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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-9, 11, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyama et al. (U.S. Patent 6,234,238) in view of Kato (U.S. Patent 5,727,626).
Regarding claim 1, Koyama teaches a heat exchanger (fig. 1) for thermally treating a vehicle cabin (col. 1, ln 5-8; this is merely a statement of use as the system is not affirmatively claimed and is thus met by the prior art if it can be so used and such is taught in col. 1, ln 5-8; examiner further notes that this limitation has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause MPEP 2111.02.), comprising a core portion (per fig. 1) made of at least a plurality of tubes (elements 2) and a plurality of fins (elements 3), at least one header tank (element 1a/b) located at one end of the core portion (per fig. 1), the at least one header tank including at least a collecting plate (element 5) which has a U-shape (per fig. 11), a cover plate (element 6) connected to the collecting plate and at least one cap plate (element 7) which is located at one longitudinal end of the at least one header tank (per fig. 1 & 11), the collecting plate and the at least one cover plate being linked together by an overlapping portion (where elements 9 and 14 overlap see fig. 2), wherein the collecting plate, the cover plate and the at least one cap plate are defining an internal volume of the at least one header tank that is hydraulically communicating with the core portion (per fig. 1), the at least one cap plate being at least partially mounted inside the internal volume (per fig. 1 & 11) and maintained in position by a tongue (section of element 9 segmented by element 12 in fig. 11) and in continuation of the overlapping portion (per fig. 11).
Koyama does not teach the overlapping portion includes a plurality of teeth separated by spaces to facilitate folding. Kato teaches the overlapping portion includes a plurality of teeth (elements 19) separated by spaces (per fig. 7) to facilitate folding (shown in fig. 7; It has been held that the 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 claimed structural limitations. Thus the intended purpose of the spaces of the tabs in the claim does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art as the prior art is capable of such. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 MPEP 2214 (II).). it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Koyama to include the tabs/teeth of Kato, the motivation would be secure the elements for brazing (col. 2, ln 25-35)
Regarding claim 2, Koyama further teaches the at least one cap plate includes an external face (per fig. 1 & 11) facing an external environment of the at least one header tank (per fig. 1 & 11), the tongue being in contact with the external face of the at least one cap plate (per fig. 1 & 11).
Regarding claim 3, Koyama further teaches the overlapping portion and the tongue are made out of the collecting plate (per fig. 1 & 11).
Regarding claim 5, Koyama further teaches a connecting portion (section of element 9 under element 12 separating out the tongue as defined above) that links the overlapping portion to the tongue.
Regarding claim 8, Koyama further teaches the at least one cap plate includes at least one shoulder (element 18) that is nested at least in the collecting plate in the cover plate (per fig. 2 & 11).
Regarding claim 9, Koyama further teaches the at least one shoulder is nested in the cover plate (per fig. 1 & 11) and that the at least one cap plate is fully located inside the internal volume of the at least one header tank (per fig. 1 & 11).
Regarding claim 11, Koyama teaches the cover plate includes an internal surface facing the internal volume (per fig. 1 & 11), an anticorrosion layer being layered against the internal surface of the cover plate (per Col. 5, ln 11-47).
Regarding claim 14, Koyama teaches the collecting plate includes a back wall (per fig. 2 & 4) in which at least one tube insertion hole (element 4) is formed, the cover plate being located at the opposite of the back wall relative to a perpendicular line of a main back wall plan of the at least one header tank (per fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Koyama further teaches the at least one plate includes at least one shoulder (element 18) that is nested at least in the collecting plate or the cover plate (per fig. 2 & 11).
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyama et al. (U.S. Patent 6,234,238) in view of Kato (U.S. Patent 5,727,626), and further view of Kirklin et al. (U.S. PGPub 2017/0370658).
Regarding claim 6, Koyama does not teach at least the overlapping portion and the tongue each include a curved portion. It is well known in the art that round shapes better handle pressure (see Kirklin para. 0004), thus changing the shape from rectangular to round would be an obvious and when doing so the overlapping elements would also curve, the motivation for such would be to handle higher pressures.
Regarding claim 17, Koyama does not teach at least the overlapping portion and the tongue are a curved portion. It is well known in the art that round shapes better handle pressure (see Kirklin para. 0004), thus changing the shape from rectangular to round would be an obvious and when doing so the overlapping elements would also curve, the motivation for such would be to handle higher pressures.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyama et al. (U.S. Patent 6,234,238) in view of Kato (U.S. Patent 5,727,626), and further view of Mercurio (U.S. Patent 5,341,872).
Regarding claim 7, Koyama does not teach the overlapping portion is defined by a first radius of curvature and the tongue is defined by a second radius of curvature, the second radius of curvature is being lower than the first radius of curvature. Mercurio teaches an overlapping portion (element 36) is defined by a first radius of curvature (fig. 4) and the tongue (element 34) is defined by a second radius of curvature (fig. 4), the second radius of curvature is being lower than the first radius of curvature (per fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Koyama to have the tongue bent further than the overlap, the motivoant would be to increase retention of the cap with greater overlap.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyama et al. (U.S. Patent 6,234,238) in view of Kato (U.S. Patent 5,727,626), and in further view of Chartet (U.S. Patent 5,341,872).
Regarding claim 12, Koyama does not teach the collecting plate includes at least one lug that extends inside the internal volume defined by the at least one header tank, the cover plate resting at least partially against the at least one lug. Chartet teaches header tanks assembled with lugs (elements 17, see fig 3) creating contact between the two sections (see fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Koyama to include lugs as taught by chartet to arrive at the claimed structure, the motivation would be to facilitate centering and locking the structures together.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyama et al. (U.S. Patent 6,234,238) in view of Kato (U.S. Patent 5,727,626), and further view of Wand et al. (U.S. PGPub 2014/0202673).
Regarding claim 13, Koyama does not teach a pipe, wherein the at least one cap plate includes hole that receives the pipe. It is well known in the art to have the pipe to come out of (via hole) cap of the header (see Wand fig. 17 and 5), it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Koyama to have the inlet or outlet pipe as claimed, the motivation would be easier piping to or from based on the location of the heat exchanger and systems around it.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/16/26, with respect to amendments to claims and drawings overcoming the objections and 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections and the 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) amendment to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JOEL M ATTEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8-5 and Friday 8-10 and 2-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson be reached on (571) 270-7740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights