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 without traverse of Species A (Figures 1-2) in the reply filed on 2/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/12/2026.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 2/12/2026 are as follows:
Claims 1-15 are pending;
Claims 13 and 15 are withdrawn from consideration;
Claims 1-12 and 14 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 Planar Base or Cover Formed With Structural Material Around Heat Transfer Material”, or something similarly descriptive.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites phrases which can be implied, refers to the purported merits of the invention, and generally lacks details of the actual invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figures 1-5 and 8 contain solid black shading (See 37 CFR1.84(m) “Solid black shading areas are not permitted”);
Figures 1-8 contain faint or fuzzy lines, thereby rendering them unsatisfactory for reproduction. The figures appear to be a copy of a copy, thereby introducing distortion into the figures (See 37 CFR 1.84(l) which states: “(l) Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning”)
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 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.
“Fixing means” in claim 14 invokes 112(f). Based on applicants’ disclosure (pages 40-41 and 44-45 of the specification), “fixing means” will be interpreted as holes in the base for bolts/screws, clamps, or equivalent structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-12 and 14 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.
Claim 1 line 26 recites “comprises, and particularly consists of,”, wherein the limitation mixes the open phrase “comprises” with the narrow phrase of “consists of”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 line 26 recites the broad recitation “comprises”, and the claim also recites “particularly consists of” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “steel”, and the claim also recites “preferably carbon steel” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The term “larger” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “larger” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what measurement is required in order to be considered “larger”.
Claims 11 and 14 recite “it”, wherein it is unclear which previous structure “it” specifically refers back to.
The remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon an indefinite claim.
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 1, 2, and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vanderwees (US2021/0222967A1, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 1. Vanderwees teaches a heat exchanger (10) for cooling one or more electrical or electronic devices (21) (Figure 1; Paragraphs 33, 37), comprising:
a base (12) comprising an inlet port (30) for the entry of a coolant, an outlet port (32) for the exit of the coolant, a wall (generally denoted by 18) extending along a longitudinal direction, the direction which connects the inlet port and the outlet port of the base (Figure 1; Paragraphs 33-36, 43),
a cover (14) attached (at edges of 14 and 12) on the base and configured to establish a chamber (16) for the passage of the coolant between the inlet port and the outlet port of the base and wherein the cover comprises a wall extending along the longitudinal direction (Figure 1; Paragraphs 33-36, 43);
wherein the wall of the base or the wall of the cover or both comprise at least one heat exchange region (region at 21) adapted to transfer heat from an outer area to an inner area of the chamber and opposite the outer area (Figure 1; Paragraph 44; Heat will transfer from 21 at the outer area of 12 through the wall of 12 and into the interior chamber 16);
characterized in that the wall of the base or the wall of the cover or both comprises a structural metallic material which is selected from: steel; and a metallic material comprising aluminum as the ingredient in the highest amount by weight (Figure 1; Paragraphs 42 and 48-54 teach using aluminum for the base and cover); and,
the wall of the base or the wall of the cover or both comprising a structural metallic material extend at least one segment along the longitudinal direction wherein, at least one heat exchange region is arranged between the ends of said segment also according to the longitudinal direction (Figure 1; Paragraphs 33-36, 43; Plate 12 is considered the structural metallic material and the region of 12 occupied by 21 is considered the heat exchange region); and
at least one heat exchange region comprises, and particularly consists of, a metallic heat transfer material (Figure 1; Paragraphs 42 and 48-54 teach using aluminum for the base and cover. Thus the region occupied by 21 comprises aluminum).
Re Claim 2. Vanderwees teaches the metallic heat transfer material in the at least one heat exchange region is selected from: steel, preferably carbon steel; a metallic material comprising copper as the ingredient in the highest amount by weight; and a metallic material comprising aluminum as the ingredient in the highest amount by weight (Figure 1; Paragraphs 42 and 48-54 teach aluminum).
Re Claim 4. Vanderwees teaches the structural metallic material and the metallic heat transfer material are the same material (Figure 1; Paragraphs 42 and 48-54 teach both materials are aluminum).
Re Claim 5. Vanderwees teaches the at least one segment of the structural metallic material is such that a plurality of heat exchange regions are arranged between the ends of said segment according to the longitudinal direction (Figure 1; The heat exchange regions is an abstract delineation, wherein any surface on 12 can arbitrability split into “heat exchange regions”).
Re Claim 6. Vanderwees teaches the wall of the base, of the cover, or of both, is a flat plate (Figure 1).
Re Claim 7. Vanderwees teaches the at least one heat exchange region is a continuous region in the metallic heat transfer material comprised in said region, said region being adapted to receive one or more electronic devices (21) (Figure 1; Paragraphs 33-37).
Re Claim 8. Vanderwees teaches an attachment material (i.e. aluminum atoms) between the metallic heat transfer material comprised in the at least one heat exchange region and the structural metallic material (Figure 1; Paragraphs 42 and 48-54).
Re Claim 9. Vanderwees teaches the attachment between the metallic heat transfer material comprised in the at least one heat exchange region and the structural metallic material is obtained by leak-tight sealing through the attachment material (Figure 1; Paragraphs 42 and 48-54; The continuous aluminum sheet will be leak-tight).
Re Claim 10. Vanderwees teaches the cover is made of a sheet metal and comprises a larger flat surface limited along the perimeter by a perimeter wall, wherein the perimeter wall of the cover is fixed to the base (Figure 1).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderwees (US2021/0222967A1, as cited in the IDS) in view of Yang (US2021/0410329A1).
Re Claim 3. Vanderwees teaches the structural metallic material and the metallic heat transfer material are the same material (Figure 1; Paragraphs 48-54) but fails to specifically teach the structural metallic material and the metallic heat transfer material are different.
However, Yang teaches the structural metallic material (244) and the metallic heat transfer material (209) are different (Figure 2d; Paragraphs 24-28, 41; Yang teaches the structural frame 244 can be formed of steel and the heat transfer region 209 formed of copper. Thus Yang teaches the structural metallic material and the metallic heat transfer material are different). Yang teaches the benefit of the configuration is to prevent deformation while providing thin high heat transfer areas (Paragraphs 13, 21, 23, 41).
Therefore, in view of Yang's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the structural metallic material and the metallic heat transfer material of Vanderwees as different materials in order to provide high heat transfer at the heat transfer region while still providing structural support for the assembly to prevent deformation, thereby improving the overall heat transfer efficiency of the assembly. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the structural metallic material and the metallic heat transfer material of Vanderwees as different materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re Claim 14. Vanderwees teaches sealing the two plates together at flanges (24) (Figure 1) but fails to specifically teach fixing means configured to exert a force transverse to the wall of the base.
However, Yan teaches fixing means (bolts 212 through holes in the base and cover) configured to exert a force transverse to the wall of the base (Figure 2d; Paragraphs 19, 30).
Therefore, in view of Yang's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use fixing means to exert a force transverse to the wall of the base of Vanderwees in order to provide secure mounting of the heat exchanger to a heat exchange system, as is well understood in the art.
Claims 11 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderwees (US2021/0222967A1, as cited in the IDS) in view of Nakanishi (US7564129B2).
Re Claim 11. Vanderwees fails to specifically teach one or more fin blocks for heat exchange arranged inside the chamber for the passage of the coolant, wherein the at least one fin block for heat exchange is attached to the inner area of the wall of a heat exchange region and is separated from the internal surface of the chamber located opposite, that is, if the fin block is attached to the wall of the base then it is separated from the cover and, if the fin block is attached to the wall of the cover then it is separated from the base.
However, Nakanishi teaches one or more fin blocks (5) for heat exchange arranged inside the chamber for the passage of the coolant, wherein the at least one fin block for heat exchange is attached to the inner area of the wall of a heat exchange region and is separated from the internal surface of the chamber located opposite, that is, if the fin block is attached to the wall of the base then it is separated from the cover and, if the fin block is attached to the wall of the cover then it is separated from the base (Figure 7 illustrates that the tips of the fins 5 are spaced apart from the surface 40; Column 8 lines 35-60).
Therefore, in view of Nakanishi 's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add fin blocks to the chamber of Vanderwees in order to increase the heat transfer surface area, thereby increasing the heat transfer capabilities of Vanderwees. The use of internal fin blocks is well-known and understood in the art.
Re Claim 12. Vanderwees as modified by Nakanishi teach the fins comprise a metallic material comprising copper as the ingredient in the highest amount by weight; or a metallic material comprising aluminum as the ingredient in the highest amount by weight (Vanderwees Figure 1; Nakanishi Figure 7, Column 2 lines 42-54 teaches the fins are formed from aluminum-silicon carbide, wherein aluminum is the majority element). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the fins from a metallic material comprising copper as the ingredient in the highest amount by weight; or a metallic material comprising aluminum as the ingredient in the highest amount by weight, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
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 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