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 of Invention II (Claims 11-20) in the reply filed on 10/31/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/31/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Main Species A (Figures 1-20) and Connector Species S2 (Figure 29) in the reply filed on 10/31/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Both species share the special technical feature of the invention and, thus, satisfy the unity of invention requirement. No showing has been made in the Office Action as to any alleged lack of unity of invention”. This is not found persuasive because the claims are restricted under US restriction practice and not 371 unity of invention as argued, thereby rendering the applicants’ arguments unpersuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant asserts claims 11, 12, and 14-20 read on the elected species. However, claim 14 depends from withdrawn claim 13. Accordingly, claim 14 will additionally be withdrawn from consideration as being dependent upon a withdrawn claim. Additionally, claim 19 recites “the connector is one of a connection protrusion and a connection recess that are insertable into and removable from each other; and a gap is provided between a tip end surface of the connection protrusion and an abutment surface of the connection recess”, which is drawn to non-elected Species S1. Therefore, claims 13, 14, 19, and 20 (since claim 20 depends from claim 19) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/31/2025.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 10/31/2025 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Claims 1-10, 13, 14, and 19-20 are withdrawn from consideration;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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Heat Exchanger Comprising Interconnected Curved Heat Exchange Units”.
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 following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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).
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 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) in view of Ueda (US2015/0000865).
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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 for other relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS C 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