Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/693,439

HEAT EXCHANGER, AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING HEAT EXCHANGER

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Mar 19, 2024
Examiner
AVERICK, LAWRENCE
Art Unit
3799
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Sanhua (Hangzhou) Micro Channel Heat Exchanger Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
498 granted / 658 resolved
+5.7% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
13 currently pending
Career history
671
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
47.1%
+7.1% vs TC avg
§102
29.5%
-10.5% vs TC avg
§112
20.9%
-19.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 658 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant elected Group 2 claims 13 – 20. Claims 1 - 12 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/05/2025. The restriction is made FINAL. Prior art of Record The prior art made of record in this office action shall be referred to as follows; U.S. 2012/0227939 Norbert Aplienz (‘Aplienz hereafter), App 13/065772 The above references will be referred to hereafter by the names or numbers indicated above. Claim status: Claims 1 - 20 are currently being examined. Claims 1 –12 have been withdrawn. Claims 21 – 30 have been canceled. No Claims are allowed or objected to for allowable subject matter. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first gap must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The first gap is limited in claim 13. The specification discusses the first gap as well as the first seam. However, the first seam and the first gap are not discussed in any relation to each other. Further the distances L1 and L2 in claim 13 are not shown in the drawings. No new matter should be entered. 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 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. 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. Claim 13 is 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 13 recites: “the first gap penetrates the second wall in the thickness direction.” It is unclear what is meant by “the first gap penetrates the second wall in the thickness direction.” Examiner shall examine with the understanding that the center of one tube to another tube, while penetrating the tube to the center of the tube, and from the outside of one tube wall to the other outside of the other tube wall there will be the gap between the two tubes. Said limitation will be understood to be a theoretical dimension and not one that can be measured. Further, the gap does not have a distance, degree or range of dimensions, and the specification does not the distance. Still further, since the heat exchanger’s convection media is not specified, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the minimum distance to allow a flow through the gap since the minimum gap for a liquid would be larger than one for a gas. The term “minimum distance” in claims 13 - 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimum distance” 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. The term minimum distance does not have any terms of degree and renders the claims indefinite. The minimum distance may be different if a gas were to pass between the tubes or a liquid. The minimum distance and the gap would have to be defined. A ”predetermined distance” in claim 13 is not defined. Claim 13 recites: “first gap is formed between an end portion of the first wall and an end portion of the second wall.” It is unclear what end portion is being claimed. Examiner shall understand said “end portion” to be the end outside of a tube. Claim 16 recites: ”placing the second wall of a Lth tube towards a L−1th tube, N/2<L<N, and the second wall of the Lth tube being closer to the L−1th tube in the first direction compared to the first wall of the Lth tube.” Examiner understands L1 to be the “minimum distance” between the second wall of the first tube and the first wall of the second tube. The direction is Vertical and the second wall of the first tube is the bottom wall of the first tube, and the first wall of the second tube is the top wall of the second tube the distance between is L1, Fig 1. L-1th tube is not defined in the specification or the claims. If L1 is a minimum distance between the second wall of the first tube and the first wall of the second tube, and the sequence of N#’s increases from top to bottom a distance using L-1 would be using a tube before the first tube. L-1 and L-1th is indefinite for the reasons above and in the 35 USC 102 rejection below. Applicant has not defined the sequence or series using L1 and L2, L-1th numbers and contradicts the use of L1 and L2. Claim 18 recites: “placing the second walls of the first tube to a N/2th tube towards the Nth tube.” Claim 18 is unclear. Examiner believes claim should read: “ “placing the second walls of the first tube [[to]] towards a N/2th tube towards the Nth tube.” Since there is a gap between the tubes and the middle tube in a series of tubes would have a first, a second, a middle tube and a last tube which would have at least 4 tubes in the series and the first tube would touch the middle tube. However, an even number of tubes does not have a middle tube. 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 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. