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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to the reply filed on August 20, 2026.
Receipt and entry of the replacement drawings, the amended abstract, and the amended claims filed on August 20, 2026 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on August 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are generally not persuasive except as specifically noted hereinbelow.
Applicant has stated that the replacement sheets provide better line quality and remove impermissible black shading in view of the examiner’s suggestions. While it is agreed that, in the replacement drawings, the line quality is at least somewhat improved and that the impermissible black shading has been removed as required, the continued use of a variety of shading for flow arrows in particular reduces the legibility of the various figures showing flow arrows. Therefore, while acceptable for examination purposes, the replacement drawings are still found to be objectionable as not being sufficiently legible and clear. It is strongly recommended that the flow arrows in the drawings be either plain white (i.e., if wide flow arrows) or plain black (i.e., if narrow lines) in order to render the drawings less busy and thus much more legible.
Applicant has also stated that the abstract has been revised in view of the examiner’s suggestions. While the amended abstract has obviated some of the objections thereto, it is hereby respectfully noted that the amended abstract still does not avoid referring to the purported merits and speculative uses of the invention and still fails to summarize the salient structural elements of the invention as required. However, upon rereading of the objections to the abstract as cited by the examiner in the previous Office action, the examiner notes that the objections to the abstract could have been explained more thoroughly by the examiner than they were. Therefore, the examiner is repeating the objections to the abstract while providing more specific suggestions as to how to amend the abstract more satisfactorily.
Applicant has further stated that the claims have been amended to address the previously cited indefiniteness rejections of the claims. While it is true that the previously cited indefiniteness rejections of the claims have been obviated via the amendments to the claims filed on August 20, 2026, the aforementioned amendments to the claims have also introduced new indefiniteness issues into the claims along with at least one new matter issue, all as noted in greater detail hereinbelow.
On the other hand, applicant has also stated that the previously cited anticipatory prior art rejections of claims 1 and 3 through 8 have been overcome via the amendments to the claims which incorporate previously indicated allowable subject matter. Applicants’ arguments relating to the prior art objections having been obviated via the aforementioned amendments to the claims are persuasive and no prior art rejections remain in the instant application.
Election/Restriction
Claims 9, 10, and 15 through 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn the non-elected species and the non-elected invention of Group II. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 28, 2026).
Drawings
The replacement drawings were filed on August 20, 2026. These drawings are acceptable for examination purposes but are still objected to for the reasons set forth below.
The replacement drawings filed on August 20, 2026 are objected to because of poor line quality and/or visibility/readability. 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.
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 vertical axis of each of the pair of headers as newly recited in claim 14 must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. 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.
Specification
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 still objected to because it does not avoid referring to the purported merits and speculative uses of the invention (i.e., throughout the abstract: “in consideration of cooling/heating performance”; “to solve a problem in which cooling performance and heating performance vary depending on the number of paths”; “is designed to change the number of paths in consideration of cooling/heating performance so as to be optimized for performance in a cooling mode and performance in a heating mode”), and because it fails to summarize the salient structural elements of the claimed inventive apparatus along with the corresponding functions thereof without referring to the purported merits thereof as compared to the prior art. 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).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 through 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: “in the header tanks” [claim 1line 5] should be replaced with “in the pair of header tanks” for improved consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
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 6 and 7 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. As amended, claim 6 newly recites that the bypass valve is opened or closed specifically “in accordance with a pre-defined temperature of the refrigerant”. However, there appears to be no support in the originally filed disclosure for the bypass valve to be opened or closed specifically based on the pre-defined temperature of the refrigerant. Therefore, the newly added limitations in claim 6 (and in claim 7 depending therefrom) constitute impermissible new matter because the applicant did not have possession of the newly claimed inventive features as now recited in claim 6 and in claim 7 depending therefrom at the time that the application was filed66ll.
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 and 5 through 8 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.
For example, in claim 1 as amended, there is no proper antecedent basis in the claim for the following limitations in the claims, thus rendering these claims indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby: “the header tank” [claim 1, line 8]—note that “a pair of header tanks” is recited previously in the claim and that reciting “the header tank” makes it unclear to which of the pair of header tanks, if any, and, “the header tank” is intended to refer; “the bypass valve” [claim 1, line 9].
Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected at least as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claims 1 and 5 through 8 would be allowable if rewritten without patentably significant broadening to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 11 through 14 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not show nor reasonably suggest a heat exchanger which includes, in combination, all of the various elements which are functionally and structurally interrelated as recited by claims 1, 5 through 8, and 11 through 14 of the instant application.
Conclusion
The related and/or prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicants’ 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 LJILJANA V CIRIC whose telephone number is (571)272-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Saturday, flexible.
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.
/Ljiljana V. Ciric/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
LJILJANA (Lil) V. CIRIC
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763
