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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 27, 2026 has been entered, along with the resubmission of part thereof on April 1, 2026.
Note that receipt of all of the original submission (including 17 pages of the amendment and response) filed on March 27, 2026 was acknowledged via the Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt provided by the USPTO on March 27, 2026; however, only five of these pages were initially available to the examiner in the instant application online, prompting the examiner to initiate a courtesy call to Attorney Blake and request a resubmission of the missing pages. However, following resubmission by the applicant of all seventeen of the aforementioned pages of the amendment and response as requested by the examiner during the courtesy call to Attorney Blake on March 31, 2026, the initially missing pages of the original submission apparently have been located and properly uploaded into the instant application, thus rendering the requested resubmission unnecessary.
Response to Amendment
Receipt and entry of the replacement drawings, replacement abstract, substitute specification, and amended claims are acknowledged.
Claims 1 through 8 and 10 through 18 remain pending. Of these, claims 10 through 15 remain withdrawn as noted in greater detail below, whereas all of claims 1 through 8 and 10 through 18 have been amended either directly or indirectly.
Note that this Office action is a duplicate of the Office action mailed on April 8, 2026 and is being resent to the applicant in order to overcome some internal USPTO processing issues.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have obviated the objections to the drawings, abstract, and specification as cited by the examiner in the previous Office action.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1 through 8 as cited in the previous Office action 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.
Election/Restriction
Claims 10 through 15 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention of Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 12, 2025.
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on March 27, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The substitute specification filed on March 27, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 through 8 and 16 through 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: “a same length” [claim 1, line 6; claim 1, line 7] should be replaced with “the same length” for improved clarity and readability because length is an inherent property of the straight sections of the U-tubes; “are connected” [claim 2, line 2] should be replaced with “is connected” for improved grammatical correctness and readability; “or outlet end” [claim 3, line 2] should be replaced with “or of the outlet end” for improved grammatical correctness and readability; “pass through” [claim 16, line 12] should be replaced with “to pass through” for improved clarity and readability; “leave” [claim 16, line 13] should be replaced with “to leave” for improved clarity and readability; and, “longitudinal axes” [claim 18, line 2] should be replaced with “the longitudinal axes” for improved grammatical correctness and readability. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 through 8 and 16 through 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 1 as amended, the newly recited limitations “the same length of the outlet straight sections being different from the same length of the inlet straight sections” fail to clearly set forth which configurations are intended to be encompassed by the claim and which ones are intended to be excluded by the claim, thus rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim and by all claims depending therefrom. The newly recited limitations, for example, can be interpreted to simply mean that the length of the outlet straight sections is different from the length of the inlet straight sections which is inherent since the lengths correspond to the different respective straight sections and not to the same straight section. Alternately, the newly recited limitations can be also interpreted to mean that the two lengths are unequal, which is probably the intended meaning albeit not the one based on the plain meaning of the limitations as written. For examination purposes, the examiner will use the latter interpretation as the basis of the prior art rejections that follow. However, to avoid indefiniteness, and if applicant wishes to have the latter interpretation to be the one that is consistently applied to these newly added limitations, it is recommended that applicant replace the limitations “the same length of the outlet straight sections being different from the same length of the inlet straight sections” with the limitations “the length of the outlet straight sections being unequal to the length of the inlet straight sections”, for example.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 as amended recites the broad recitation “fins”, and the claim also recites “embodied as plates of sheet material, the plates of sheet material being arranged on an outside of the U-tubes” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Additionally, the newly added limitations “and extending in a plane normal to the inlet straight sections and outlet straight sections of the U-tubes” in claim 8 are not entirely clear as written, thus further rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim. More specifically, the inlet straight sections and the outlet straight sections of the U-tubes are three-dimensional. As such, it is not entirely clear relative to which particular plane or axis of the aforementioned sections of the U-tubes the plates are intended to be normal. It is recommended that the claims be amended to recite a particular axis or plane of the aforementioned sections of the U-tubes in order to render the claim more clear and more precise as required.
With regard to claim 16 as amended, the limitations “wherein a plurality of heat exchanger modules according to claim 1 are arranged in the housing” are unclear as written because claim 1 only recites one heat exchanger module and not a plurality of heat exchanger modules as now claimed, thus further rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim and by all claims depending therefrom.
Any claim not specifically mentioned is at least rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claims 1, 2, and 4 through 7, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harris, Jr. et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,841,271).