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2012/0227939 Norbert Aplienz (‘Aplienz hereafter). Regarding Claim[s] 13, ‘Aplienz discloses all the claim limitations including: A method for processing a heat exchanger (‘Aplienz, Abst, “The present invention relates to a turbulence insert (21) for flat pipes (4) for heat exchangers, to a flat pipe (4) for heat exchangers, particularly for pipes in mobile and stationary liquefiers, evaporators, and heating system, having such an internal turbulence insert (21), as well as to a heat exchanger having such flat pipes (4), as well as to a method as well as a device for the production of such a flat pipe (4).” Processing is understood to be a method of manufacturing), comprising: preparing a plurality of heat exchange tube semi-finished products (‘Aplienz, Fig 1, #4 (multiple flat pipes)), the heat exchange tube semi-finished product comprising a first wall and a second wall arranged in a thickness direction of the heat exchange tube semi-finished product (‘Aplienz, Fig 1, #4 (multiple flat pipes) inherently has a top wall and a bottom wall/ first wall and second wall, and the tubes are arranged in a horizontal direction from end to end and stacked in a vertical direction, semi-finished product is understood to be at a stage of manufacturing prior to fully completed fabrication), the heat exchange tube semi-finished product having a first gap (‘Aplienz, Fig 1, multiple locations are designated #4, and Fig 1 shows a gap between the tubes), wherein the first gap is configured in at least one of following manners: the first gap penetrates the second wall in the thickness direction; or the first gap is formed between an end portion of the first wall and an end portion of the second wall (‘Aplienz, Fig 1, Examiner understands this to be a gap between the outside wall of the first wall and the second wall, Para 0024, “The heat exchanger 1 according to the invention (FIG. 1) has an inlet collection container 2, an outlet collection container 3 disposed at a distance from the former, multiple flat pipes 4 according to the invention disposed parallel to one another and next to one another, as well as spaced apart from one another, as well as lamella-type or corrugated-type metal sheets 5, preferably disposed between the flat pipes 4 and standing in connection with them, which sheets serve to increase the heat exchange surface.”); arranging N heat exchange tube semi-finished products spaced apart by a predetermined distance in a first direction, N>4 (‘Aplienz, Fig 1, shows 15 tubes, at a distance. However, Applicant’s “predetermined distance” is undefined), the thickness direction of the heat exchange tube semi-finished product being parallel or angled to the first direction (‘Aplienz, Fig 1, shows a parallel arrangement of tubes, Para 0024), and in the first direction (‘Aplienz, Fig 1, shows the vertical direction of the stack of parallel tubes, Para 0024), the arranged heat exchange tube semi-finished products being sequentially defined as a first tube, a second tube, . . . , a N−1th tube, and a Nth tube (‘Aplienz, Fig 1, shows 15 tubes, the top most tube is the first tube, and the tube vertically just underneath the top tube is the second tube. Tubes under the first and second are sequentially increasing the tube number from top to bottom.); placing the second wall of the first tube towards the second tube, and the second wall of the first tube being closer to the second tube in the first direction compared to the first wall of the first tube (Examiner understands the gap between the first and second tube to be closer together than the distance of the inside diameter (i.d.) of the first tube, but the gap is not defined to allow a gas or a liquid to pass between the two tubes. ), so that, in the first direction, a minimum distance between the second wall of the first tube and the first wall of the second tube is L1 (Examiner understands the first direction is a vertical direction, the second wall of the first tube is the bottom wall of the first tube, and the first wall of the second tube is the top wall of the second tube, ‘Aplienz, Fig 1), a minimum distance between the first wall of the first tube and the first wall of the second tube is L2 (Examiner understands the L2 is the distance from the top wall of the first tube to the top wall of the second tube, ‘Aplienz, Fig 1), and L1 is less than L2 (L1 is less than L2 because the distance L2 incorporates the diameter of the tube, whereas L1 is only from the outside of the two tubes, ‘Aplienz, Fig 1); and placing the second wall of the Nth tube towards the N−1th tube (Examiner understands this to be simply a numbering sequence), and the second wall of the Nth tube being closer to the N−1th tube in the first direction compared to the first wall of the Nth tube, so that, in the first direction, a minimum distance between the second wall of the Nth tube and the first wall of the N−1th tube is less than a minimum distance between the first wall of the Nth tube and the first wall of the N−1th tube (Examiner understands the gap between the N-1 tube and the Nth tube to be closer together than the distance of the inside diameter (i.d.) of the N-1 tube, Fig 1). Regarding Claim[s] 14, ‘Aplienz discloses all the claim limitations including: placing the second wall of the second tube towards a third tube, and the second wall of the second tube being closer to the third tube in the first direction compared to the first wall of the second tube, so that a minimum distance between the second wall of the second tube and the first wall of the third tube is less than a minimum distance between the first wall of the second tube and the first wall of the third tube in the first direction; and placing the second wall of the N−1th tube towards a N−2th tube, and the second wall of the N−1th tube being closer to the N−2th tube in the first direction compared to the first wall of the N−1th tube, so that a minimum distance between the second wall of the N−1th tube and the first wall of the N−2th tube is less than a minimum distance between the first wall of the N−1th tube and the first wall of the N−2th tube in the first direction (Examiner understands the sequential pattern of claim 14 is a continuation of the pattern in claim 13 and is simply a numbering sequence. Further Examiner understands the gap between the N-1th tube and the N-2th tube to be closer together than the distance of the inside diameter (i.d.) of the N-2th tube, Fig 1.). Regarding Claim[s] 15, ‘Aplienz discloses all the claim limitations including: placing the second wall of a Mth tube towards a M+1th tube, 2<M<N/2, and the second wall of the Mth tube being closer to the M+1th tube in the first direction compared to the first wall of the Mth tube, so that a minimum distance between the second wall of the Mth tube and the first wall of the M+1th tube is less than a minimum distance between the first wall