Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 17/849,489

HEAT EXCHANGER AND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT HAVING THE SAME

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Jun 24, 2022
Examiner
JONES, GORDON A
Art Unit
3763
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute
OA Round
4 (Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
331 granted / 548 resolved
-9.6% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
65 currently pending
Career history
613
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
50.2%
+10.2% vs TC avg
§102
22.0%
-18.0% vs TC avg
§112
27.2%
-12.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 548 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/17/2025 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 14, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho et al. US 2014/0116648 Al. Re claim 1, Cho et al. teach a heat exchanger comprising: a body (fig 4) having an inlet header (116) and an outlet header (118), the inlet header configured to introduce a fluid therethrough, the outlet header configured to discharge the fluid is therethrough; one or more plates (112) in the body and including flow path modules the flow path modules ( 114 ) configured to provide flow paths for the fluid introduced through the inlet header to flow to the outlet header; at least one flow path adjuster (130) having at least a portion thereof accommodated in the body the at least one flow path adjuster configured to move or rotate to open or close a part or an entirety of the flow paths or to change directions of the flow paths so that a flow of the fluid is adjusted (para 114); and at least one orifice configured to suppress flow instability resulting from boiling of the fluid, the at least one orifice including a first orifice (158) having a first pressure loss coefficient;, and a second orifice (144) having a second pressure loss coefficient different from the first pressure loss coefficient, wherein the at least one orifice is in the at least one flow path adjuster (noting hole of different sizes and shapes naturally have different pressure loss coefficients), wherein the flow path modules include a plurality of transfer flow path portions configured to communicate with each other and provide a plurality of passages through which the fluid flows to the outlet header (fig 1 noting a loop and all passages and holes are in fluid communication via fluid loop), and at least one of the plurality of transfer flow path portions is configured to flow the fluid by the at least one flow path adjuster, wherein the plurality of transfer flow path portions includes a first transfer flow path portion configured to communicate with the outlet header, and a second transfer flow path portion (114a and 120 and/or vice a versa) configured to communicate with the first transfer flow path portion (fig 1 noting a loop and all passages and holes are in fluid communication via fluid loop), wherein the first transfer flow path portion and the second transfer flow path portion are connected in a first direction along surfaces of the one or more plates (vertical stacking, the paths are connected physically and thermally by the vertically stacking ), and wherein at least one of the first transfer flow path portion and the second transfer flow path portion (fig 1, noting different vertically stacked paths and portions) is configured to flow the fluid by the at least one flow path adjuster so that the fluid sequentially passes through the second transfer flow path portion and the first transfer flow path portion to flow to the outlet header (fig 1 noting the structure is capable of having a specific mode shown by the solid dotted line, and then in the next pass the fluid can flow though the lighter dotted line in fig 1, thus sequentially going through different portions, thus the configuration is met ), or flows to the outlet header through the first transfer flow path portion without flowing to the second transfer flow path portion (noting a portion of the fluid can travel through one portion or the vertical stack without passing through another by virtue of being in different space, thus the configuration is met). Re claim 2, Cho et al. teach wherein the at least one flow path adjuster is configured to move in the first direction, move in a second direction crossing the first direction, or rotate about the second direction (para 114). . Re claim 4, Cho et al. teach wherein the plurality of transfer flow path portions comprises a first transfer flow path portion configured to communicate with the outlet header, and a second transfer flow path portion configured to communicate with the first transfer flow path portion (noting first and second see previous rejection), and to at least one of the first transfer flow path portion and the second transfer flow path portion is configured to flow the fluid by the at least one flow path adjuster (figs, see the rejection of claim 3, and noting the heat exchanger in in a loop in operation and capable of recycling fluids, see abs “oil cooler” intended use). Re claim 5, Cho et al. teach wherein the flow path modules further comprise a plurality of connection flow paths (annotated fig), the plurality of connection flow paths connected to the plurality of transfer flow path portions, respectively, the plurality of connection flow paths configured to transfer the fluid introduced through the inlet header to the plurality of transfer flow path portions, and the at least one flow path adjuster is at the plurality of connection flow paths and is configured to move or rotate to open and close the plurality of connection flow paths, respectively (figs, para 114, noting all the fluid paths channel etc allow for fluid communication to portions of the heat exchanger when in operation of the “oil cooler” intended use). PNG media_image1.png 820 667 media_image1.png Greyscale Re claim 14, Cho et al. teach wherein the one or more plates are assembled by diffusion bonding. The recitation of “are assembled by diffusion bonding” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation. 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 2113. 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.” Re claim 17, Cho et al. teach wherein the at least one flow path adjuster includes at least one adjustment flow path (path internal to the at least one flow path adjuster at least partially defined by 148 and other cavity space after fluid has entered 148, para 80 ) configured to flow the fluid therethrough the at least one flow path adjuster is configured to move or rotate to connect one of the at least one orifice and the at least one adjustment flow path to at least one of the plurality of connection flow paths, and the one of the at least one orifice and the at least one adjustment flow path are configured to flow the fluid therethrough to the at least one of the plurality of connection flow paths (figs, para 114, noting all the fluid paths channel etc allow for fluid communication to portions of the heat exchanger when in operation of the “oil cooler” intended use). Re claim 19, Cho et al. teach wherein the at least one adjustment flow path and the at least one orifice are spaced apart from each other in the second direction (noting at least portions and major portions are not in direct contact or immediately adjacent, figs), and the at least one flow path adjuster is configured to move in the second direction to connect one of the at least one orifice and the at least one adjustment flow path with one of the plurality of connection flow paths (para 109 noting an up and down spacing). 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. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. in view of SEON US 20150129173 A1. Re claim 20, Cho et al. fail to explicitly teach a rotating valve. SEON teach wherein the at least one adjustment flow path and the at least one orifice are intersect with each other (noting a small portion are connected for fluid communication of the valve), and the at least one flow path adjuster is configured to rotate about the second direction to connect one of the plurality of connection flow paths to one of the at least one orifice and the at least one adjustment flow path (para 10 and 12, in the instant combination using a rotatable valve to connected or block the orifices of the primary reference) to use a rotating valve. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a rotating valve as taught by SEON in the Cho et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for a heat exchanger valve for use as is known in the art, also noting it would have been obvious to try different valves configurations to create the same predictable success and intended use of a heat exchanger with multiple on and off fluidically communicating orifices. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see reply, filed 3/17/2025, with respect to the claim objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objection has been withdrawn. Applicant's arguments filed 3/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Perrin fails to teach “connected in a first direction”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The paths are connected physically and thermally by the vertically stacking, and in a way that meets all the other configurations required in claim 1 by the nature of how the entire heat exchanger is constructed. Applicant argues the claims dependent on the independent claim(s) are allowable based upon their dependence from an independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been addressed above. Thus, the rejections are proper and remain. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST. 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. /GORDON A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 24, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 26, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Nov 21, 2024
Response Filed
Dec 16, 2024
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 17, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Nov 13, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 18, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 05, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 11, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 11, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595065
100% AMBIENT AIR ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12568605
LOOP HEAT PIPE FOR LOW VOLTAGE DRIVES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12528588
VARIABLE CHILLER EXHAUST WITH CROWN VENTILATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12531218
WAFER PLACEMENT TABLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12529524
ULTRA-THIN HEAT PIPE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD OF THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+27.0%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 548 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month