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 .
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) 14, 17-19, 21-24, 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller US 10,107,555 Bl in view of Tsuji et al. US 2005/0061494 Al .
Re claim 14, Miller teach a heat exchanger (fig 2), comprising: an elongated structure (16, 18) that includes first ports adjacent respective proximate and distal ends thereof, the first ports being arranged in a first pair of headers (28, 36) and configured to enable a first fluid to flow through the elongated structure;
a first array of microtubes extending through the elongated structure to connect the first pair of headers to thereby enable the first fluid to flow through the first array of microtubes between respective first ports arranged in the first pair of headers; first and second a second pair of headers coupled to respective ends of the elongated structure;
and a plurality second array of microtubes (42) extending through the elongated structure to connect the first and second pair of headers (26, 34) to thereby enable a second fluid to flow through the second array microtubes between respective second ports (annotated fig ) arranged in the first and second pair of headers, wherein the elongated structure includes a load-bearing structure (22, 24 flanges) comprising a load-in connection and a load-out connection (24 and inner walls of 24 hole) for coupling the elongated structure to a load (col 1; noting structure is naturally a load-bearing structure to be able to be mounted and support its own weight; the italicized recitation is considered to be an intended use statement; applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here (see MPEP 2114-II); it is noted that the structure is capable of performing the intended use limitations).
Miller fail to explicitly teach diameters.
Tsuji et al. teach wherein each of the microtubes comprises a major diameter and a minor diameter with a wall disposed therebetween (annotated fig), and wherein one of the first fluid or the second fluid is configured to flow within the minor diameter and the other of the first fluid or the second fluid is configured to flow between the major diameter and the minor diameter (noting both fluids flow between both) to connect pipes to a header wall.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include diameters as taught by Tsuji et al. in the Miller invention in order to advantageously allow for a high heat exchanger heat exchanger with high strength.
Noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘tube’ is 1
: any of various usually cylindrical structures or devices: such as
a
: a hollow elongated cylinder
especially : one to convey fluids
2: Duct.
PNG
media_image1.png
1128
937
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 17, Miller teach being three-dimensional (3D) printed. The recitation of “being three-dimensional (3D) printed” 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 18, Another embodiment of Miller teach a plurality cross-links connected between adjacent ones of the first or second arrays microtubes, the cross-links being configured to stabilize microtubes (col 6 lines 27-46) to provide bifurcating tubes (fig 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include cross-links as taught by combining Miller embodiments invention in order to advantageously allow for different heat exchange cores to be utilized in the shell structure.
Re claim 19, Miller teach the cross-links are distributed in a manner sufficient to stabilize the microtubes without interfering with a flow of the first fluid between the microtubes (col 6 lines 27-46, fig 4).
Re claim 23, Miller teach wherein the elongated structure includes a load- bearing shell structure (22 and /or flanges of housing, and housing shell).
Re claim 24, Miller teach a heat exchanger (fig 2), comprising: a load-bearing shell structure (16, 18) that extends longitudinally to include first ports (see the rejection of claim 4) arranged adjacent respective proximate and distal ends thereof, the first ports arranged in a first pair of headers and configured to enable a first fluid to flow through the shell structure (see the rejection of claim 4) wherein the load- bearing structure comprises a load-in connection and a load-out connection (24 and 24 inner walls of hole) for coupling the heat exchanger to a load; a first array of tubes extending through the shell structure to connect the first pair of headers to thereby enable the first fluid to flow through the first array of tubes between respective first ports arranged in the first pair of headers (see the rejection of claim 4); a second pair of headers arranged at opposite ends of the shell structure; and a second array of tubes extending through the shell structure to connect the second pair of headers (see the rejection of claim 4), the second pair of headers each having second ports to enable a second fluid to flow through the second array of tubes between the second pair of headers to cool the first fluid (see the rejection of claim 4), wherein at least one of the second pair of headers connects to a load (see the rejection of claim 4).
Miller fail to explicitly teach diameters.
Tsuji et al. teach wherein each of the microtubes comprises a major diameter and a minor diameter with a wall disposed therebetween (annotated fig), and wherein one of the first fluid or the second fluid is configured to flow within the minor diameter and the other of the first fluid or the second fluid is configured to flow between the major diameter and the minor diameter (noting both fluids flow between both) to connect pipes to a header wall.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include diameters as taught by Tsuji et al. in the Miller invention in order to advantageously allow for a high heat exchanger heat exchanger with high strength.
PNG
media_image2.png
1128
937
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 27, Miller teach the first or second array of tubes includes one or more three-dimensional (3D)-printed microtubes (see the rejection of claims 14 and 24). The recitation of “three-dimensional (3D)-printed” 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 28, Miller teach a plurality of 3D-printed crosslinks distributed at different locations across adjacent microtubes (figs, noting a three degree structure would naturally take up space at multiple locations).
