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's election with traverse of species N, figures 17 and 18 in the reply filed on 12/03/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the embodiments are not patentability distinct. This is found persuasive. Therefore, the election/restriction requirement sent 10/15/2025 is now withdrawn. If the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission maybe used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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 18-19 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. Regarding claim 18, the claimed subject matter of “the solder resist comprises an annular bead on an end face of the receiving portion” in combination with the limitation of the “a joining portion which is joined in a receiving portion of the plate body between the at least two plate elements, the joining portion comprises a solder resist” recited in claim 14, renders the scope of the claim indefinite since it is not clear how the annular bead (forming solder resist) can be located on an end face of the receiving portion (outside the receiving portion, claim 18), and inside of the receiving portion (joined in a receiving portion, claim 14).
Claims 18-19 are further rejected as can be best understood by the examiner.
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.
Claims 14-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brost et al. (EP 1306638A2) in view of Matsushima Seiji (KR 20130049739A) and Fritze et al. (US 20060021745). Brost et al. discloses (figure 4 and A shown below) a heat exchanger plate, comprising a plate body (15) comprising at least two plate elements (15a,15b); and at least one connecting piece (60) for a cooling fluid, wherein the at least one connecting piece (60) is joined to the at least two plate elements (15a,15b); the at least one connecting piece comprises a joining portion which is joined in a receiving portion (33) of the plate body between the at least two plate elements (15a,15b), the connecting pipe (60) comprises a solder resist located on an opening end of the receiving portion (see figure A). Regarding claim 14, Brost et al. does not disclose that the connecting piece is joined to the at least two plates element by a solder connection. Matsushima discloses (figure 1 and paragraph 39) a heat exchange plate (2) that has the connecting piece (8) is joined to the at least two plate elements (15,16) by a solder connection for a purpose of securing the connecting piece to the heat exchange plate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Matusshima’s teaching in Brost’s device for a purpose of securing the connecting piece to the heat exchanger plate.
Regarding the limitation of “the joining portion comprises a solder resist”, Brost et does not disclose that the joining portion received in the receiving portion comprises a solder resist as in species N shown in figures 17-18. However, Brost et al. discloses (figure A) that the connecting piece comprises the solder resist formed as annular bead on an end face of the receiving portion and the annular bead is integrally formed with the at least one connecting piece as shown in the alternative species A, figures 1-4. By applicant’s admission, that the difference between the species represent design choices that would obvious to a person skill in the art. The differences are predictable variations and not patentable over one another.
Brost does not disclose that the joining portion comprises two outwardly directed longitudinal webs, and the receiving portion comprises two longitudinal grooves extending in a region of a joining plane between the at least two plate elements, and the longitudinal webs extend in the two longitudinal groove. Fritze et al. discloses (figure 16) that the joining portion (318) comprising two outwardly directed longitudinal webs (two webs on two sides of 318) and the receiving portions (310) comprises two longitudinal grooves extending in a region of a joining plane between the at least two plate elements (304, 306), and the longitudinal webs extend in the longitudinal groove for a purpose of fitting the connecting member (320, 322) with the receiving portion (310, 312). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Fritze’s teaching in Brost’s device for a purpose of fitting the connecting member within the receiving portion.
Furthermore, the additional of longitudinal webs of the connecting piece and grooves in the receiving portion are just a design of choice and not patentable distinct from the reference to Brost that discloses other species that does not have the longitudinal webs and grooves. Brost discloses that the joining portion of the connecting piece is circular and received within the receiving portion as shown in species A, shown in figures 1-4. By applicant’s admission, that the difference between the species represent design choices that would obvious to a person skill in the art. The differences are predictable variations and not patentable over one another.
Regarding claim 15, Brost et al. does not disclose that the solder resist comprises a sealing metal with a higher melting temperature than a solder material of the solder connection as in species N shown in figures 17-18. However, Brost et al. discloses (figure A) that the connecting piece comprises the solder resist formed as annular bead on an end face of the receiving portion and the annular bead is integrally formed with the at least one connecting piece as shown in species A, figures 1-4. By applicant’s admission, that the difference between the species represent design choices that would obvious to a person skill in the art. The differences are predictable variations and not patentable over one another.
Regarding claims 16-17, Brost et al. does not disclose that the solder is on the joining portion of the connecting piece, wherein the solder resist is in a longitudinal direction of the joining portion, adjacent to the solder connection on the joining portion as in species N shown in figures 17-18, However, Brost et al. discloses (figure A) that the connecting piece comprises the solder resist formed as annular bead on an end face of the receiving portion and the annular bead is integrally formed with the at least one connecting piece as shown in species A, figures 1-4. By applicant’s admission, that the difference between the species represent design choices that would obvious to a person skill in the art. The differences are predictable variations and not patentable over one another.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Brost et al. discloses (figure A) that the connecting piece comprises the solder resist formed as annular bead on an end face of the receiving portion and the annular bead is integrally formed with the at least one connecting piece.
Regarding claim 20, Brost et al. does not disclose that the solder resist comprises a cross sectional change in the joining portion and in the receiving portion as in species N shown in figures 17-18. However, Brost discloses that the connecting piece comprises the solder resist formed as annular bead on an end face of the receiving portion and the annular bead with a cross section, is integrally formed with the at least one connecting piece as shown in species A, figures 1-4. By applicant’s admission, that the difference between the species represent design choices that would obvious to a person skill in the art. The differences are predictable variations and not patentable over one another.
Regarding claim 21, Brost et al. discloses that the joining portion comprises a circular cross section.
Regarding claims 22-23, Brost et al. does not disclose that the joining portion comprises an elliptical cross section or a rectangular cross-section with rounded corners. However, Brost discloses (figure 17 and A) that the joining portion comprises a circular cross section as in species A of the applicant. By applicant’s admission, that the difference between the species represent design choices that would obvious to a person skill in the art. The differences are predictable variations and not patentable over one another.
Regarding claim 24, Brost et al. does not disclose that the joining portion and the receiving portion each comprise two longitudinal portions with different cross sections. However, Brost et al. discloses (figure 4 and figure A) that the joining portion and the receiving portion has the same longitudinal cross section as shown in applicant’s species A. By applicant’s admission in the response to the restriction/election , that the difference between the species represent design choices that would obvious to a person skill in the art. The differences are predictable variations and not patentable over one another.
Regarding claim 25, Brost et al. discloses (figure A) that the at least one connecting piece comprises a coupling portion on an opening side and configured to connect fluid line.
Regarding claim 26, Brost et al. discloses (figure A) that the at least one connecting piece further comprises an abutment body which is annular bead in the coupling portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
628
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: the modified figure corresponds to figure A with limitations shown.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure..
Beech Stephen (US 20070062681A1) discloses a flanged connection for heat exchanger.
Wada N (JP 2000220990A) discloses an assembly structure.
Brun Michel (EP 1479996A1) discloses a pipe coupling for heat exchanger.
Inohara K (JP 2004218868A) discloses a heat exchanger.
Pikovsky et al. (US 20030178182A1) discloses an apparatus and method for circuit boar liquid cooling.
Brost V (DE 19727145A1) discloses a plate heat exchanger without housing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THO V DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4793. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 10-6PM.
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, Atkisson Jianying 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.
/THO V DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763