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 B (Figures 5-7) in the reply filed on 11/5/2025.
Status of Claims
Applicant did not file any claim amendments with the submission dated 3/18/2026. Therefore, the status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 3/18/2026 are as follows:
Claims 1-10 are pending;
Claims 1-10 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) interpretations.
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 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Greiner (US2014/0318753A1, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 1. Greiner teaches a matrix for a heat exchanger (200) (Figures 2, 3, 12; Paragraphs 30-36), the matrix comprising:
an array of walls (202, 204) defining a plurality of corridors (external spaces between 202, 204) for a first fluid (i.e. air), each of the corridors having a quadrangular cross-section (Figure 2 illustrates a quadrangular cross-section), each of the corridors having a central axis (central axis of the corridor between 202, 204) (Figure 2, 3, 12; Paragraphs 25-32);
the array of walls defining passages (interior of 202, 204, with inlets 206 and outlets 208) for a second fluid (i.e. coolant) (Figures 2, 3, 12; Paragraphs 25-32);
wherein the array of walls supports at least two fins (212, 310, 312) arranged one behind the other (first fin layer 310 is in front of second fin layer 312) along the central axis of one corridor of the plurality of corridors (Figures 2, 3, 12; Paragraphs 31-43);
wherein the at least two fins are planar, extend in parallel with the central axis and are inclined relative to one another (approx. 90°) around the central axis (Figures 2, 3, 12; Paragraphs 31-43); and
wherein each of the at least two fins has two ends (ends of the fins connected to the tubes 202, 204), both ends of each of the at least two fins being connected to the array of walls (Figures 2, 3, 12; Paragraphs 31-43).
Re Claim 2. Greiner teaches the at least two fins are inclined relative to each other of an angle of at least 10° (Figures 2, 3, 12; Paragraphs 31-43; The fins are angled approximately 90° to one another, which is above the “at least 10°”).
Re Claim 3. Greiner teaches the at least two fins, seen perpendicularly to the central axis, define crosses (Figures 2, 3, 12; Paragraphs 31-43).
Re Claim 4. Greiner teaches seen in a plane that is perpendicular to the central axis, the at least two fins cross each other on the central axis (Figures 2, 3, 12; Paragraphs 31-43).
Re Claim 5. Greiner teaches the at least two fins are in contact with each other (Figures 2, 3, 12; Paragraphs 31-43).
Re Claim 6. Greiner teaches the array of walls defines passages of quadrangular cross-section for the second fluid (Figures 2, 3, 12; Paragraphs 31-43).
Re Claim 7. Greiner teaches the first fluid is air and the second fluid is oil (Figures 2, 3, 12; Paragraph 28 teaches air as the first fluid. Paragraphs 27, and 31 teach a suitable coolant can flow through the coolant ducts 202, 204. Thus, the ducts of Greiner are capable of containing oil. It is noted that the claims are directed towards an apparatus, wherein the material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims. Specifically, MPEP 2115 states that “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parteThibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, the recitation of the fluids flowing through the heat exchanger does not further limit the structure of the apparatus. Additionally, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP2114(II)).
Re Claim 8. Greiner teaches the walls of each of the plurality of corridors form a closed contour around the corresponding central axis (Figures 2, 3, 12; Paragraphs 31-43).
Re Claim 9. Greiner teaches the at least two fins are in contact with each other via a hub along the central axis (Figures 2, 3, 12; Paragraphs 31-43).
Re Claim 10. Greiner teaches the at least two fins are inclined with respect to a flow direction of the first fluid, corresponding to the central axis (Figures 2, 3, 12; Paragraphs 31-43).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 3 of the reply that “in Greiner the second fluid flows through the first coolant duct 202 and the second coolant duct 204, each having coolant inlets 206 and coolant outlets 208, whereas in claim 1 the second fluid flows in passages (144) defined by the array of walls (148) itself. In claim 1, the wall array is not merely a support adjacent separate coolant tubes or ducts; rather, the wall array itself forms the matrix architecture and defines the first-fluid corridors and the second-fluid passages”. The claim requires two passages and two walls. Greiner teaches a first wall 202 and a second wall 204, each with an internal passage. Thus, Greiner satisfies the claimed limitations. 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 matrix architecture that would require more than two walls and two passages) 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 3 of the reply that “Greiner also fails to disclose the claimed "at least two fins" as recited. Claim 1 requires that the at least two fins are planar, extend in parallel with the central axis, and are inclined relative to one another around the central axis of one corridor”. Figures 2, 3, and 12 of Greiner illustrates a plurality of planar fins (212, 310, 312) that have ends connected to the walls (202, 204). Therefore, Greiner teaches the claimed limitations and the applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues on page 3 of the reply that “Greiner does not disclose that the at least two planar fins are arranged one behind the other along the central axis of one corridor of the plurality of corridors”. Figures 3 and 12 of Greiner illustrates the first fin layer 310 is in front of second fin layer 312, and thus teaches at least two planar fins are arranged one behind the other along the central axis of one corridor of the plurality of corridors. Therefore, Greiner teaches the claimed limitations and the applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights