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 .
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 1-15, the recitation of “wherein the heat exchanger is configured for operation in an orientation in which the first header-tank assembly is substantially higher with respect to a ground level…arranged downstream…” in claim 1 is considered to be a statement of intended use. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114(II). In the instant case, as noted in the instant application (see Page 6, lines 24-30), the heat exchanger is positioned vertically in a vehicle, however, the “the heat exchanger 1 may be inclined relatively to the ground level, depending on the position of the vehicle”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-15 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.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “a third section arranged downstream to the first section and the second section so that a portion of the second section extends into a gap between the first stack and the second stack, the portion of the second section overlapping at least 50% of the gap length between the first stack and the second stack” is considered new matter. Specifically, the originally filed disclosure does not appear to support the portion of the second section overlapping at least 50% of the gap length as presently claimed. Page 9 of the disclosure provides the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
188
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This paragraph does not appear to support the present amendments, but rather supports that at least 50% of T2 (not the gap T3) is overlapped by the third section, which corresponds to the claimed second section. While it is also contemplated by the disclosure (Page 9) that the “second section 200 may at least partially overlap the gap T3,” this also does not support the present amendment, nor is it reflected in the claims.
Claims 2-15 are rejected for their dependency.
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 1-15 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 1, the recitation “a third section arranged downstream to the first section and the second section so that a portion of the second section extends into a gap between the first stack and the second stack, the portion of the second section overlapping at least 50% of the gap length between the first stack and the second stack” is unclear. Specifically, the portion of the second section is defined as “extend[ing] into a gap between the first and second stack” and further to be “overlapping at least 50% of the gap length between the first stack and the second stack.” It is unclear if the 50% overlap has been conflated with a different dimension (as detailed above & MPEP 21703.03, which requires consistency with the disclosure), or if the “portion of the second section” identified is merely a subset of the second section which extends into and overlaps with the gap, which appears to be only disclosed as a second section extending entirely across the gap (see annotated Fig. 3 below). For purposes of Examination, the latter interpretation will be used.
PNG
media_image2.png
634
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of instant application
Claims 2-15 are rejected for their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 10-11, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) and/or (a) (2) as being anticipated by Yoshida (JP2512981Y).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida discloses a heat exchanger (see Fig. 1-3, & annotated Fig. 2 below, hereinafter Fig. A) for heat exchange between a first fluid and a second fluid, the heat exchanger comprising: a first header-tank (top one of 5) assembly; a second header-tank (bottom one of 5) assembly, wherein the heat exchanger is configured for operation in an orientation in which the first header-tank assembly is substantially higher with respect to a ground level than the second header-tank assembly (Yoshida is capable of being oriented in such a manner); a plurality of tubes (1) arranged in a first stack and in a second stack (see right and left stacks, respectively), wherein the stacks are arranged between the first header-tank assembly and the second header-tank assembly, wherein the second stack is arranged downstream to the first stack with respect to a configured first fluid flow path; at least one fin (2) interlaced between two adjacent tubes of each stack, wherein the fin further comprises: a first section (rightmost group of louvers 3) configured to deflect the first fluid substantially obliquely-upwardly, and a second section (middle group of louvers 3) configured to deflect the first fluid towards the second header-tank assembly, wherein the second section is arranged downstream to the first section with respect to the intended first fluid flow path, and a third section (leftmost group of louvers 3) arranged downstream to the first section and the second section so that the second section is located substantially between the first stack and the second stack. It is noted that the “portion of the second section” (see Fig. A) includes the range of at least 50%, as any arbitrary portion of the second section extending into the gap may be selected from 50% to 100% of the length of the gap.
PNG
media_image3.png
244
316
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. A - Annotated Fig. 2 of Yoshida (flipped orientation)
Regarding claim 2, Yoshida discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Yoshida further discloses wherein the third section deflects the first fluid substantially in the same direction as the first section (see angle of rightmost and leftmost louvers 3).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshida discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Yoshida further discloses the first stack comprises a first thickness measured perpendicularly to a stacking direction and a second stack comprises a second thickness also measured perpendicularly to a stacking direction, wherein the stacks are arranged between the first header-tank assembly, so that the gap (see gap between tubes 1) is formed between the stacks.
