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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 4/23/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 14-31 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 14-31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The new limitations in clam 14 and new claims 27-31 have been addressed in the following rejection.
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 21 and 29 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 21, the subject matter of “the major axis extends in the joining plane of the at least two plate elements, and the minor axis defines the smallest dimension of the joining portion in a radially outward direction” in combination with “the joining portion comprises a circular cross-section” renders the scope of the claim indefinite since it is not clear how the joining portion both have circular cross section and cross section with major and minor axis.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the wall portions" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear whether applicant refers the walls portions to an upper wall portion and a lower portion.
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 21 and 23 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. The subject matter of “the major axis extends in the joining plane of the at least two plate elements, and the minor axis defines the smallest dimension of the joining portion in a radially outward direction” in combination with “the joining portion comprises a circular cross-section” (claim 21) and in combination with “the joining portion comprises a rectangular cross-section with rounded corners” (claim 23) are not supported by the original disclosure. Applicant discloses (figures 5 and 7) the major and minor axis as in claim 14 but not in the circular shape or rectangular shape as in claim 21 and 23.
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 14-31 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. Brost also does not disclose that the joining portion of the connecting piece has, in cross-section, a major axis and a minor axis oriented perpendicular thereto, the major axis corresponds to a transverse center axis and defines a largest dimension of the joining portion, the major axis extends in the longitudinal plane of the at least two plate elements, and the minor axis define the smallest dimension of the joining portion in a radially outward direction.
. Fritze et al. discloses (figure 16) that the joining portion (318) comprising two outwardly directed longitudinal webs (two webs on two sides of 318) in cross-section, a major axis and a minor axis oriented perpendicular thereto, the major axis corresponds to a transverse center axis and defines a largest dimension of the joining portion, the major axis (lateral direction) extends in the longitudinal plane of the at least two plate elements, and the minor axis (perpendicular to the lateral direction) define the smallest dimension of the joining portion in a radially outward direction. (the longitudinal web extend in the lateral direction, which make the joining portion is greater in the major axis greater than the minor axis). Fritze et al further discloses (figure 16) that 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.
Regarding claim 27, the combination device of Brost in view of Matsushima Seiji (KR 20130049739A) and Fritze et al. (US 20060021745) further discloses that the longitudinal webs lie opposite one another on the major axis of the joining portion. (Fritze discloses figure 16 that the longitudinal webs lies in opposite one another on the lateral direction of the joining portion).
Regarding claim 28, the combination device of Brost in view of Matsushima Seiji (KR 20130049739A) and Fritze et al. (US 20060021745) further discloses that the longitudinal webs are formed integrally and of one piece with the joining portion and extends outwardly from an interior of the connecting piece. (Fritze discloses figure 16 that the longitudinal webs are formed integrally and one piece, extend laterally outwardly from an interior of the joining portion 318 of the connecting piece).
Regarding claim 29, the combination device of Brost in view of Matsushima and Fritze disclose that the joining portion comprises an upper wall portion having a convex curvature and a lower wall portion having a convex curvature, the longitudinal webs adjoin the wall portions on both side, the wall portion transition into the longitudinal webs, and the receiving portion comprises convexly curved receiving wall portion each transitioning into a groove face. (Fritze discloses figures 16 and 18 that the joining portion 318 comprising an upper wall portion, upper half of 318, having a convex curvature and a lower wall portion, lower half of 318, having a convex curvature, the longitudinal webs at two lateral side adjoin the wall portions, the receiving portion 310, 312 comprises convexly curved receiving wall portion each transitioning into a groove face to receive joining portion 318).
Regarding claims 30-31, the combination device of Brost in view of Matsushima Seiji (KR 20130049739A) and Fritze et al. (US 20060021745) further discloses that the longitudinal webs and the longitudinal grooves complement each other such that a contour of the longitudinal grooves and a contour of the longitudinal webs complement each other to form a joining gap. (Fritze discloses figure 16 that the longitudinal webs or tongue of the joining portion 318 fit in the longitudinal grooves at two side of the receiving portion 310,312 to form a joining gap when the plates 304 and 306 are assembled together).
PNG
media_image1.png
628
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: the modified figure corresponds to figure A with limitations shown.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights