Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/187,161

HYDRAULIC EXPANSION OF OVAL TUBES IN TUBE SHEET

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Mar 21, 2023
Examiner
PRESSLEY, PAUL DEREK
Art Unit
3725
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Carrier Corporation
OA Round
6 (Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
7-8
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
108 granted / 173 resolved
-7.6% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+22.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
56 currently pending
Career history
229
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
46.9%
+6.9% vs TC avg
§102
31.5%
-8.5% vs TC avg
§112
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 173 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Response to Amendment This Final Rejection is in response to the Amendment dated October 29, 2025 filed in response to the Non-final Rejection dated May 29, 2025. Cancelation of claims 2 and 3 is acknowledged. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection in the previous Office action is withdrawn in view of the amendments made. However, the claims continue to be unpatentable over the prior art as explained below. Response to Arguments Applicant argues, starting on page 6 of the Amendment, have been fully considered and found persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejection is withdrawn as stated above. However, new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments to claim 1 are presented below. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “in” in the 4th line of the claim appears to be misspelled. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Great Britian Patent Specification No. GB 733,669 A by Wellings, hereinafter “Wellings”, in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,977,068 to Krips, hereinafter “Krips”, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0304339 A1 by Ito et al., hereinafter “Ito”. Regarding claim 1, Wellings discloses a swaging tool usable with a heat exchange tube (swaging dollying tool 3 in Fig. 2 is usable with a heat exchange tube in the form of pipe 1; page 1, line 41-48), the swaging tool comprising: a body having a cross-section (the body of dollying tool 3 in Fig. 2) including: a first portion including a first end insertable in the heat exchanger tube and a second end (see “First Portion”, “First End” and “Second End” annotations to Fig. 2 of Wellings reproduced below); a second portion positioned adjacent to the second end of the first portion (see “Second Portion”), the first portion and the second portion being aligned about an axis of the body, wherein only the first portion is receivable within an interior of the heat exchanger tube (the First Portion and Second Portion are so aligned as shown in the annotated figure below); an expanded region integral with the body and arranged at a center of the first portion, the expanded region being integral with the first portion wherein a cross-section of the body at the expanded region is greater than at an adjacent part of the first portion such that the expanded region forms a first sealing surface positionable in contact with the heat exchange tube to form a first seal with the heat exchange tube (see “Expanded Region” and “First Sealing Surface” annotations below); and a continuous taper integral with the body and arranged at the second end toward the expanded region, wherein the continuous taper is configured as a second sealing surface positionable in contact with the heat exchange tube to form a second seal with the heat exchange tube (see “Continuous Taper” and “Second Sealing Surface” annotations below); wherein the first end is smaller than the first sealing surface and a thickness of an exterior surface of the body continuously reduces from the first sealing surface toward the first end of the body to form a taper (see “Taper” annotation below), wherein an angle of the taper at the second end of the first portion is different than the taper at the first end of the first portion (the angle of the Continuous Taper at the Second End is different from the Taper at the First End). PNG media_image1.png 554 1080 media_image1.png Greyscale Wellings is silent regarding the shape of pipe 1 and therefore does not expressly disclose pipe 1 and the body of dollying tool 3 are non-circular. Wellings also does not disclose at least one fluid channel formed in the body and connected to an outlet port arranged between the first sealing surface and the second sealing surface. But page 1, line 48-53 discloses internal fluid pressure is used to form joining beads 1b shown in Fig. 3. In the same field of swaging tools for use with tubes, Krips teaches a swaging tool (the expansion-swaging device tool shown in Fig. 1; col. 3, line 9-11) for use with a non-circular heat exchange tube (Krips’ expansion-swaging device shown in Fig. 1 is capable of being used with non-circular heat exchange tubes where the resiliency of outer pressure rings 30 and 31 allows them to conform to the inner wall of a non-circular tube to form the seals between the device and the tube. Col. 4, line 13-20 disclose outer pressure rings “stretch” and are sized slightly larger than the inner diameter of the tube being swaged.), the swaging tool comprising: a body (expansion core body 20, pressure ring 30, pressure ring 31 in Fig. 1; col. 3, line 38-39) including a first end insertable into the heat exchange tube (the left end of core nose 24 in Fig. 1 is a first end; col. 4, line 1-2), a second end (second end outer core guide portion 23 in Fig. 1; col. 4, line 2-3), a first sealing surface formed by an exterior surface of the body and positionable in contact with the heat exchange tube to form a first seal with the heat exchange tube (pressure ring 30 in Fig. 1 forms a first sealing surface of the exterior surface of core 20 when core 20 is inserted within tube 15 and pressure ring 30 is positioned in contact with the inner surface of tube 15; col. 3, line 37-41) and a second sealing surface formed by the exterior surface of the body positionable in contact with the heat exchange tube to form a second seal with the heat exchange tube, the second sealing surface being formed by a taper of the body (expansion core body 20 tapers from outer core guide portion 23 in Fig. 1 to midportion 21 where pressure ring 31 forms a second sealing surface of the exterior of core 20 when core 20 is inserted within tube 15 and pressure ring 31 is positioned in contact with the inner surface of tube 15. See col. 4, line 10-20.), wherein the exterior surface of the body is positionable in contact with the heat exchanger tube at both the first sealing surface and the second sealing surface (the exterior surface of core 20 is positioned in contact with the heat exchanger tube by way of pressure rings 30 and 31 forming the first and second sealing surfaces); wherein the first end is smaller than the first sealing surface (core nose 24 continuously reduces to a smaller size than outer pressure ring 30 in Fig. 1) and a thickness of an exterior surface of the body continuously reduces from the first sealing surface toward the first end of the body (core nose 24 continuously reduces in thickness from its right end in Fig. 1 to its left end); and at least one fluid channel formed in the body (fluid channel axial supply bore 26 in Fig. 1; col. 4, line 7) and connected to an outlet port, the outlet port being arranged between the first sealing surface and the second sealing surface (outlet port radial supply bore 27 in Fig. 1 is arranged between outer pressure rings 30 and 31; col. 4, line 7-8). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a fluid channel into the body of Wellings’ dollying tool 3 with an outlet port connected thereto where the outlet port is arranged between Wellings’ sealing surfaces in the same way Krips teaches to achieve the predictable result of improving Wellings’ tool by providing means to carry out the internal fluid pressure forming disclosed in Wellings. Ito teaches matching the cross-sectional shape of a tube expander’s body with the cross-sectional shape of the tube being expanded so that non-circular or oval tubes may be evenly expanded. See ¶[0010], [0030] and [0042]. The tube expander (100 in Fig. 3; ¶[0029] and [0030]) shown in Fig. 3 has an oval cross-sectional shape body (11 in Fig. 3; ¶[0030]) which matches the oval cross-sectional shape of the heat transfer tubes (21 in Fig. 3; ¶[0030]) of the heat exchanger shown in Fig. 1 (51 in Fig. 1; ¶[0024]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the cross-sectional shape of the body of Wellings’ dollying tool 3 to match the oval cross-sectional shape of the tube being expanded in the same way Ito teaches. One of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teachings of Ito to the swaging tool of Wellings would have yielded the predictable result of evenly expanding tubes of oval cross-sectional shape as Ito teaches in ¶[0042]. Regarding claim 4, the prior art reference combination of Wellings in view of Krips and further in view of Ito renders the swaging tool of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Wellings further discloses, wherein a cross-sectional shape of the body is similar to a cross-sectional shape of the heat exchange tube (Fig. 2 shows the cross-sectional shape of dollying tool 3 is similar to the cross-section of pipe 1). Regarding claim 5, the prior art reference combination of Wellings in view of Krips and further in view of Ito renders the swaging tool of claim 4 unpatentable as explained above. Ito teaches wherein the non-circular body is specifically a body having an oval cross-sectional shape (11 in Fig. 3; ¶[0030]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the body of Wellings’ dollying tool 3 of oval cross-section when a tube of oval cross-sectional shape is being swaged as Ito teaches. Regarding claim 6, the prior art reference combination of Wellings in view of Krips and further in view of Ito renders the swaging tool of claim 4 unpatentable as explained above. Wellings further discloses the cross-sectional shape and size of the body between the first sealing surface and the second sealing surface is substantially equal to the cross-sectional shape and size of the heat exchange tube (the cross-sectional shape and size of the body of dollying tool 3 between the First Sealing Surface and the Second Sealing Surface is substantially equal to the cross-sectional shaped and size of pipe 1 in Fig. 2). Regarding claim 7, the prior art reference combination of Wellings in view of Krips and further in view of Ito renders the swaging tool of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Krips teaches multiple supply bore 27s in Fig. 1. When Krips’ teaching is applied to Wellings’ swaging tool as explained above, Wellings’ fluid channel would include multiple supply bores in the same way Krips teaches. Regarding claim 8, the prior art reference combination of Wellings in view of Krips and further in view of Ito renders the swaging tool of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Krips teaches supply bores 27 in Fig. 1 are spaced about the cross-sectional shape of Krips’ body. When Krips’ teaching is applied to Wellings’ swaging tool as explained above, Wellings’ fluid channel would be spaced about the cross-sectional shape of Wellings’ body in the same way Krips teaches. 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 PAUL DEREK PRESSLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-6658. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 3:30pm Eastern. 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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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. /P.D.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 3725 /Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 21, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 25, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 31, 2024
Response Filed
Mar 19, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
May 22, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 17, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 20, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 26, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 02, 2024
Response Filed
Dec 06, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 18, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 20, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
May 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 29, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 29, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599910
CONFIGURABLE, COMPACT, MULTI-VARIANT RECYCLABLE MATERIAL FRAGMENTATION APPARATUS AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594593
PRODUCTION METHOD FOR RING-ROLLED MATERIAL OF Fe-Ni-BASED SUPERALLOY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582995
MACERATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12559956
REBAR TYING TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12521786
METHOD FOR MACHINING A METAL CAST STRAND OF ROUND CROSS-SECTION BY REDUCING THE CROSS-SECTION IN THE FINAL SOLIDIFICATION REGION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 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

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+22.7%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 173 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month