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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/16/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “second branch body comprises no internal flow channels” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The office notes that applicant’s drawings illustrate the second branch body having internal flow channels as indicated in amended Fig. 4 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
644
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8, 13-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 necessitates that, “the second branch body comprises no internal flow channels”. However, applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not provide support for such recitation. As recited in MPEP 2173.05(j), “[t]he mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion.” Applicant’s originally filed disclosure failing to discuss internal flow channels of the second branch body does not provide support for a negative limitation.
Claims not specifically recited are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 1-8, 13-15, 17-20 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.
Claim 1 necessitates that, “the second branch body comprises no internal flow channels, “ but goes on to say, “the second branch body is provided with a through hole”. It is unclear and indefinite how applicant intends to differentiate between internal flow channels and through holes. The office notes that the through holes claimed and illustrated by applicant flow fluid through the second branch body. Accordingly, the through holes include flow channels wherein the flow channel is length is at least the thickness of the plate.
Claims not specifically recited are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 13, 14 and 17-20, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomoda et al. (U.S. Publication 2011/0168930), hereinafter “Tomoda” in view of Burlingame (U.S. Publication 2002/0189434).
In regards to claims 1 and 20, Tomoda discloses a valve group integration module, comprising a body (12a, 12b) and a valve group (14, 16), wherein the body (12a, 12b) comprises a first branch body (12a) and a second branch body (12b); the first branch body (12a) comprises a first connecting surface (bottom surface, Fig. 6); the second branch body (12b) comprises a second connecting surface (top surface, Fig. 7); the first connecting surface (Fig. 6) is hermetically connected to the second connecting surface (Fig. 7); a plurality of internal flow channels (70, 60a, 60b, 82) are arranged inside the first branch body (12a); at least one groove (R1) is arranged on the first connecting surface (Fig. 6) of the first branch body (12a); the second connecting surface (Fig. 7) and each groove (R1) on the first branch body (12a) form an external flow channel; wherein the external flow channel communicated to more than one of the plurality of internal flow channels (70, 60a, 60b, 82); wherein the second branch body (12b) completely covers the groove (R1) on the first branch body (12a); the valve group (14,16) comprises a plurality of valves; and the plurality of valves are selectively communicated to the internal flow channels (70, 60a, 60b) and the external flow channel to form different fluid flow channels; wherein the second branch body (12b) comprises no internal flow channels (at least to the same extent as applicant) and functions as a cover that seals the at least one groove (R1) to form the external flow channel; and wherein the valve group integration module further comprises a first interface member (20) mounted on the second branch body (12b); the second branch body (12b) is provided with a through hole; one end of the through hole is communicated to the fluid flow channels (R1) and another end of the through hole is communicated to the first interface member (20, see para. [0084]); and the body is provided with external interfaces (17a, 17b).
“[C]onfigured to be connected respectively to an outlet of a compressor and to an inlet of an exterior heat exchanger to transport a coolant between the body and the external components through the fluid flow channels” is an intended use recitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case it is the office position that the prior art is capable of being coupled to a device outlet and a device inlet.
Tomoda does not specifically disclose that the there is no intermediate plate between the first branch body and the second branch body.
However, Burlingame teaches a fluid module wherein a first component (16) is coupled to a second component (14) with no intermediate plate disposed therebetween.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the module of Tomoda to not include an intermediate plate as taught by Burlingame to reduce costs.
In regards to claim 2, the first branch body (12a) is of a plate-like structure.
In regards to claim 3, the second branch body (12b) is of a plate-like structure.
In regards to claim 4, the second branch body (12b) is of a plate-like structure.
In regards to claims 5-8, Tomoda does not specifically disclose that a thickeness of the first branch body is greater than a thickness of the second branch body.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the plate thickness to be as recited by applicant as modifications regarding shapes are generally considered to be modifications which are obvious and within the purview of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the plate thickness to be as recited by applicant within the course of ordinary research and development so as to achieve optimal results in the environment and/or application of usage.
Please note that applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation in the instant application.
In regards to claim 13, the plurality of valves (14) are all mounted on the first branch body (12a), or at least one of the plurality of valves are mounted on the first branch body and any remaining of the plurality of valves are mounted on the second branch body.
In regards to claim 14, the valves (14) are plugged onto the first branch body (12a).
In regards to claim 16, the valve group integration module further comprises a first interface member (20) mounted on the second branch body (12b); the second branch body (12b) is provided with a through hole (22); one end of the through hole is communicated to the fluid flow channels; and another end of the through hole is communicated to the first interface member.
In regards to claim 15, the first branch body (12a)
In regards to claim 17, another end of the first interface member (20) is connected to an external heat management component (100) to communicate the fluid flow channels with the external heat management component.
The office notes that transmission 100 will dissipate heat. Accordingly, it is the office’s position that transmission 100 may be regarded as “an external heat management component”.
In regards to claim 18, the valve group integration module further comprises a second interface member (112a) arranged on the first branch body (12a); one end of the second interface member (112a) is communicated to the internal flow channels on the first branch body (12a) ; and another end of the second interface member (112a) is connected to the external heat management component (100) to communicate the fluid flow channels with the external heat management component (100).
In regards to claim 19, the groove is a curved groove or a linear groove.
Claim(s) 15, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomoda et al. (U.S. Publication 2011/0168930), hereinafter “Tomoda” in view of Burlingame (U.S. Publication 2002/0189434) and further in view of Meloche (U.S. Patent 5,893,394).
Tomoda discloses all of the elements as discussed above.
Tomoda does not specifically disclose that the first branch body is provided with a plurality of mounting screw holes and the plurality of valves are screwed to the corresponding mounting screw holes.
However, Meloche teaches a module wherein a first body is provided with a plurality of mounting screw holes and a valve (16) are screwed to the corresponding mounting screw holes (via 50).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have mounted the plurality of valves of Tomoda via screws as taught by Meloche as an alternative coupling means well known in the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As discussed above, applicant’s amendment raises drawing objections and 112(a) and 112(b) rejections.
Further, it is the office’s position that Tomoda, as modified, discloses applicant’s invention as best understood.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R.K. Arundale whose telephone number is 571-270-3453. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, and Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ROBERT K ARUNDALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights