DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-5 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/8/25.
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 10-12 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.
In claim 10, “pardal melting” is assumed to be a typo for ‘partial melting’.
In claim 11, there are two separate issues. The first is that the language does not parse. The structure of the sentence never comes together coherently. The second issue is that, despite the best attempts to reference the specification, the metes and bounds of “radius of agreement” could not be determined.
In claim 12, “or for both” is not understood.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112.
Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: Para. [0129] (as published).
The paragraph begins with “In these two lines the union…pass” in which the subject and verb do not agree in number.
The individual clauses do not add up to sentences and it is very unclear what meaning the paragraph is attempting to convey.
The first part of the paragraph appears to be an attempt to describe a problem motivating the design of the device. The second part of the paragraph recites “in this separation” but there is no clarity as to what elements are separated from each other. Is it supposed to be the conduits and the manifold or the first and second pieces of the manifold from each other or some other elements?
In Para. [0130] (as published):
The paragraph starts by discussing “this region” which is not defined or understood. The region in question is presumptively a reference to the previous paragraph. The description of plastic deformation as opposed to bending is not clear as the bends in the formation of the device are also plastic deformations (they are not elastic, they do not bounce back after bending). “The radius” is not defined well enough to know what element it is a radius of. If it is meant to refer to the “radius of agreement” stated in other locations, that is not a standard term which carries a particular meaning and a useable definition of the term could not be gleaned from the description.
In Para. [0131] (as published): “the bond lines reduce the gap” is not understood either. Again, “the gap” lacks any concise definition. The previous paragraphs have used other terms (like ‘separation’ and ‘space’) and so gap is presumptively a different feature.
The examples above are only presented to highlight the deficiencies of the entire specification. These types of grammatical, syntactical, and word-choice errors are found throughout the entire document.
Correction of the entire specification 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.
Claim(s) 6-9, 11-13 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3125636 (‘636) in view of JP 61191889 (‘889).
Regarding claim 6, ‘636 teaches a manifold suitable for connecting to a heat exchange tube wherein: the heat exchange tube comprises first and second conduits (21, 22) of flat configuration according to their cross-sections (Fig. 8); wherein the conduits are arranged adjacent and mechanically joined by an intermediate section (48) to form a flat tube (Fig. 8) longitudinally extending along a trajectory from first to second ends (12; see Fig. 4); at least one end of the tube is configured to be attached to a manifold (10, 11) which exchanges fluid with the first and second conduits (C1, C2);
the manifold comprises first and second chambers (26) with first and second openings (see Fig. 7, the portions of each chamber into which the tube is inserted) configured to embrace the first and second conduits of the tube (Fig. 7) establishing contact around the perimeter of the end of the conduit (see Fig. 7).
‘636 does not teach that the intermediate section of the tube has its end recessed with respect to the first and second conduits.
‘889 teaches that it is old and well-known to form tubes with two flat conduits (7, 7’) having an intermediate section (8) which is recessed from the ends of the conduits (Fig. 3) leaving each conduit with a perimeter area separated from the end of the intermediate section and configured for attachment to the manifolds (3, 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of ‘636 with the recessed intermediate section, as taught by ‘889, in order to allow for a greater connection surface for each conduit ensuring a more secure and leak-proof seal.
Regarding claim 7, ‘636 further teaches that: the first and second chambers (26) are fluidly incommunicable with each other (see Fig. 7) and each is in communication with a first and second feed/return line, respectively (18; e.g. Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, ‘636 teaches that the main body of the manifold is configured in sheet metal (11) in two parts wherein each part (each 11) is configured to form part of the first opening and inner surface in contact with the perimeter area of the first conduit (area of 42 in contact with the first conduit) and part of the second opening and inner surface in contact with the perimeter area of the second conduit (part of area 42 in contact with the second conduit; see Fig. 7).
It is noted that the recitation of stamping is a product-by-process limitation and, as the device of ‘636 is indistinguishable from one formed by stamping, ‘636 is treated as meeting this limitation.
Regarding claim 9, ‘636 teaches that the first and second parts (of the manifold main body; 11) form a section (44) free of chambers or expansions (Fig. 7) where they are joined to each other and which lies between the first and second chambers (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 11, ‘636 teaches that the first and second parts are formed such that the joint between the parts in a region of the inner surface in contact with the perimeter area of the conduits form a close contact with the conduits (i.e. close enough contact for form a tight brazing bond).
It is noted that the recitation of stamping and plastic deformation are product-by-process limitations and, as the device of ‘636 is indistinguishable from one formed in such a manner, ‘636 is treated as meeting this limitation.
Regarding claim 12, the first and second parts (11) may be joined by tabs emerging from one and bent toward the other (40).
Regarding claim 13, ‘636 teaches a manifold suitable for connecting to a heat exchange tube wherein: the heat exchange tube comprises first and second conduits (21, 22) of flat configuration according to their cross-sections (Fig. 8); wherein the conduits are arranged adjacent and mechanically joined by an intermediate section (48) to form a flat tube (Fig. 8) longitudinally extending along a trajectory from first to second ends (12; see Fig. 4); at least one end of the tube is configured to be attached to a manifold (10, 11) which exchanges fluid with the first and second conduits (C1, C2);
the manifold comprises first and second chambers (26) with first and second openings (see Fig. 7, the portions of each chamber into which the tube is inserted) configured to embrace the first and second conduits of the tube (Fig. 7) establishing contact around the perimeter of the end of the conduit (see Fig. 7).
‘636 does not teach that the intermediate section of the tube has its end recessed with respect to the first and second conduits.
‘889 teaches that it is old and well-known to form tubes with two flat conduits (7, 7’) having an intermediate section (8) which is recessed from the ends of the conduits (Fig. 3) leaving each conduit with a perimeter area separated from the end of the intermediate section and configured for attachment to the manifolds (3, 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of ‘636 with the recessed intermediate section, as taught by ‘889, in order to allow for a greater connection surface for each conduit ensuring a more secure and leak-proof seal.
In combination, the perimeter of the first conduit and the perimeter of the second conduit are each attached to an inner surface area of the first and second openings of the manifold, respectively.
Regarding claim 15, ‘636 teaches that the perimeter of the tube is continuous along a perimeter path (i.e. the perimeter is continuous without gaps at least in its central section; see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, ‘636 teaches a wavy trajectory (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 17, each conduit comprises a plurality of channels (8; see Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 18, in ‘889, each conduit end (7, 7’) comprises two parallel flat surfaces (top/bottom; see Fig. 3) connected at their ends by two curved sections (Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘636 in view of ’889 and Bryant (US 2021/0302079).
Regarding claim 10, ‘636 teaches that the first and second parts (11) are made of aluminum and joined by partial melting in a furnace (brazing) but does not specify cladding as opposed to flux.
Bryant teaches that it is old and well-known to form such brazed aluminum joints using clad aluminum (Para. [0052]).
It would have been obvious to form the device of ‘636, as modified, from clad aluminum, as taught by Bryant, in order to remove the manufacturing step of applying brazing and the inherent imprecisions associated therewith.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Devon Lane whose telephone number is (571)270-1858. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9-4.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571.270.5054. 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.
/DEVON LANE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763