Regarding claim 5, Yoshida discloses the limitations of claim 4, and Yoshida further discloses the third section (leftmost group of louvers 3) at least partially overlaps the second thickness (see thickness of leftmost tubes 1) and the first section (rightmost group of louvers 3) at least partially overlaps the first thickness (see thickness of rightmost tubes 1).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshida discloses the limitations of claim 4, and Yoshida further discloses a gap (see gap between tubes 1) between the first stack and the second stack, wherein the gap is smaller than the first thickness or the second thickness.
Regarding claim 7, Yoshida discloses the limitations of claim 6, and Yoshida further discloses the second section (middle section of louvers 3) at least partially overlaps the gap (see gap between tubes 1).
Regarding claim 10, Yoshida discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Yoshida further discloses the first section (rightmost section of louvers 3) comprises at least one first louver aligned at a first louver angle (see angle thereof) measured with respect to the intended first fluid flow direction.
Regarding claim 11, Yoshida discloses the limitations of claim 10, and Yoshida further discloses the second section (middle section of louvers 3) comprises at least one second louver aligned at a second louver angle (see angle thereof) measured with respect to the intended first fluid flow direction.
Regarding claim 15, Yoshida further discloses a motor vehicle (automobile – Page 2) comprising a heat exchanger according to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (JP2512981Y) in view of Kim (KR100812500B1).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshida teaches the limitations of claim 3, and Yoshida is silent to wherein the third section deflects the first fluid in a different direction than the first section.
Kim teaches the third section deflects the first fluid in a different direction than the first section (see Fig. 7, theta.1 and theta.2 & page 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoshida to include the different angled louvers of Kim, in order to adjust the amount of heat exchanger from the upstream tube stack relative to the downstream tube stack (Page 2).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (JP2512981Y) in view of Arino (US20090056921A1).
Regarding claims 8-9, Yoshida teaches the limitations of claim 1, Yoshida is silent to the first/second header-tank assembly comprises two fluidly isolated channels for the first fluid, and wherein the first/second header-tank assembly further comprises an inlet and an outlet for connecting the heat exchanger into first fluid loop.
Arino teaches the first/second header-tank (tank 2, Fig. 1) assembly comprises two fluidly isolated channels (5,6) for the first fluid, and wherein the first/second header-tank assembly further comprises an inlet and an outlet (7,8) for connecting the heat exchanger into first fluid loop.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoshida to include split header configuration of Arino to the first/second header of Yoshida, as it has been held obvious to provide a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (JP2512981Y) in view of Beamer (US20090173478A1).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshida teaches the limitations of claim 11, and Yoshida does not teach the second louver angle α2 is equal to (α1)+90 degrees.
Beamer teaches wherein the second louver angle α2 is equal to (α1)+90 degrees (value of 45 degrees for theta.r and theta.f, the complementary angle of which is theta.f +90, in the ranges in ¶[0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoshida to include the angles of Beamer, as it has been held obvious to try when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 13-14, Yoshida teaches the limitations of claim 12, and Yoshida further teaches the third section comprises at least one third louver aligned at a third louver angle (angle of leftmost louver group angle) measured with respect to the intended first fluid flow direction, the third louver angle is substantially equal to the first louver angle (see angle thereof).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Yoshida fails to disclose a third section arranged downstream to the first section and the second section so that a portion of the second section extends into a gap between the first stack and the second stack, the portion of the second section overlapping at least 50% of the gap length between the first stack and the second stack.
After further consideration, Examiner notes the amendment brings forth new matter and indefiniteness issues, identified above, and thus can still be interpreted to read on the limitations at issue, as detailed in the rejection above. It is noted these issues were not identified by Examiner in the time provided for the review of the proposed amendments for the interview dated 8/14/2025.
For at least the reasons stated above Applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim (KR2007120263A) – see Fig. 6 & 9(c)
PNG
media_image4.png
246
639
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 ERIC S RUPPERT whose telephone number is (571)272-9911. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763