The recitation of “3D-printed” 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.”
Claim(s) 16, 22, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, as modified by Tsuji et al., in view of Kusuda et al. US 2014/0251585 Al.
Re claim 16, Miller, as modified fail to explicitly teach cross-links.
Kusuda et al. teach wherein two or more adjacent microtubes (324) are interconnected via cross-links (326) and/or fins distributed throughout the elongated structure to structurally stabilize the elongated structure without interfering with flow of the first fluid and the second fluid (noting the additional crosslinking the straight adjacent tubes with a diagonal connecting tube is not considered to “interfering with flow of the first fluid and the second fluid” because the cross links add a structural connecting while additionally adding more heat exchange surface area for both fluids in the instant combination ) to diagonally connect flow channels with hollow trusses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include cross-links as taught by Kusuda et al. in the Miller, as modified invention in order to advantageously allow for a structural body to exchange heat between the first fluid and the second fluid, and configures the structural body to support aviation induced structural loads.
Re claim 22, Kusuda et al. teach the second fluid is configured to transfer heat to the first fluid within the structure; and the second fluid is configured to cool a separate component within a vehicle after exiting the second port (fig 7, “HYDRAULIC FLUID” noting the fluid is known to operate in a loop and return back to components cooler would naturally cool any other component in the loop and or the loop conduits, paras 40-43 ) to diagonally connect flow channels with hollow trusses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include cross-links as taught by Kusuda et al. in the Miller, as modified invention in order to advantageously allow for a structural body to exchange heat between the first fluid and the second fluid, and configures the structural body to support aviation induced structural loads.
Re claim 25, Miller, as modified fail to explicitly teach cross-links.
Kusuda et al. teach wherein two or more adjacent microtubes (324) are interconnected via cross-links (326) and/or fins distributed throughout the elongated structure to structurally stabilize the elongated structure without interfering with flow of the first fluid and the second fluid (noting the additional crosslinking the straight adjacent tubes with a diagonal connecting tube is not considered to “interfering with flow of the first fluid and the second fluid” because the cross links add a structural connecting while additionally adding more heat exchange surface area for both fluids in the instant combination ) to diagonally connect flow channels with hollow trusses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include cross-links as taught by Kusuda et al. in the Miller, as modified invention in order to advantageously allow for a structural body to exchange heat between the first fluid and the second fluid, and configures the structural body to support aviation induced structural loads.
Claim(s) 14, 16-19, 21-25, 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusuda et al. US 2014/0251585 Al in view of Martinez et al. US 2019/0154345 Al and Tsuji et al. US 2005/0061494 Al.
Re claim 14, Kusuda et al. teach a heat exchanger, comprising: an elongated structure (housing 500) that includes first ports (548, 550) adjacent respective proximate and distal ends thereof, the first ports being arranged in a first pair of headers (annotated fig) and configured to enable a first fluid to flow through the elongated structure;
a first array of microtubes (bottom half of 546, 516, 514, 544, 530, fig 5; 546/544 and wall thereof) extending through the elongated structure to connect the first pair of headers to thereby enable the first fluid to flow through the first array of microtubes between respective first ports arranged in the first pair of headers;
a second pair of headers coupled to respective ends of the elongated structure; and a second array of microtubes (top half of 546, 516, 514, 544, 530, fig 5; ; ducts/channels extending through main body of heat exchanger and defined by exterior walls 546/544 for 536 communication) extending through the elongated structure to connect the second pair of headers to thereby enable a second fluid to flow through the second array microtubes between respective second ports (504, 538) arranged in the second pair of headers, wherein the elongated structure includes a load-bearing structure (para 34, noting structure is naturally a load-bearing structure to be able to be mounted and support its own weight; the italicized recitation is considered to be an intended use statement; applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here (see MPEP 2114-II); it is noted that the structure is capable of performing the intended use limitations).
Noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘tube’ is 1
: any of various usually cylindrical structures or devices: such as
a
: a hollow elongated cylinder
especially : one to convey fluids
2: Duct.
Kusuda et al. fail to explicitly teach a load-in connection and a load-out connection.
Martinez et al. teach wherein the elongated structure includes a load-bearing structure comprising a load-in connection and a load-out connection for coupling the elongated structure to a load (noting 218 , 220 on opposite ends) to provide coupling means
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a load-in connection and a load-out connection as taught by Martinez et al. in the Kusuda et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for heat exchanger to be coupled to piping or another component, and therefore as is known in the art to be attached to a larger system or structure such as an aircraft for intended use.
Kusuda et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach diameters.
Tsuji et al. teach wherein each of the microtubes comprises a major diameter and a minor diameter with a wall disposed therebetween (annotated fig), and wherein one of the first fluid or the second fluid is configured to flow within the minor diameter and the other of the first fluid or the second fluid is configured to flow between the major diameter and the minor diameter (noting both fluids flow between both) to connect pipes to a header wall.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include diameters as taught by Tsuji et al. in the Kusuda et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a high heat exchanger heat exchanger with high strength.
PNG
media_image1.png
1128
937
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 16, Kusuda et al. teach wherein two or more adjacent microtubes (324) are interconnected via cross-links (326) and/or fins distributed throughout the elongated structure to structurally stabilize the elongated structure without interfering with flow of the first fluid and the second fluid (noting the additional crosslinking the straight adjacent tubes with a diagonal connecting tube is not considered to “interfering with flow of the first fluid and the second fluid” because the cross links add a structural connecting while additionally adding more heat exchange surface area for both fluids) .
Re claim 17, Kusuda et al. teach being three-dimensional (3D) printed. The recitation of “being three-dimensional (3D) printed” 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 18, Kusuda et al. teach further comprising a plurality of cross- links connected between adjacent ones of the first or second arrays of microtubes, the cross-links being configured to stabilize microtubes (paras 6-7, figs).
Re claim 19, Kusuda et al. teach the cross-links are distributed in a manner sufficient to stabilize the first or second arrays microtubes without interfering with a flow of the first fluid between the microtubes (paras 6-7, figs).
Re claim 21, the embodiment of Kusuda et al. fail to explicitly teach a cylindrical shape.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the elongated structure includes a cylindrical shape, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of the component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, section IV.
Re claim 22, Another embodiment of Kusuda et al. teach the second fluid is configured to transfer heat to the first fluid within the structure; and the second fluid is configured to cool a separate component within a vehicle after exiting the second port (fig 7, “HYDRAULIC FLUID” noting the fluid is known to operate in a loop and return back to components cooler would naturally cool any other component in the loop and or the loop conduits, paras 40-43 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include port details by combining embodiments of the Kusuda et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for heat exchangers to handle high thermal stresses in particular aircraft systems during operation.
Re claim 23, Kusuda et al. teach wherein the elongated structure includes a load- bearing shell structure (figs).
Re claim 24, Kusuda et al. teach a heat exchanger, comprising: a load-bearing shell structure (housing 500) that extends longitudinally to include first ports (see the rejection of claim 4) arranged adjacent respective proximate and distal ends thereof, the first ports arranged in a first pair of headers and configured to enable a first fluid to flow through the shell structure (see the rejection of claim 4); a first array of tubes extending through the shell structure to connect the first pair of headers to thereby enable the first fluid to flow through the first array of tubes between respective first ports arranged in the first pair of headers (see the rejection of claim 4); a second pair of headers arranged at opposite ends of the shell structure; and a second array of tubes extending through the shell structure to connect the second pair of headers (see the rejection of claim 4), the second pair of headers each having second ports to enable a second fluid to flow through the second array of tubes between the second pair of headers to cool the first fluid (see the rejection of claim 4), wherein at least one of the second pair of headers connects to a load (see the rejection of claim 4).
Kusuda et al. fail to explicitly teach a load-in connection and a load-out connection.
Martinez et al. teach wherein the load- bearing structure comprises a load-in connection and a load-out connection for coupling the heat exchanger to a load (noting 218 , 220 on opposite ends) to provide coupling means (para 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a load-in connection and a load-out connection as taught by Martinez et al. in the Kusuda et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for heat exchanger to be coupled to piping or another component, and therefore as is known in the art to be attached to a larger system or structure such as an aircraft for intended use.
Re claim 25, Kusuda et al. teach wherein two or more adjacent microtubes (324) are interconnected via cross-links (326) and/or fins distributed throughout the elongated structure to structurally stabilize the elongated structure without interfering with flow of the first fluid and the second fluid (noting the additional crosslinking the straight adjacent tubes with a diagonal connecting tube is not considered to “interfering with flow of the first fluid and the second fluid” because the cross links add a structural connecting while additionally adding more heat exchange surface area for both fluids) .
Re claim 27, Kusuda et al. teach the first or second array of tubes includes one or more three-dimensional (3D)-printed microtubes (see the rejection of claims 14 and 24). The recitation of “three-dimensional (3D)-printed” 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 28, Kusuda et al. teach a plurality of 3D-printed crosslinks distributed at different locations across adjacent microtubes (figs).
The recitation of “3D-printed” 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.”
Claim(s) 15, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller US 10,107,555 Bl in view of Tsuji et al. US 2005/0061494 Al in view of Czinger US 20170050677 A1.
Re claim 15, Miller, as modified, or Miller fail to explicitly teach a frame rail.
Czinger teach the load comprises a frame rail (para 196) to employ a heat exchanger in a vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a frame rail as taught by Czinger in the Miller, as modified, or Miller invention in order to advantageously allow or employing a heat exchanger on a subframe for manufacture of an automobile.
