Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/688,138

HEAT EXCHANGER FOR A COOLANT LOOP

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Feb 29, 2024
Examiner
DIAZ, MIGUEL ANGEL
Art Unit
3763
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
VALEO SYSTEMES THERMIQUES
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
378 granted / 477 resolved
+9.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
496
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
36.6%
-3.4% vs TC avg
§102
28.5%
-11.5% vs TC avg
§112
30.9%
-9.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 477 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections The following claims are objected to because of informalities, wherein appropriate correction is required: In claim 1: The recitation of “the inlet line”, in line 14, should instead be amended to –the coolant inlet line—, to avoid antecedent basis issues and potential ambiguities. The recitation of “the outlet line”, in lines 16-17, should instead be amended to –the coolant outlet line—, to avoid antecedent basis issues and potential ambiguities. The recitation of “the inlet line”, in the fifth-to-last-line, should instead be amended to –the coolant inlet line—, to avoid antecedent basis issues and potential ambiguities. The recitation of “the outlet line”, in the fourth-to-last-line, should instead be amended to –the coolant outlet line—, to avoid antecedent basis issues and potential ambiguities. The recitation of “the outlet line”, in the second and third-to-last-line, should instead be amended to –the coolant outlet line—, to avoid antecedent basis issues and potential ambiguities. The recitation of “the inlet line”, in the last two lines, should instead be amended to –the coolant inlet line—, to avoid antecedent basis issues and potential ambiguities. In claim 16: The recitation of “the inlet line”, in line 12, should instead be amended to –the coolant inlet line—, to avoid antecedent basis issues and potential ambiguities. The recitation of “the outlet line”, in line 14, should instead be amended to –the coolant outlet line—, to avoid antecedent basis issues and potential ambiguities. The recitation of “the inlet line”, in line 17, should instead be amended to –the coolant inlet line—, to avoid antecedent basis issues and potential ambiguities. The recitation of “the outlet line”, in line 18, should instead be amended to –the coolant outlet line—, to avoid antecedent basis issues and potential ambiguities. The recitation of “the outlet line”, in line 19, should instead be amended to –the coolant outlet line—, to avoid antecedent basis issues and potential ambiguities. The recitation of “the inlet line”, in line 20, should instead be amended to –the coolant inlet line—, to avoid antecedent basis issues and potential ambiguities. The recitation of “the outlet line”, in line 23, should instead be amended to –the coolant outlet line—, to avoid antecedent basis issues and potential ambiguities. The recitation of “the inlet line”, in line 26, should instead be amended to –the coolant inlet line—, to avoid antecedent basis issues and potential ambiguities. In claim 17: The recitation of “the inlet line”, in line 13, should instead be amended to –the coolant inlet line—, to avoid antecedent basis issues and potential ambiguities. The recitation of “the outlet line”, in line 14, should instead be amended to –the coolant outlet line—, to avoid antecedent basis issues and potential ambiguities. The recitation of “the inlet line”, in line 18, should instead be amended to –the coolant inlet line—, to avoid antecedent basis issues and potential ambiguities. The recitation of “the outlet line”, in lines 18-19, should instead be amended to –the coolant outlet line—, to avoid antecedent basis issues and potential ambiguities. The recitation of “the outlet line”, in line 20, should instead be amended to –the coolant outlet line—, to avoid antecedent basis issues and potential ambiguities. The recitation of “the inlet line”, in line 21, should instead be amended to –the coolant inlet line—, to avoid antecedent basis issues and potential ambiguities. The recitation of “the outlet line”, in line 23, should instead be amended to –the coolant outlet line—, to avoid antecedent basis issues and potential ambiguities. The recitation of “the inlet line”, in line 26, should instead be amended to –the coolant inlet line—, to avoid antecedent basis issues and potential ambiguities. The recitation of “the valve first”, in the second-to-last line should be amended to –the first valve—, for grammatical purposes. 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. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 1 contains the following issues: The claim recites “at the other end”, in line 16, without proper antecedent basis. It is unclear how many ends the inlet line requires for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –at a second end—. The claim recites “the outlet of the first outlet manifold”, in line 18, without explicit antecedent basis. It is unclear whether “the outlet” pertains to at least one of “the outlet orifices”, or to some other outlet. For examination purposes, the quoted limitation will be construed as –the at least one outlet orifice of the first outlet manifold—. Claim 7 contains the following issues: The claim recites “a second conduit”, without a corresponding “first conduit”. It is unclear how many conduits of the outlet line of the second outlet manifold are required for anticipation or infringement. It is also unclear whether claim 7 was intended to depend on claim 6, instead of claim 3. For examination purposes, the claim will be construed as only requiring a single conduit for the second outlet manifold. Claim 16 contains the following issues: The claim recites “at the other end”, in line 13, without proper antecedent basis. It is unclear how many ends the inlet line requires for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –at a second end—. The claim recites “the outlet of the first outlet manifold”, in line 15, without proper antecedent basis. It is unclear whether anticipation or infringement require the “at least one outlet orifice” of the first outlet manifold, or some other outlet. For examination purposes, the quoted recitation will be construed as “the at least one outlet orifice of the first outlet manifold”. Claim 17 contains the following issues: The claim recites “at the other end”, in line 14, without proper antecedent basis. It is unclear how many ends the inlet line requires for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –at a second end—. The claim recites “the inlet of the second inlet manifold”, in line 27, without proper antecedent basis. It is unclear whether anticipation or infringement require “the at least one inlet” of the second inlet manifold, or some other inlet. For examination purposes, the quoted recitation will be construed as “the at least one inlet of the second inlet manifold”. Any remaining claims are rejected at least by virtue of their dependency. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action. The prior art, when taken as a whole, neither anticipates nor renders prima facie obvious the claimed invention as recited in at least claims 1, 16 and 17. The closest prior art references of record appear to be Kimura et al. (US 12152814 B2), Frainet et al. (EP 2818822 B1), and Matsumoto et al. (US 20140202194 A1). At best, Kimura et al. discloses a heat exchanger (104) for a coolant loop (300), comprising a heat-exchange surface (2), a first heat-exchange circuit (of 104A) including a first inlet manifold (4 of 104A) and a first outlet manifold (3 of 104A) between which a first set of tubes (1 of 104A) extends longitudinally (see at least fig. 1), the first inlet manifold (4 of 104A) which is fed through at least one respective inlet orifice (at the interface with 7), the first outlet manifold (3 of 104A) including at least one outlet orifice (orifice for 5), the heat exchanger (104) further comprising a second heat-exchange circuit (of 104B) including a second inlet manifold (3 or 4 of 104B) and a second outlet manifold (4 or 3, respectively, of 104B) between which a second set of tubes (1 of 104B) extends longitudinally (see at least fig. 1), the second inlet manifold (3 or 4 of 104B) including at least one inlet (at 5 or 6), the second outlet manifold (4 or 3, respectively) opening into at least one respective outlet orifice (orifice for 8 or 9), the heat exchanger (104) further comprising a coolant inlet line (7) and a coolant outlet line (8 or 9) that are designed to be connected fluidically to the coolant loop (300), the inlet line (7) being fluidically connected at one end to the at least one inlet orifice (at the interface with 4) of the first inlet manifold (4 of 104A), the coolant outlet line (8 or 9) being fluidically connected to one of the outlet orifices (orifice for 8 or 9) of the second outlet manifold (4 or 3, respectively) and to the at least one outlet orifice (for 5) of the first outlet manifold (3 of 104A). However, Kimura et al. fails to disclose the first inlet manifold participating in delimiting at least two inlet collector chambers, each of which is fed through the at least one respective inlet orifice; the second outlet manifold participating in delimiting at least two outlet collector chambers, each opening into at least one respective outlet orifice; the tubes of the first set of tubes being stacked alternately with the tubes of the second set of tubes; the inlet line being fluidically connected at a second end to the at least one inlet of the second inlet manifold; or wherein the heat exchanger further comprises at least one four-way valve that is able to adopt a first position in which the four-way valve fluidically connects one of the inlet orifices of the first inlet manifold to the inlet line and one of the outlet orifices of the second outlet manifold to the outlet line, and at least a second position in which the four-way valve fluidically connects one of the inlet orifices of the first inlet manifold to the outlet line and one of the outlet orifices of the second outlet manifold to the inlet line. Although some other prior art references, such as Frainet et al. and Matsumoto et al., appear to suggest inlet manifolds with different chambers, they fail to teach or disclose the remaining limitations of the valve configurations and resulting fluid flows as a whole. It should also be noted that the intended purpose and operating principles of the prior art require the specific arrangement of fluid lines and connections as disclosed and described therein. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any modifications to the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention would be based on improper hindsight, and would render it inoperable for its intended purpose. Assuming arguendo, rearranging and/or replacing the fluid lines, valves or manifolds of the prior art would change the principles of operation thereof, since it would require completely redesigning the structure of the heat exchange system, most likely resulting in unexpected and/or unintended results, which is evidence against a prima facie case of obviousness. Thus, a preponderance of the evidence appears to support the allowability of the claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIGUEL A DIAZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time. 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 C. 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. /MIGUEL A DIAZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 29, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595937
THERMAL MANAGEMENT APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589631
METHOD FOR CONTROLLING A REFRIGERATION SYSTEM OF A VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584664
INTEGRATED REFRIGERANT CHARGE COLLECTOR FOR HEAT PUMPS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583590
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR AN AIRCRAFT HAVING A VAPOR COMPRESSION SYSTEM WITH A FLASH LIQUID EXPANDER TURBINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578127
COOLING SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+12.3%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 477 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month