of the Mth tube and the first wall of the M+1th tube in the first direction (Examiner understands the sequential pattern of claim 15 is a continuation of the pattern in claim 13 and is simply a numbering sequence. Further Examiner understands the gap between the Mth tube and the M+1th tube is a substitute for the Nth terms of claim 13, Fig 1.). Regarding Claim[s] 16, ‘Aplienz discloses all the claim limitations including: placing the second wall of a Lth tube towards a L−1th tube, N/2<L<N, and the second wall of the Lth tube being closer to the L−1th tube in the first direction compared to the first wall of the Lth tube (Examiner understands L1 to be the “minimum distance” between the second wall of the first tube and the first wall of the second tube. The direction is Vertical and the second wall of the first tube is the bottom wall of the first tube, and the first wall of the second tube is the top wall of the second tube the distance between is L1, Fig 1. L-1th tube is not defined in the specification or the claims. If L1 is a minimum distance between the second wall of the first tube and the first wall of the second tube, and the sequence of N#’s increases from top to bottom a distance using L-1 would be using a tube before the first tube.), so that a minimum distance between the second wall of the Lth tube and the first wall of the L−1th tube is less than a minimum distance between the first wall of the Lth tube and the first wall of the L−1th tube in the first direction (Examiner understands the sequential pattern of claim 16 is a continuation of the pattern in claim 13 and is simply a numbering sequence. However, the sequence and series of L-1th has not been defined and contradicts the use of L1 and L2. Further Examiner understands the gap between the Lth tube and the L-1th tube is a substitute for the Lth terms of claim 13, Fig 1.). Regarding Claim[s] 17, ‘Aplienz discloses all the claim limitations including: placing the second wall of the third tube towards a fourth tube, and the second wall of the third tube being closer to the fourth tube in the first direction compared to the first wall of the third tube, so that a minimum distance between the second wall of the third tube and the first wall of the fourth tube is less than a minimum distance between the first wall of the third tube and the first wall of the fourth tube in the first direction; placing the second wall of the fourth tube towards a fifth tube, and the second wall of the fourth tube being closer to the fifth tube in the first direction compared to the first wall of the fourth tube, so that a minimum distance between the second wall of the fourth tube and the first wall of the fifth tube is less than a minimum distance between the first wall of the fourth tube and the first wall of the fifth tube in the first direction; and placing the second wall of the fifth tube towards a sixth tube, and the second wall of the fifth tube being closer to the sixth tube in the first direction compared to the first wall of the fifth tube, so that a minimum distance between the second wall of the fifth tube and the first wall of the sixth tube is less than a minimum distance between the first wall of the fifth tube and the first wall of the sixth tube in the first direction (Examiner understands the sequential pattern of claim 17 is a continuation of the pattern in claim 13 and is simply a numbering sequence. Fig 1.). Regarding Claim[s] 19, ‘Aplienz discloses all the claim limitations including: providing a first header and a second header, connecting one end of each of the plurality of heat exchange tube semi-finished products in its length direction with the first header directly or indirectly (‘Aplienz, Fig 1, #2 (inlet collection container/ first header), #3 (outlet collection container/ second header) are connected to the heat exchanger tube semifinished products along the lengths), and connecting the other end of each of the plurality of heat exchange tube semi-finished products in its length direction with the second header directly or indirectly (‘Aplienz, Fig 1). Regarding Claim[s] 20, ‘Aplienz discloses all the claim limitations including: providing a fin, and placing the fin between two adjacent heat exchange tube semi-finished products in the first direction (‘Aplienz, Fig 1, #5 (lamella-type or corrugated-type metal sheets/ fins)); or providing a fin, and placing part of the fin between two adjacent heat exchange tube semi-finished products in the first direction (‘Aplienz, Fig 1, #5 (lamella-type or corrugated-type metal sheets/ fins)). Conclusion Examiner encourages Applicant to fill out and submit form PTO-SB-439 to allow internet communications in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 (MPEP 02.03). Should the need arise to perfect applicant-proposed or examiner’s amendments, authorization for e-mail correspondence would have already been authorized and would save time. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE AVERICK whose telephone number is (571)270-7565. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 3:00PM M- F ET. 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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. /LAWRENCE AVERICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 12/31/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 19, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601449
Methods for Assembling a Multi-Conic Preform and Manufacturing a Semi-Ellipsoidal Shell Using the Multi-Conic Preform
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600494
MANUFACTURING FACILITY AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594653
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INSTALLING A MANIFOLD PLUG
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589455
SEAL REMOVAL JIG, SEAL REMOVAL METHOD, AND SEAL PORTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583035
COMBINED PROCESSING MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
76%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+23.6%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 658 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