Re claim 26, Miller, as modified, or Miller fail to explicitly teach a frame rail.
Czinger teach wherein the load includes a frame rail (para 196) to employ a heat exchanger in a vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a frame rail as taught by Czinger in the Miller, as modified, or Miller invention in order to advantageously allow or employing a heat exchanger on a subframe for manufacture of an automobile.
Claim(s) 15, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusuda et al. US 2014/0251585 Al in view of Martinez et al. US 2019/0154345 Al and Tsuji et al. US 2005/0061494 Al in view of Czinger US 20170050677 A1.
Re claim 15, Kusuda et al. , as modified, or Miller fail to explicitly teach a frame rail.
Czinger teach the load comprises a frame rail (para 196) to employ a heat exchanger in a vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a frame rail as taught by Czinger in the Kusuda et al. , as modified, or Miller invention in order to advantageously allow or employing a heat exchanger on a subframe for manufacture of an automobile.
Re claim 26, Kusuda et al. , as modified, or Miller fail to explicitly teach a frame rail.
Czinger teach wherein the load includes a frame rail (para 196) to employ a heat exchanger in a vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a frame rail as taught by Czinger in the Kusuda et al. , as modified, or Miller invention in order to advantageously allow or employing a heat exchanger on a subframe for manufacture of an automobile.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusuda et al. US 2014/0251585 Al in view of Martinez et al. US 2019/0154345 Al and Tsuji et al. US 2005/0061494 Al in view of SCHLUETER US 20190193829 A1.
Re claim 20, Kusuda et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach a pin joint.
SCHLUETER teach at least one of the second pair of headers includes a pin joint for coupling to the load (para 33) to assemble joins in a monolithic structure .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a pin joint as taught by SCHLUETER in the Kusuda et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for at least one monolithic structural component is fixed on the primary structural element by a fixing device, system, means, or mechanism in an aircraft.
Claim(s) 21, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusuda et al. US 2014/0251585 Al in view of Martinez et al. US 2019/0154345 Al and Tsuji et al. US 2005/0061494 Al in view of Shincho US 7267160 B2.
Re claim 21, over Kusuda et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach a cylindrical shape.
Shincho teach the elongated structure includes a cylindrical shape (fig 2 outer pressure shell/vessel) to provide a pressure vessel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a cylindrical shape as taught by Shincho in the over Kusuda et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for heat exchangers to handle high thermal stresses.
Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the elongated structure includes a cylindrical shape, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of the component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, section IV.
Also, Re claim 23, Shincho teach wherein the elongated structure includes a load- bearing shell structure (figs).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller US 10,107,555 Bl in view of Tsuji et al. US 2005/0061494 Al in view of SCHLUETER US 20190193829 A1.
Re claim 20, Miller, as modified, fail to explicitly teach a pin joint.
SCHLUETER teach at least one of the second pair of headers includes a pin joint for coupling to the load (para 33) to assemble joins in a monolithic structure .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a pin joint as taught by SCHLUETER in the Miller, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for at least one monolithic structural component is fixed on the primary structural element by a fixing device, system, means, or mechanism in an aircraft.
Claim(s) 21, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller US 10,107,555 Bl in view of Tsuji et al. US 2005/0061494 Al in view of Shincho US 7267160 B2.
Re claim 21, Miller, as modified, fail to explicitly teach a cylindrical shape.
Shincho teach the elongated structure includes a cylindrical shape (fig 2 outer pressure shell/vessel) to provide a pressure vessel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a cylindrical shape as taught by Shincho in the over Miller, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for heat exchangers to handle high thermal stresses.
Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the elongated structure includes a cylindrical shape, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of the component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, section IV.
Also, Re claim 23, Shincho teach wherein the elongated structure includes a load- bearing shell structure (figs).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach “wherein each of the microtubes comprises a major diameter and a minor diameter with a wall disposed therebetween, and wherein one of the first fluid or the second fluid is configured to flow within the minor diameter and the other of the first fluid or the second fluid is configured to flow between the major diameter and the minor diameter”. However, the scope of the independent claims has been changed in the latest reply and therefore the examiner is now relying on Tsuji et al. to teach the recited “wherein each of the microtubes comprises a major diameter and a minor diameter with a wall disposed therebetween, and wherein one of the first fluid or the second fluid is configured to flow within the minor diameter and the other of the first fluid or the second fluid is configured to flow between the major diameter and the minor diameter” (see detailed rejection above). Therefore, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “two different fluids within different regions of the same microtube”, “coaxial, annular, or tube-within-a-tube geometry”, “internal partition that creates concentric flow regions within a single passage”, “separate regions for different fluids within a single tube”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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) 14 and 24 have been addressed above. Thus, the rejections are proper and remain.
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 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
Prosecution Insights