JENNA M. MARONEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763