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 .
Claim 1 is amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant stated that , it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the cited references in the manner asserted by the Office Action. The cited references each disclose very different structures for different intended purposes (heat exchanger) and with considerable differences in their disclosed operation and structure. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine disparate elements selectively pulled from multiple references.
The applicant’s argument with regard to the references Sugiyama and Thielen not teaching the claimed method is not persuasive. The Applicant appears to argue against the references individually. The references teach both these features which disclose heat exchanger with thermoplastic resin that are built for frames which are stacked, Thielen reference only discloses that the stacks can be held together by external means as tension bolts (Figure 1, plates -1/2, external means used as tension bolts). It is well-settled that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As a result of this applicant’s arguments are considered to not add any persuasion to the lack of motivation argument.
Applicant argued that when molten resin is injected into an injection mould in SUGIYAMA discloses a process is described to make a single frame. In SUGIYAMA the actual stacking of the frames is performed in the laminating step of and the bonding step thus improvement of the present invention is a non-obvious further development to the field of the laminating step and bonding step of Par. [0105] and [0106] of SUGIYAMA.
The examiner maintains that Sugiyama discloses stacking of frames, similar to applicant’s invention as stated in ([0103]-[0104], which was also agreed by the applicant. As in Sugiyama “heat exchanger plate 3a into an injection mold, injects molten resin into the mold, and solidifies the molten resin so as to form resin frames 2a and 2b. Resin frame 2a is joined to heat exchanger plate 3a, and resin frame 2b is joined to heat exchanger plate 3a so as to form unit elements 4a and 4b.” the elements are then stacked together ([0104]).
Further, applicant states that when molten resin is injected into an injection mould in SUGIYAMA does not disclose supplying a pressurised melt of a plastic material is to the elongated conduit and branched conduits.
Examiner maintains that however Sugiyama didn’t explicitly state that a pressurized melt is injected but it didn’t preclude that the melt injected is not a pressurized melt as it’s known in the invention by ESCOWITZ US 20210031415 that it’s a well-known process that’s high pressure could be used to inject the melted material in a cavity ([0003])
Applicant states that SUGIYAMA does not disclose a stack of frames having at least one longitudinal conduit is formed which runs along the length of the stack
However , examiner maintains that Sugiyama discloses injects the molten resin frame 2b which could be the longitudinal conduit so as to form unit element 4b which are stacked.
Applicant argues that THIELEN is not relevant because it does not disclose to remove the external means after solidification of the melt, as presently claimed by amendment.
However, Thielen discloses that stack is held together by external means to obtain the interconnected stack of thermoplastic frames (Figure 1, Col 6 line 24-27, external means/two plates -1,2, which are held together by tension bolts.
Examiner maintains that removing external means after the solidification of a melt is a critical final step in casting therefore it’s obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to as removing external fastening means, such as bolts, from a tool generally would not require undue experimentation, as this is typically considered a routine, well-known technique within the mechanical arts.
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) 1-5, 7,10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama (US 20100071887) in view of Thielen (US 4150719).
Regarding Claim 1 Sugiyama discloses process to manufacture an interconnected stack of thermoplastic frames having two sides by stacking the thermoplastic frames to obtain a stack of frames such that the facing sides of two neighbouring frames are in contact with each other at a contact area (Figure 1, 2a,2b, [0032]), wherein as a result of stacking the frames and as a result of at least one opening present in the frame ([0083], molten resin are injected into an injection mold) but didn’t disclose specifically that an least one longitudinal conduit is formed.
Sugiyama didn’t particularly disclose that one opening is present in the frame ; however it discloses that molten resin is injected to form the resin frame ([0104]) . Therefore, it would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to interpret that the resin is injected into an opening to fill the channels of the conduit - (Figure 1). Further, Sugiyama discloses wherein as a result of stacking the frames and as a result of an elongated gutter/channel as present on, or in at least one side of the frame at the contact area a branched conduit is formed , which branched conduit is fluidly connected to the longitudinal conduit a pressurised melt of a plastic material is supplied to the elongated/longitudinal conduit and branched conduits (Figure 1, showing the elongated channel to form the branch conduit and the branched conduit is formed between the two longitudinal conduit as the stacks ate joined together, [0104]). In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Thielen discloses stack is held together by external means to obtain the interconnected stack of thermoplastic frames (Figure 1, Col 6 line 24-27, external means/two plates -1,2, which are held together by tension bolts Thielen). Thielen didn’t specifically disclose that removing external means after the solidification of a melt is a critical final step in casting therefore it’s obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to as removing external fastening means, such as bolts, from a tool generally would not require undue experimentation, as this is typically considered a routine, well-known technique within the mechanical arts.