With regard to claim 1, Harris, Jr. et al. discloses a heat exchanger module (as shown in Figure 3, for example) comprising: U-tubes 4 for a first fluid flow (i.e., see flow arrow at inlet 29), the U-tubes having two straight sections (i.e., short stem portion 7 and long stem portion 5) connected by a U-shaped portion or arcuate portion 9, wherein an inlet end of each of the U-tubes 4 is connected with an inlet collector tube or channel head portion 13 and an outlet end of each of the U-tubes 4 is connected with an outlet collector tube or channel head portion 11, wherein the inlet straight sections or short stem portion 7 of the U-tubes 4 all have the same length (i.e., see Figure 3), wherein the outlet straight sections or long stem portion 5 of the U-tubes 4 all have the same length (i.e., see Figure 3), wherein the length of the outlet straight section or of the long stem portion 5 of the U-tubes 4 is different from (i.e., unequal to) the length of the inlet straight section or of the short stem portion 7 (i.e., as shown in Figure 3), and wherein a longitudinal axis of inlet collector tube or channel head portion 13 and a longitudinal axis of the outlet collector tube or channel head portion 11 are arranged at different heights along the length of the inlet straight sections or of the short stem portion 7 and of the outlet straight sections or of the long stem portion 5 of the U-tubes 4 (i.e., as shown in Figure 3).
With regard to claim 2 of the instant application, Harris, Jr. et al. discloses that the inlet end or the outlet end of each of the U-tubes 4 is connected with the tube wall of the respective inlet or outlet collector tube or channel head portion 11 or 13 over an entire wall thickness of the respective tube wall (i.e., as shown in Figure 3 and in Figure 4).
With regard to claim 4 of the instant application, Harris, Jr. et al. discloses, at least as broadly interpreted for pending claims as required, an end of the inlet collector tube or channel head portion 13 and an end of the outlet collector tube or channel head portion 11 as being closed/enclosed in that these respective ends (i.e., inlet 29 and outlet 27 in Figure 3) are at least implicitly connected to a closed system pipe based on the disclosure of Harris, Jr. et al.
With regard to claims 5 through 7 of the instant application, Harris, Jr. et al. discloses that the U-tubes 4 are arranged in an array (i.e., as shown in Figure 4) with individual tubes of each of the U-tubes 4 being arranged equidistantly to each other (i.e., as also shown in Figure 4), with the inlet end of each of the U-tubes 4 and the outlet end of each of the U-tubes 4 being arranged in rows (i.e., see Figure 3), and with the inlet end of each of the U-tubes and the outlet end of each of the U-tubes each being arranged in two to eight or more rows (i.e., as shown in Figure 3 and in Figure 4).
The reference thus reads on the claims.
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.
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.
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris, Jr. et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,841,271) in view of Bosch et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,607,027 B2).
As explained in detail above, Harris, Jr. et al. discloses the instant inventive heat exchanger module essentially as claimed in base claim 1, where a heat exchanger module (as shown in Figure 3, for example) comprises: U-tubes 4 for a first fluid flow (i.e., see flow arrow at inlet 29), the U-tubes having two straight sections (i.e., short stem portion 7 and long stem portion 5) connected by a U-shaped portion or arcuate portion 9, wherein an inlet end of each of the U-tubes 4 is connected with an inlet collector tube or channel head portion 13 and an outlet end of each of the U-tubes 4 is connected with an outlet collector tube or channel head portion 11, wherein the inlet straight sections or short stem portion 7 of the U-tubes 4 all have the same length (i.e., see Figure 3), wherein the outlet straight sections or long stem portion 5 of the U-tubes 4 all have the same length (i.e., see Figure 3), wherein the length of the outlet straight section or of the long stem portion 5 of the U-tubes 4 is different from (i.e., unequal to) the length of the inlet straight section or of the short stem portion 7 (i.e., as shown in Figure 3), and wherein a longitudinal axis of inlet collector tube or channel head portion 13 and a longitudinal axis of the outlet collector tube or channel head portion 11 are arranged at different heights along the length of the inlet straight sections or of the short stem portion 7 and of the outlet straight sections or of the long stem portion 5 of the U-tubes 4 (i.e., as shown in Figure 3).
With regard to claim 3 of the instant application, Harris, Jr. et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,841,271) does not specifically disclose that the various parts of the inventive heat exchanger module are connected via brazed joints.
With regard to claim 8 of the instant application, Harris, Jr. et al. also does not disclose that the module includes fins embodied as plates made of a sheet material.
Nevertheless, both bonding various heat exchanger module parts using brazed joints and attaching fins made of plates of a sheet material are very well known in the art of designing heat exchangers and heat exchanger modules and are taught by Bosch et al. Bosch et al. discloses that heat exchanger fins and their particular configuration are a matter of design choice and may be “plate fins” (i.e., see column 5, lines 6-18). Bosch et al. also teaches that brazing may be used to bond various mating surfaces in a heat exchanger (i.e., see column 13, lines 28-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the heat exchanger module of Harris, Jr. et al. to specifically include brazed joints and also to include plate fins as taught by Bosch et al. in order to allow for more effective joining of heat exchange module parts and for improved heat transfer efficiency, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not show nor reasonably suggest a plurality of heat exchanger modules which are structurally and functionally interrelated to each other and which are arranged in a housing and operably and structurally connected to each other as recited in claims 16 through 18 of the instant application.
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claims 16 through 18 would be allowable if rewritten without patentably significant broadening to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The additional prior and/or related art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LJILJANA V CIRIC whose telephone number is (571)272-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Saturday, flexible.
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.
/Ljiljana V. Ciric/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
LJILJANA (Lil) V. CIRIC
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights