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 Election/Restrictions Claims 8-9 and 15-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species (third groove and fourth groove) , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant's election with traverse of FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT Species A in the reply filed on 02/19/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant states, “ Specifically, the first recess 181 is expressly labeled in figure 2, and is also depicted at least in figures 2, 3, 5, and 6, all of which fall in Species A. ” This is not found persuasive because Species B contains divergent subject matter beyond the first recess, wherein the recess (18) and the first recess (181), as shown in figure 2 , are labeled as alternatives. Further, the first recess (181) is omitted from close up figure 3. Applicant states, “ Therefore, claims 12-14, which recite features involving the first recess, are also readable on Species A. Moreover, Species B should be limited to figures 9 and 14, and not extended to figures 8 or 10, since paragraph [0032] of the specification discloses that "As shown in Figures 9 and 14, a fourth groove 171 that is recessed away from the first direction is provided between at least part of pairs of adjacent first protrusions 12, and a fourth protrusion 17 is formed on a back side of the fourth groove 171 ." This is found persuasive and Claims 12-14 will be Examined herein . See the instant rejection for further evidence that t he groups of Species do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features . T he existence of prior art references that demonstrate one or more generic claims lack novelty and/or inventive step, establishes that the species do not relate to a single general inventive concept. As set forth in MPEP 1850: The expression “special technical features” is defined in PCT Rule 13.2 as meaning those technical features that define a contribution which each of the inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art . . . Whether or not any particular technical feature makes a “contribution” over the prior art, and therefore constitutes a “special technical feature,” should be considered with respect to novelty and inventive step. For example, a document discovered in the international search shows that there is a presumption of lack of novelty or inventive step in a main claim, so that there may be no technical relationship left over the prior art among the claimed inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features, leaving two or more dependent claims without a single general inventive concept. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 Objections Claims 5 and 7-10 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, claims 5-10 have not been further treated on the merits. Claim 11 recites the limitation " and/or " , which will be interpreted as “ or ” in the present office action . 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. Claims 5-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding Claim 5 , the limitation “ The heat exchanger according to claim 1 any one of claims 1 to 4 ” in ll. 1 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned what dependency is prescribed to Claim 5 or rather from what Claim does Claim 5 depend . Further clarification is required. Regarding Claim 7 , the limitation “ The heat exchanger according to claim 1any one of claims 1 to 4 ” in ll. 1 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned what dependency is prescribed to Claim 7 or rather from what Claim does Claim 7 depend. Further clarification is required. Regarding Claim 8 , the limitation “ The heat exchanger according to claim lany one ofclaims 1 to 4 ” in ll. 1 in context, since it cannot be discerned what dependency is prescribed to Claim 8 or rather from what Claim does Claim 8 depend. Further clarification is required. Regarding Claim 9 , the limitation The heat exchanger according to claim lany one ofclaims 1to4 ” in ll. 1 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned what dependency is prescribed to Claim 9 or rather from what Claim does Claim 9 depend. Further clarification is required. Regarding Claim 10 , the limitation “ The heat exchanger according to claim 1any one of claims 1 to 4 ” in ll. 1 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned what dependency is prescribed to Claim 10 or rather from what Claim does Claim 10 depend. Further clarification is required. Regarding Claim 19-20 , the limitation “ the first groove is a pit structure, the heat exchange area is further provided with a recessed portion, and a plurality of the first protrusions are arranged around the recessed portion ” in ll. 6 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned what component is the pit structure . The pit is defined by the specification as , “ the dotted wave refers to that a pit is formed on the back side of the first protrusion 12, and the structure of the first protrusion 12, such as a circular protrusion, a polygonal pyramid protrusion, etc., corresponds to the structure of the pit . Is the pit a part of the first protrusion or does the pit form the first protrusion? For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “ the first groove is a pit structure, the heat exchange area is further provided with a recessed portion, and a plurality of the first protrusions are arranged around the recessed portion ” will be interpreted as – the first groove is formed by a plurality of pit structure s , the heat exchange area is further provided with a recessed portion, and a plurality of the pits are arranged around the recessed portion --. 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 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 of this title, 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. Claims 1-4 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson (USP 10775108B2 ) in view of Ruiz et al. (US P G Pub. 2019/028536 3A 1 ) hereinafter referred to as Andersson and Ruiz , respectively. 4189095 308610 0 0 5063706 107543 Second Flow Guide Area 0 0 Second Flow Guide Area 4615132 3558109 First Flow Guide Area 0 0 First Flow Guide Area 3623095 3394206 0 0 605646 2464351 0 0 743669 497529 0 0 1606299 3353615 0 0 4709974 1438742 Heat Exchange Area 0 0 Heat Exchange Area 4399196 771776 2098016 2973310 0 0 2037631 635551 0 0 -104775 2226945 Base Plate 0 0 Base Plate -476250 293370 First Protrusion 0 First Protrusion 708875 114551 Second Protrusion 0 0 Second Protrusion Andersson Figure 4 a 2035834 287654 0 0 3183555 41035 First Recess 0 First Recess 2300018 889382 0 0 2851820 815339 0 0 4781550 1304925 Second Groove 0 Second Groove 3981450 981074 0 0 -28575 1343025 First Groove 0 First Groove 1076325 971549 0 0 990600 -375285 0 0 2562045 129708 Extension Sections 0 Extension Sections Andersson Figure 4b Regarding Claim 1 , Andersson discloses a heat exchanger (100) , comprising a plurality of heat exchange plates (110, 110’) arranged in a stacked manner (“ adapted to form flow channels between neighboring plates as the plates are stacked onto one another ”, col. 3 ll. 45-46) , wherein each of the heat exchange plates comprises a base plate (shown in annotated figure 4a ) , a first protrusion (shown in annotated figure 4a ) and a second protrusion (shown in annotated figure 4a ) , a direction perpendicular to the base plate is defined as a first direction (shown in figure 4b, wherein the protrusions extend in a vertical direction orthogonal to the base plate) , both the first protrusion and the second protrusion protrude towards the first direction (shown in figure 4a, wherein the protrusions extend in a vertical manner) , a first groove is formed on a back side of the first protrusion (shown in annotated figure 4b, wherein the grooves are situated on the heat exchange plates at varying distances) , a second groove is formed on a back side of the second protrusion (shown in annotated figure 4b, wherein the grooves are situated on the heat exchange plates at varying distances) , the base plate comprises two side surfaces, a side surface facing the first direction is defined as a first side surface (shown in figure 4a , being the top surface) , and a side surface facing away from the first direction is defined as a second side surface (shown in figure 4a , being the bottom surface) ; wherein a maximum width λ 1 of an orthographic projection of the first groove on a plane, where the second side surface of the base plate is located (shown in annotated figure 4b, being the orthographic projection along the bottom surface for the annotated “ First Groove ”) , is smaller than a maximum width λ 2 of an orthographic projection of the second groove on the plane, where the second side surface of the base plate is located (shown in annotated figure 4b, being the orthographic projection along the bottom surface for the annotated “ Second Groove ”) ; and a height difference between a top of the first protrusion and a top of the second protrusion in the first direction is less than or equal to 0.05 mm (shown in annotated figure 3, wherein the tops of the annotated grooves are aligned). Andersson fails to disclose a depth Dp1 of the first groove relative to the second side surface of the base plate is larger than a depth Dp2 of the second groove relative to the second side surface of the base plate . Ruiz, also drawn to a heat exchanger having grooves for passing a working fluid, teaches a depth Dp1 of the first groove relative to the second side surface of the base plate (shown in figure 3b, being the depth of the fins having the thickness (F2) relative to the bottom surface of said corrugated fins) is larger than a depth Dp2 of the second groove relative to the second side surface of the base plate (shown in figure 3b, being the depth of the fins having the thickness (F1) relative to the bottom surface of said corrugated fins). It is noted that the fins of Ruiz vary in thickness and comprise a same height (shown in figure 3b). Therefore , the two fins of Ruiz having the same height and one being thicker than the other, also teach the thicker fin having a smaller groove, wherein the additional thickness of the fin minimizes the groove depth . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Andersson with a depth Dp1 of the first groove relative to the second side surface of the base plate is larger than a depth Dp2 of the second groove relative to the second side surface of the base plate , as taught by Ruiz , the motivation being “ the locally thicker material in the load-bearing portion again can absorb and transmit forces, while allowing for thinner fin material elsewhere. This again may reduce local flow to a lesser degree as compared to a conventional approach ”, ¶25. Regarding Claim 2 , although a modified Andersson teaches a thickness of the base plate is H (shown in figure 1 and 4a , wherein the heat exchanger plate comprises a thickness) , the depth Dp 1 of the first groove relative to the second side surface of the base plate, the depth Dp2 of the second groove relative to the second side surface of the base plate ( Dp2<Dp 1 is previously taught by Ruiz in the rejection of Claim 1) , Andersson fails to explicitly disclose the thickness H of the base plate meet the following relationship: Dp2<Dp 1 <Dp2+2.8H. A modified Andersson d oes, however, disclose a thickness of the base plate (shown in figure s 1 and 4a ) and Dp2<Dp 1 ( Dp2<Dp 1 is previously taught by Ruiz in the rejection of Claim 1) , wherein a ratio inherently exists between the thickness of the base plate and the groove depths. Further , Ruiz teaches groove depth is directly related to increasing structural strength in predetermined areas of the heat exchanger . Therefore, modifying the thickness of the base plate to satisfy Dp2<Dp 1 <Dp2+2.8H is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that a thicker base plate results in increased weight, resources required for fabricating the heat exchanger and increased structural rigidity, and vice versa . Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that Dp2<Dp 1 and the thickness of the base plate is comparable to the groove depths , was disclosed in the prior art by a modified Andersson , it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the groove depths and thickness of the base plate to satisfy the equation Dp2<Dp 1 <Dp2+2.8H . See MPEP 2144.05 II. Regarding Claim 3 , although a modified Andersson teaches the maximum width λ1 of the orthographic projection of the first groove on the plane where the second side surface of the base plate is located (shown in annotated figure 4b, being the orthographic projection along the bottom surface for the annotated “ First Groove ”) , the maximum width λ 2 of the orthographic projection of the second groove on the plane where the second side surface of the base plate is located (shown in annotated figure 4b, being the orthographic projection along the bottom surface for the annotated “ Second Groove ”) , the depth Dp 1 of the first groove relative to the second side surface of the base plate and the depth Dp2 of the second groove relative to the second side surface of the base plate ( Dp2<Dp 1 is previously taught by Ruiz in the rejection of Claim 1), Andersson fails to explicitly disclose the aforementioned parameters meet the following relationship: 0.2≤( λ 1 * Dp2)/( λ 2 * Dp1)< 0 .9. A modified Andersson d oes, however, disclose λ 1 < λ2, wherein the varying widths provide “ a more turbulent fashion, which gives a more efficient heat transfer ” (col. 4 ll. 19, as taught by Andersson in figure 4b) and Dp2<Dp1 ( Dp2<Dp 1 is previously taught by Ruiz in the rejection of Claim 1), wherein a ratio inherently exists between the width s and depths of the grooves. Further Ruiz teaches groove depth is directly related to increasing structural strength in predetermined areas of the heat exchanger . Therefore, modifying the groove depths or groove widths to satisfy 0.2≤ (λ 1 * Dp2)/( λ 2 * Dp1)< 0 .9 is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that larger groove widths lessen the number of grooves for a decreased pressure drop and amount of turbulence / heat exchange, while larger depths results in thinner fins for less structural rigidity, less weight and increased heat exchange through conduction, and vice versa . Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. λ 1 < λ2, Dp2<Dp 1 and a ratio exists between the groove depths and the groove widths , was disclosed in the prior art by a modified Andersson , it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the groove depths and widths of the base plate to satisfy 0.2≤( λ 1 * Dp2)/( λ 2 * Dp1)< 0 .9 . See MPEP 2144.05 II. Regarding Claim 4 , although a modified Andersson teaches the maximum width λ 1 of the orthographic projection of the first groove on the plane where the second side surface of the base plate is located (shown in annotated figure 4b, being the orthographic projection along the bottom surface for the annotated “ First Groove ”) and the depth Dp 1 of the first groove relative to the second side surface of the base plate ( Dp2<Dp 1 is previously taught by Ruiz in the rejection of Claim 1) and the maximum width λ 2 of the orthographic projection of the second groove on the plane where the second side surface of the base plate is located (shown in annotated figure 4b, being the orthographic projection along the bottom surface for the annotated “ Second Groove ”) and the depth Dp2 of the second groove relative to the second side surface of the base plate ( Dp2<Dp 1 is previously taught by Ruiz in the rejection of Claim 1) , Andersson fails to explicitly disclose 2.5 ≤ λ 1 /Dp 1≤5 and 3.5 ≤λ 2/Dp2 ≤ 7. A modified Andersson d oes, however, teach a value for λ 1 , Dp 1 λ 2 and Dp2 wherein the widths provide “ a more turbulent fashion, which gives a more efficient heat transfer ” (col. 4ll. 19, as taught by Andersson in figure 4b) and the depths are directly related to increasing structural strength in predetermined areas of the heat exchanger (see Ruiz in the rejection of Claim 1) . Therefore, modifying the groove depths or groove widths to satisfy 2.5 ≤ λ 1 /Dp 1≤5 and 3.5 ≤λ 2/Dp2 ≤ 7 is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that larger groove widths lessen the number of grooves on the plate for a decreased pressure drop, amount of turbulence and heat exchange, while larger depths result in thinner fins for less structural rigidity, less weight and increased heat exchange through conduction, and vice versa . Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. a ratio exists between λ 1 / Dp 1 and λ2/ Dp 2, was disclosed in the prior art by a modified Andersson , it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the groove depths and widths of the base plate to satisfy 2.5 ≤ λ 1 /Dp 1≤5 and 3.5 ≤λ 2/Dp2 ≤ 7 . See MPEP 2144.05 II. Regarding Claim 11 , a modified Andersson further teaches the heat exchange plate comprises a first corner hole area (shown in figure 4a being the top left port) , a second corner hole area (shown in figure 4a being the bottom left port) and a heat exchange area, along a length direction of the heat exchange plate (shown in annotated figure 4a) , the heat exchange plate comprises a first end and a second end, wherein the first corner hole area is close to the first end of the heat exchange plate (shown in figure 4a being the top end) , the second corner hole area is close to the second end of the heat exchange plate (shown in figure 4a being the bottom end) , the heat exchange area is located between the first corner hole area and the second corner hole area (shown in annotated figure 4a) , a first flow guide area is provided between the first corner hole area and the heat exchange area (shown in annotated figure 4a) , a second flow guide area is provided between the second corner hole area and the heat exchange area (shown in annotated figure 4a) , the first protrusion is provided in the heat exchange area (shown in annotated figure 4a) , and the second protrusion is provided in the first flow guide area (shown in annotated figure 4a) . Regarding Claim s 12-14 , a modified Andersson further teaches the first protrusion (shown in annotated figure 4a) is a wave-shaped protrusion (shown in figure 4b) , a plurality of the wave-shaped protrusions are provided along a length direction of the heat exchange plate (shown in figure 4b, wherein the length direction is parallel to the longitudinal direction of the plate) , a first recess is formed between two adjacent wave-shaped protrusions (shown in annotated figure 4b) , each of the wave-shaped protrusions comprises a plurality of extension sections ( shown in annotated figure 4b) , and the plurality of extension sections are arranged obliquely relative to the length direction of the heat exchange plate (shown in figure 4a, wherein the extension sections are angled relative to the longitudinal direction of the plate) . Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson (USP 10775108B2) in view of Ruiz et al. (US PG Pub. 2019/0285364a1) as applied in Claims 1-4 and 11-14 above and in further view of Persson (Translation of CN102027306A), hereinafter referred to as Persson . Regarding Claim s 19 -20 , as best understood, Andersson further discloses the heat exchange plate comprises a first corner hole area (shown in figure 4a being the top left port) , a second corner hole area (shown in figure 4a being the bottom left port) and and a heat exchange area, along a length direction of the heat exchange plate (shown in annotated figure 4a) , the heat exchange plate comprises a first end and a second end, wherein the first corner hole area is close to the first end of the heat exchange plate (shown in figure 4a being the top end) , the second corner hole area is close to the second end of the heat exchange plate (shown in figure 4a being the bottom end) , the heat exchange area is located between the first corner hole area and the second corner hole area (shown in annotated figure 4a) , the first protrusion is provided in the heat exchange area (shown in annotated figure 4a) , and the heat exchange area is further provided with a recessed portion (shown in annotated figure 4b, being the “ First Recess ”) . Andersson fails to disclose the first groove is a pit structure. Persson, also drawn to a plate heat exchanger, teaches a first groove is a pit structure ( shown in figure 2 , “ each pipeline portion interconnecting two pits 5 or interconnection groove 5 and an edge portion 3 ”, ¶66 ) , the heat exchange area is further provided with a recessed portion (shown in figure 2, being the recessed portion situated on either side of the pipeline portion (6) ) and a plurality of the first protrusions (5) are arranged around the recessed portion (shown in figure 2) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Andersson with the first groove is a pit structure , as taught by Persson , the motivation being “ leakage can be more easily detected than similar prior art plate heat exchanger and wherein the improved the thermal contact between the heat exchange fluid. and the plate type heat exchanger of this invention is adapted to high-speed production technology ” . Andersson fails to disclose a plurality of the first protrusions are arranged around the recessed portion in the embodiment of figure 4a, however in figure 6a Andersson discloses a plurality of the first protrusions are arranged around the recessed portion (shown in figure 6a, wherein a plurality of similar grooves are positioned on either side of a respective recess, “ the ridges and grooves are distributed in groups defined by portions of ridges and grooves with smaller pitch 600, separated by portions with larger pitch 610. Any number of ridges and grooves may be used in the groups defined by portions of ridges and grooves with smaller pitch 600, such as 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ridges and grooves ”, (col. 4 ll. 45-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Andersson in the embodiment of figure 4 with a plurality of the first protrusions are arranged around the recessed portion , as taught by Andersson in the embodiment of figure 5 , the motivation being to regulate the turbulence or pressure drop within the heat exchanger plate by altering the number or pitch of the grooves . Alternately, Andersson in the embodiment of figure 4 discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of the first protrusions are arranged around the recessed portion . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a plurality of first grooves , since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI (B). Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson (USP 10775108B2) in view of Ruiz et al. (US PG Pub. 2019/0285364a1) as applied in Claims 1-4 and 11-14 above and in further view of Stadmark (USP 5398751A ), hereinafter referred to as Stadmark . Regarding Claim s 19-20 , as best understood, Andersson further discloses the heat exchange plate comprises a first corner hole area (shown in figure 4a being the top left port) , a second corner hole area (shown in figure 4a being the bottom left port) and and a heat exchange area, along a length direction of the heat exchange plate (shown in annotated figure 4a) , the heat exchange plate comprises a first end and a second end, wherein the first corner hole area is close to the first end of the heat exchange plate (shown in figure 4a being the top end) , the second corner hole area is close to the second end of the heat exchange plate (shown in figure 4a being the bottom end) , the heat exchange area is located between the first corner hole area and the second corner hole area (shown in annotated figure 4a) , the first protrusion is provided in the heat exchange area (shown in annotated figure 4a) , and the heat exchange area is further provided with a recessed portion (shown in annotated figure 4b, being the “ First Recess ”) . Andersson fails to disclose the first groove is a pit structure. Stadmark , also drawn to a plate heat exchanger, teaches a first groove is a pit structure ( 3 , shown in figure 9 ), the heat exchange area is further provided with a recessed portion ( 5, shown in figure 10 , being the recessed portion situated on either side of the groove ( 3 ) ) and a plurality of the first protrusions ( 1 ) are arranged around the recessed portion (shown in figure 10 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Andersson with the first groove is a pit structure , as taught by Stadmark , the motivation being to provide “ g ood strength of the plates while imposing little resistance to the flow of the heat exchanging media ” (col. 1 ll. 60-62) . Andersson fails to disclose a plurality of the first protrusions are arranged around the recessed portion in the embodiment of figure 4a, however in figure 6a Andersson discloses a plurality of the first protrusions are arranged around the recessed portion (shown in figure 6a, wherein a plurality of similar grooves are positioned on either side of a respective recess, “ the ridges and grooves are distributed in groups defined by portions of ridges and grooves with smaller pitch 600, separated by portions with larger pitch 610. Any number of ridges and grooves may be used in the groups defined by portions of ridges and grooves with smaller pitch 600, such as 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ridges and grooves ”, (col. 4 ll. 45-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Andersson in the embodiment of figure 4 with a plurality of the first protrusions are arranged around the recessed portion , as taught by Andersson in the embodiment of figure 5, the motivation being to regulate the turbulence or pressure drop within the heat exchanger plate by altering the number or pitch of the grooves. Alternately, Andersson in the embodiment of figure 4 discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of the first protrusions are arranged around the recessed portion . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a plurality of first grooves , since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI (B). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8611 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 0930-1800 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Len Tran can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1184 . 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. /PAUL ALVARE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763