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine the Sugiyama’s teaching with thatof Thielen’s teaching of stack being held together by means of external support like tension bolts for the purpose of strong assembling of the stack.
Regarding Claim 2 Sugiyama discloses , wherein the melt of a plastic material is a melt of a thermoplastic elastomer ([0106]).
Regarding Claim 3 Sugiyama discloses , wherein the thermoplastic frames are polypropylene frames, polyethylene frames or polyamide frames ([0101]).
Regarding Claim 4 Sugiyama discloses , wherein the frames are obtained by injection moulding ([0082]-[0083]).
Regarding Claim 5 Sugiyama discloses, wherein the frames are insert moulded work products comprising an insert consisting of a heat transfer sheet ([0152]).
Regarding Claim 7, Sugiyama discloses at least two longitudinal conduits are formed as a result of stacking the frames and wherein the at least two longitudinal conduits are not fluidly connected to each other and wherein the two elongated conduits are each fluidly connected to separate branched conduits (Figure1).
Regarding Claim 10 Sugiyama discloses wherein the stack of interconnected frames is suited to be part of a plate heat exchanger ([0082]-[0083]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama (US 20100071887) in view of Thielen (US 4150719) as applied in Claim 5 in view of GUO US 20180266774.
Regarding Claim 6 Sugiyama/Thielen disclose wherein the frames are polypropylene frames ([0101], Sugiyama) and wherein the pressurised melt of a plastic is a pressurised melt of a Styrene Ethylene Butylene Styrene Block Copolymer (Col 3 line 1-2, Thielen). Sugiyama discloses an insert consisting of a heat transfer sheet but didn’t disclose that the insert is an aluminium sheet. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, GUO discloses that the insert is an aluminium sheet ([0060]) .
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Sugiyama’s teaching with that of GUO’s teaching of the heat insert sheet made of aluminum for the purpose of good heat conductivity and is lighter than other metal inserts.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama (US 20100071887) in view of Thielen (US 4150719) as applied in Claim 8 further in view of VAN Kasteren US 20200124359
Regarding Claim 8, Sugiyama/ Thielen disclose that while the stack is held together by external means to obtain the interconnected stack of thermoplastic frames (Figure 1, external means/two plates -1,2). However the combination didn’t disclose that wherein the external means is a container having an open position and a closed position. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Van Kasteren discloses that the external means is a container having an open position and a closed position, has an interior shape which is the form negative of the interconnected stack when in the closed position (Figure 1, showing in a container in open position, Figure 5 showing base body-72 and sealing cover body-71 could attain the shape of negative/inverse form shape of the interconnected stack/layers once it’s closed from both ends , [0044]) and wherein the container allows positioning of the stack of thermoplastic frames and removing of the interconnected stack of thermoplastic frames when in the open position (Figure 1, [0034]) .
It would be obvious for ordinary skilled in the art to combine Sugiyama’s teaching with that of Van Kasteren’s external mean support in the form of a container to hold the stack more firmly.
Further, wherein the above combination disclose that container is provided with at least one inlet for the pressurised melt of a plastic and which at least one inlet is fluidly connected to the at least one longitudinal conduit when the container is in a closed position (Figure 1, [0104], Sugiyama).
Regarding claim 9, Van Kasteren discloses wherein to the stack an added chamber is added to obtain a stack with the added chamber and wherein the container has an interior shape which is the form negative of the interconnected stack with the added chamber (Figure 7, added chamber-81,82) and the above combination disclose that wherein the added part is connected to the stack by the melt of a plastic material as supplied to the container (Figure 1, [0104], Sugiyama).
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 DEBJANI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8019. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/DEBJANI ROY/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights