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 previously elected without traverse Species A (Figure 1) in the reply filed on 2/19/2025.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 1/27/2026 are as follows:
Claims 1-22 are pending;
Claims 3, 4, 6-8, and 10-21 are withdrawn from consideration;
Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, and 22 are being examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Currently, no claim limitations invoke 112(f).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shibasaki (US2017/0223869A1, as previously cited).
Re Claim 1. Shibasaki teaches a heat exchange structure (60) comprising (Figures 12-15; Paragraphs 107-115):
a partition (26) (Figures 12-15; Paragraphs 107-115);
two flow channels stacked in a stacking direction through the partition and thermally coupled to each other through the partition, each of the two flow channels having an opening (space between pipes 28 & 29; The internal path of 28 and 29 are openings for the coolant) on any one of opposite sies in an extending direction thereof for fluid to flow into or out of (Figure 15, wherein top portion above 26 between pipes 28 and 29 is an ambient air channel, wherein the space between the two pipes is an opening for airflow. Flowpath 69 within casing 24 is a second flow channel for coolant between the two openings of the pipes. Thus, Figure 15 illustrates two flow channels; Figures 12-15; Paragraphs 107-115); and
a fin structure (62) detachably installed from one of the openings in at least one flow channel of the two flow channels along the extending direction (Figures 12-15; Paragraphs 107-115; Paragraph 81 teaches the fins are installed in the body 24 between the openings. Further, the claims are directed towards an apparatus and not a method of manufacturing or using. The presence of process limitations on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See MPEP 2113. Thus, since the fins are separately formed, they are considered to be detachably installed),
wherein the fin structure includes fins (67, 68) arranged with intervals in a longitudinal direction of the at least one flow channel in which the fin structure is installed, the fins configured to form openings alternately arranged along the at least one flow channel on one side and the other side of the at least one flow channel in the stacking direction (Figures 12-15; Paragraphs 107-115; Figure 15 specifically illustrates alternating fins 67 and 68 that extend along the longitudinal length, wherein top fins 67 that terminate midway and bottom fins 68 that terminate midway, such that a serpentine flow path 69 is formed), and
in the stacking direction, each opening has a height defined by a difference between a height of the at least one flow channel and a smallest height of a corresponding one of the fins (Figures 12-15; Paragraphs 107-115; Figure 15 illustrates a serpentine flow path 69 is formed through the openings).
Re Claim 2. Shibasaki teaches the fins are perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the at least one flow channel in which the fin structure is installed (Figures 12-15; Paragraphs 107-115).
Re Claim 5. Shibasaki teaches the fin structure includes a pair of strips (62) configured to support the fins, provided on both sides of the arrangement of the fins in a direction intersecting the stacking direction (Figures 12-15; Paragraphs 107-115).
Re Claim 9. Shibasaki teaches the fin structure includes: a pair of strips (62) provided on both sides of the arrangement of the fins in a direction intersecting the stacking direction; and support portions (64, 66) configured to link the pair of strips, provided between the pair of strips, and connected to a corresponding one of the fins (Figures 12-15; Paragraphs 107-115).
Re Claim 22. Shibasaki teaches the fin structure has no structure interfering with heat transfer between the partition and a section of a meandering fluid path formed by the fin structure, the section located on a side facing the partition in a meandering direction of the fluid path (Figures 12-15; Paragraphs 107-115).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 8-10 of the reply that Shibasaki fails to teach two flow channels. Shibasaki Figure 15 illustrates that the top portion above 26 between pipes 28 and 29 is an ambient air channel flowpath and an internal flowpath 69 within casing 24 is a second flow channel for coolant. The space between the two pipes is an opening for the air flow. Thus, Figure 15 illustrates two flow channels and the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant further contends on page 9 of the reply that “Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it unreasonable to identify a simple space (such as the headspace) that could not control the flow of a fluid as a "flow channel””. Applicants’ arguments lack factual evidence to support their argument and therefore amount to arguments of counsel. MPEP 2145 states that “arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence”. 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., specific channel structure and dimensions that fully constrains the flowpath) 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 on page 10 of the reply that Shibasaki fails to teach the opening of claim 1. The space between pipes 28 and 29 creates an opening for airflow to pass through for the first flowpath. The internal flowpath of the pipes 28 and 29 creates an internal flowpath through the inside of the device to create the coolant flow path, wherein the fins are positioned between these two pipe openings. Therefore, Shibasaki teaches the claimed limitations and the applicants’ 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 TRAVIS RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 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 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.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763