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 Invention II (Claims 11-20) in the reply filed on 10/31/2025.
Applicant previously elected with traverse Main Species A (Figures 1-20) and Connector Species S2 (Figure 29) in the reply filed on 10/31/2025.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 4/29/2026 are as follows:
Claims 1-20 are pending;
Claims 1-10, 13, 14, and 19-20 are withdrawn from consideration;
Claims 11, 12, and 15-18 are being examined.
Specification
The amended title of the invention was received on 4/29/2026 and is accepted.
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 limitation invokes 112(f). The nonce term “unit” in claim 11 is sufficiently described by structure in claim 11.
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 (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 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 11, 12, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang (US2020/0200040A1, as previously cited).
Re Claim 11. Jiang teaches a heat exchanger (50) comprising (Figures 3-5):
a heat exchanger main body (50) configured by connecting a plurality of adjacent units (100, 104, 70) to each other (Figures 3-5; Paragraphs 18-27);
wherein each of the plurality of units (100, 104) integrally includes a connector (94) with another unit and a flow path portion (90, 92) (Figures 3-5; Paragraphs 18-27); and
the heat exchanger main body includes, by interconnecting the plurality of units, an internal flow path (interior of 90, 92) including a plurality of the flow path portions (90, 92), a fluid inlet (110) and a fluid outlet (112) both connected to the internal flow path, and a plurality of external fins (102, 116, 106, 126) formed on an outer surface of the heat exchanger main body (Figures 3-5; Paragraphs 18-27).
Re Claim 12. Jiang teaches each of the plurality of units has a curved shape; and the heat exchanger main body has a curved shape that is curved along a curved surface formed within an aircraft engine (Figures 2-5; Paragraphs 17).
Re Claim 15. Jiang teaches at least one of the plurality of units includes one or more ports operable to function as the fluid inlet or the fluid outlet (Figures 3-5; Paragraphs 18-27; Fluid passes through the passages and exits the passages of the units, thus the units include ports that function as fluid inlet and fluid outlet).
Re Claim 17. Jiang teaches at least one of the plurality of units includes a return portion (124) to turn back the flow path portion in an opposite direction (Figures 3-4; Paragraphs 18-27).
Re Claim 18. Jiang teaches the plurality of units include: a single-connection unit (70) including the connector on only one end surface; and a multi-connection unit (100, 104) including the connector on each of two or more end surfaces (Figure 3; Paragraphs 18-27).
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (US2020/0200040A1, as previously cited) in view of Ueda (US2015/0000865, as previously cited).
Re Claim 16. Jiang teaches adding a valve to control flow to the plurality of units (Figure 3; Paragraph 23) but fails to specifically teach at least one of the plurality of units includes a plurality of the flow path portions and a bypass to connect one of the plurality of flow path portions to another one of the plurality of flow path portions via a valve.
However, Ueda teaches it is known to form at least one of the plurality of units includes a plurality of the flow path portions (41, 42, 63) and a bypass (6) to connect one of the plurality of flow path portions to another one of the plurality of flow path portions via a valve (6) (Figures 3 and 7; Paragraphs 43-46 and 58-61). Ueda teaches the benefit of the bypass valve is to allow for quickly increasing the temperature of the target fluid (Paragraph 25).
Therefore, in view of Ueda's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a bypass pathway and bypass valve to Jiang in order to allow for quickly increasing the temperature of the target fluid, thereby achieving optimal operating parameters efficiently (Ueda Paragraph 25).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 8-10 and 19 of the reply that Jiang fails to teach a plurality of adjacent units. Figure 3 of Jiang clearly illustrates units 100, 104, and 70 that are adjacent to one another. Therefore, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues at the top of page 11 of the reply that Jiangs “body 100 and body 104 are not directly adjacent units connected to each other”. 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., “directly adjacent units connected to each other”) 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 11 of the reply that “Applicants respectfully further submit that the Office Action's mapping is internally inconsistent even on its own terms. The Office Action identifies 100, 104, and 70 as the alleged "plurality of units." See Office Action at page 6. However, Jiang does not present those components as a set of common modular units arranged and interconnected to form a single heat exchanger main body”. The mapping in the office action is not internally inconsistent as alleged by the applicant. The applicant recites in the claims the broad term “unit” rather than reciting the specific structure they seek to claim. Thus, the use of the broad term “unit” can encompass numerous structural features that aid in connecting to other units. Therefore, the applicants’ argument is not persuasive. 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 details of the “unit”, and “common modular units”) 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). Therefore, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 12 of the reply that “Reference numeral 94 in Jiang is not a connector with another unit”. Jiang 94 is in-between unit 100 and unit 104, and thus is a connector between the two units. Therefore, the applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 12 of the reply that “Likewise, reference numerals 90 and 92 in Jiang are not "flow path portions"”. Jiang teaches that 90 and 92 are cooling passages, and thus clearly flow path portions. Therefore, the applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 12 of the reply that “amended claim 11 requires that each of the plurality of adjacent units integrally includes both a connector with another unit and a flow path portion”. Jiang teaches the units 100 and 104 are connected via a connector 94 and each includes flow paths 90 and 92, thus reading on all the limitations. With regards to the integrally manufactured aspect, the presence of process limitations on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See MPEP 2113. Therefore, the applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 14 that Jiang fails to teach a plurality of flow path portions. Jiang teaches flow path portions 90 and 92, thereby satisfying the claim limitation. Therefore, the applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 15 of the reply that Jiang fails to teach “a fluid inlet and a fluid outlet both connected to the internal flow path”. Jiang teaches fluid inlet 110 and fluid outlet 112. Therefore, the applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 15-16 of the reply that Jiang fails to teach a plurality of fins. Jiang clearly teaches a plurality of fins (102, 116, 106, 126). Therefore, the applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 16-18 of the reply that the applicant’s invention is manufactured in a different way. However, the claims are directed towards an apparatus and not a method of manufacturing. The presence of process limitations (i.e. manufacturing) on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See MPEP 2113. Therefore, the applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
Applicant reiterates arguments already addressed on pages 19-20 of the reply. Thus, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 20 of the reply with regard to claim 15 that Jiang fails to teach fluid inlet and fluid outlet ports. Jiang teaches fluid passes through the passages and exits the passages of the units, thus the units include ports that function as fluid inlet and fluid outlet. Therefore, the applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
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 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