Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 17/914,085

METHODS FOR METAL FLOW REACTOR MODULES AND MODULES PRODUCED

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Sep 23, 2022
Examiner
NGUYEN, HUY TRAM
Art Unit
1774
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Corning Incorporated
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
579 granted / 735 resolved
+13.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
751
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
46.1%
+6.1% vs TC avg
§102
26.4%
-13.6% vs TC avg
§112
15.0%
-25.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 735 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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-15, 18 and 20 in the reply filed on December 15, 2025 is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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, 11-15, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (JP-2001223309 A). Regarding Claim 1, Suzuki et al. reference discloses a reference discloses a method for forming a metal flow module, the method comprising: stacking together a first metal plate having opposing first and second major surfaces and one or more flow channels defined at least in part in the first major surface, with a second metal plate having opposing first and second major surfaces, the plates stacked together with their respective first major surfaces facing each other and with a layer of flux positioned in between contacting portions of the respective first major surfaces defined as those portions of the respective first and second major surfaces which would be in contact absent the flux (Figure 1(a)(b) and (c), numerals 20 – second metal plate, 30 – layer of flux and 10 – first metal plate, 11- flow channels, Abstract); heating the plates together in a non-oxidizing atmosphere to thermally bond the contacting portions of the respective first major surfaces of the first and second metal plates (Abstract and Paragraph [0040] – paste (30) containing aluminum brazing filler metal powder; an inert atmosphere furnace heated to a brazing temperature of 598oF to perform brazing). Regarding Claim 11, Suzuki et al. reference discloses the method according to claim 1 also comprising coating at least portions of the first major surfaces of the first and second plates with a chemically resistant coating prior to stacking the plates together (Paragraph [0018]). Regarding Claim 12, Suzuki et al. reference discloses the method according to claim 11 wherein the portions correspond, defined as align to, to locations of the flow channels (Paragraph [0018]). Regarding Claim 13, Suzuki et al. reference discloses the method according to claim 1 also comprising, after heating the plates together in a non-oxidizing atmosphere or an inert atmosphere to thermally bond the contacting portions of the respective first major surfaces of the first and second metal plates, coating the flow channels with a chemically resistant coating (Paragraphs [0043]-[0044]). Regarding Claim 14, Suzuki et al. reference discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising forming in the first major surface of the first plate the one or more flow channels defined at least in part in the first major surface (Figures 1a-c). Regarding Claim 15, Suzuki et al. reference discloses the method of claim 14 wherein forming is performed by machining (Paragraph [0039]). Regarding Claim 18, Suzuki et al. reference discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising: applying flux to threads of a fluid connector prior to the heating, the fluid connector configured to fluidically communicate with the one or more flow channels; threading the fluid connector into one of the first and second metal plates such that the flux is positioned between contacting portions of the threads of the fluid connector and the one of the first and second metal plates; and heating the fluid connector and the first and second metal plates in the non-oxidizing atmosphere or the inert atmosphere to thermally bond the contacting portions (Figure 1a, numerals 21 and 22- fluid connectors and Paragraphs [0031]-[0032]). Regarding Claim 20, Suzuki et al. reference discloses the method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first metal plate or the second metal plate comprise a stainless steel (Paragraph [0002]). 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. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (JP-2001223309 A) in view of Kim et al. (KR-100888363 B1). Regarding Claim 2, Suzuki et al. reference discloses the method of claim 1 except for the second metal plate has one or more flow channels defined at least in part in the first major surface thereof. Kim et al. reference discloses a method for making heat pipe using the brazing process such as joint design, substrate cleaning, flux coating … wherein the first metal plate and second metal plate, each has one or more flow channels defined at least in part in the first major surface (Figures 2 and 3, numerals 121 and 122). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second metal plates with one or more flow channels as taught by Kim et al., since Kim et al. states at Abstract that such a modification would enhance workability and lower the manufacture unit costs. Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (JP-2001223309 A) in view of Mosser (US 2012/0160084 A1). Regarding Claim 3, Suzuki et al. reference discloses the method of claim 1 except for the flux comprises a carbide or nitride powder. Mosser reference discloses a hot pressing procedure is carried out on the metal frame assembly containing the ceramic material and braze composition to cause the metal to plastically deform about the encapsulated ceramic material and form a diffusion bonded metal frame assembly and an alloy joint formed in-situ from the braze composition, which melts and wets the ceramic material and the metal frame assembly during the process of diffusion bonding the components of the metal frame assembly together (Abstract) wherein the ceramic material comprising silicon carbide, pressure-assisted SiC--N, or other grades and types of ceramics such as boron carbide, tungsten carbide, titanium diboride, aluminum oxide, silicon nitride and aluminum nitride or mixtures thereof (Paragraph [0020]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the boron carbide or/and nitride as the flux material as taught by Mosser, since Mosser states at Abstract and Paragraph [0006] that such a modification would form a diffusion bonded metal frame assembly having a coefficient of thermal expansion greater than a coefficient of thermal expansion of the ceramic material. Regarding Claim 4, Suzuki et al. reference discloses the method of claim 1 except for the flux comprises a carbide powder. Mosser reference discloses a hot pressing procedure is carried out on the metal frame assembly containing the ceramic material and braze composition to cause the metal to plastically deform about the encapsulated ceramic material and form a diffusion bonded metal frame assembly and an alloy joint formed in-situ from the braze composition, which melts and wets the ceramic material and the metal frame assembly during the process of diffusion bonding the components of the metal frame assembly together (Abstract) wherein the ceramic material comprising silicon carbide, pressure-assisted SiC--N, or other grades and types of ceramics such as boron carbide, tungsten carbide, titanium diboride, aluminum oxide, silicon nitride and aluminum nitride or mixtures thereof (Paragraph [0020]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the boron carbide or/and nitride as the flux material as taught by Mosser, since Mosser states at Abstract and Paragraph [0006] that such a modification would form a diffusion bonded metal frame assembly having a coefficient of thermal expansion greater than a coefficient of thermal expansion of the ceramic material. Regarding Claim 5, Suzuki et al. and Mosser references disclose the method of claim 4 wherein the flux comprises boron carbide powder (Paragraph [0020]). Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (JP-2001223309 A) in view of Haibara et al. (US 2004/0258572 A1). Regarding Claim 6, Suzuki et al. reference discloses the method of claim 1 except for heating the plates is performed while pressing the plates together. Haibara et al. reference discloses a microfluidic device and method of manufacturing thereof wherein The upper plate (10) and lower plate (20) are stacked on each other, and are secured by an upper pressure-contact member (30), a lower pressure-contact member (40) and bolts (51) (Abstract and Figures 2A and 2B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the pressure-contact member and bolts to keep the stacked plates in place as taught by Haibara et al., since Haibara et al. states at Abstract that such a modification would prevent leakage of fluid can thereby be manufactured without undergoing a step of irreversible integration. Regarding Claim 7, Suzuki et al. reference discloses the method of claim 1 except for mechanically fastening the plates together prior to heating the plates. Haibara et al. reference discloses a microfluidic device and method of manufacturing thereof wherein The upper plate (10) and lower plate (20) are stacked on each other, and are secured by an upper pressure-contact member (30), a lower pressure-contact member (40) and bolts (51) (Abstract and Figures 2A and 2B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the pressure-contact member and bolts to keep the stacked plates in place as taught by Haibara et al., since Haibara et al. states at Abstract that such a modification would prevent leakage of fluid can thereby be manufactured without undergoing a step of irreversible integration. Regarding Claim 8, Suzuki et al. and Haibara et al. references disclose the method of claim 7 wherein mechanically fastening the plates together comprises joining the plates with screws or bolts around the perimeter thereof (Haibara et al. - Abstract and Figures 2A and 2B, numeral 51 - bolt). Regarding Claim 9, Suzuki et al. and Haibara et al. references disclose the method of claim 7 wherein mechanically fastening the plates together comprises joining the plates with screws or bolts positioned around the perimeter thereof (Haibara et al. - Abstract and Figures 2A and 2B, numeral 51 - bolt). Regarding Claim 10, Suzuki et al. and Haibara et al. references disclose the method of claim 7 wherein mechanically fastening the plates together comprises joining the plates with screws or bolts positioned at locations around the perimeter thereof and in the center thereof (Haibara et al. - Abstract and Figures 2A and 2B, numeral 51 - bolt). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUY-TRAM NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3167. The examiner can normally be reached M-W, 7:00am - 3pm, 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, Claire X Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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. /HUY TRAM NGUYEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 23, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 12, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 30, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599889
PACKING ELEMENT, STRUCTURED PACKING AND USE OF STRUCTURED PACKING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594536
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DISPERSION OF DRY POWDERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594535
APARATUS AND METHOD FOR ACCELERATED MULTI-STAGE SYNTHESIS OF QUANTUM DOTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12571734
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR DETECTING LIGHT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12544729
Reactor
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+9.0%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 735 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