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 previously elected without traverse of Species D (Figures 23-26) in the reply filed on 2/13/2026.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 7/1/2026 are as follows:
Claims 9 and 12 are cancelled by the applicant;
Claims 1-8, 10, 11, and 13-26 are pending;
Claims 1-8, 10, and 11 are withdrawn from consideration;
Claims 13-26 are being examined.
Specification
The amended title of the invention was received on 7/1/2026 and is accepted.
The amended specification was received on 7/1/2026 and is accepted.
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on 7/1/2026 and are accepted.
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 three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Currently, no claim limitations invoke 112(f).
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 13-22 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kasamatsu (US2018/0306529A1, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 13. Kasamatsu teaches a fin (1) comprising:
a fin body (1) including a tube insertion hole (11) opened along a first direction being one direction being perpendicular to an upward/downward direction, and configured such that a tube extending along the first direction is inserted thereinto (Figures 1-4; Paragraph 18); and
a protrusion part (12) protruding from an edge region being a region of the fin body, which defines the tube insertion hole, in the first direction, wherein the protrusion part includes (Figures 4-5; Paragraph 18):
a protrusion part body (12) (Figures 4-5; Paragraph 18);
a first groove (one of the recessed portions between 12a) formed to be recessed from a first protruding portion being a portion of the protrusion part body, which is located in a second direction being one direction being perpendicular to the first direction and an upward/downward direction, in an opposite direction to the first direction (Figures 4-5; Paragraph 18); and
a second groove (one of the recessed portions between 12a) recessed from a second protruding portion being a portion of the protrusion part body, which is located in an opposite direction to the second direction, in the opposite direction to the first direction (Figures 4-5; Paragraph 18).
Re Claim 26. Kasamatsu teaches a heat exchanger (Figures 1-2 illustrate a heat exchanger comprising tube 3, fins 1, and housing 2) comprising:
a tube (3) extending along a first direction (Figures 1-5; Paragraphs 16-18); and
a fin (1), into which the tube is inserted, wherein the fin includes (Figures 4-5; Paragraph 18):
a fin body (1) including a tube insertion hole (11), into which the tube is inserted (Figures 4-5; Paragraph 18); and
a protrusion part (12) protruding from an edge region being a region of the fin body, which defines the tube insertion hole, in the first direction, and wherein the protrusion part includes (Figures 4-5; Paragraph 18):
a protrusion part body (12) (Figures 4-5; Paragraph 18); and
a groove (one of the recessed portions between 12a) formed to be recessed from the protrusion part body in an opposite direction to the first direction (Figures 4-5; Paragraph 18).
Re Claim 14. Kasamatsu teaches the second groove overlaps the first groove when viewed along the second direction (Figures 4-5; Paragraph 18).
Re Claim 15. Kasamatsu teaches first groove is formed to be tapered in an upward/downward direction as it goes in an opposite direction to the first direction (Figures 4-5; Paragraph 18, the edges of the grooves are tapered towards 12a).
Re Claim 16. Kasamatsu teaches the first groove has a shape corresponding to the second groove (Figures 4-5; Paragraph 18).
Re Claim 17. Kasamatsu teaches wherein when a region of the first protruding portion, which is located on a lower side, is defined as a lower side region, the first groove is formed in the lower side region (Figures 4-5; Paragraph 18; A groove is formed on the lower side).
Re Claim 18. Kasamatsu teaches the protruding part further includes: a first boss (12a) formed to protrude from the first protruding portion in the first direction; and a second boss (12a) formed to protrude from the second protruding portion in the first direction (Figures 4-5; Paragraph 18).
Re Claim 19. Kasamatsu teaches the first boss is disposed not to match up with the second boss when viewed along the second direction (Figures 4-5; Paragraph 18; Upper and lower bosses 12a are not aligned).
Re Claim 20. Kasamatsu teaches the first groove is located on a lower side of the first boss (Figures 4-5; Paragraph 18).
Re Claim 21. Kasamatsu teaches the second groove is located on an upper side of the second boss (Figures 4-5; Paragraph 18).
Re Claim 22. Kasamatsu teaches the first boss is formed to be tapered in the upward/downward direction as it goes in the first direction (Figures 4-5; Paragraph 18; Boss 12a is tapered to formed a curved profile).
Re Claim 24. Kasamatsu teaches the first boss has a shape corresponding to that of the second boss (Figures 4-5; Paragraph 18).
Re Claim 25. Kasamatsu teaches the fin body further includes an application hole (13) disposed on an upper side of the tube insertion hole, communicated with the tube insertion hole, and opened along the first direction (Figures 4-5; Paragraph 18; Figure 5 illustrates the application hole 13 at the upper side of the tube insertion hole).
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasamatsu (US2018/0306529A1, as cited in the IDS) in view of Mitchell (US2005/0155750, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 23. Kasamatsu teaches a length of the first boss in the upward/downward direction and a length of the first groove in the upward/downward direction (Figures 4-5; Paragraph 18), but fails to specifically teach a length of the first boss in the upward/downward direction is greater than a length of the first groove in the upward/downward direction.
However, Mitchell teaches it is known to form a length of the first boss (30) in the upward/downward direction is greater than a length of the first groove (32) in the upward/downward direction (Figure 3; Paragraphs 21-23)
Therefore, in view of Mitchell'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 first boss of Kasamatsu in the upward/downward direction is greater than a length of the first groove of Kasamatsu in the upward/downward direction in order to provide increased contact area between the fin and tube, thereby increasing the heat transfer capability of the fin. Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the size of the boss and groove, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV, A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant generally argues on pages 10-14 that Kasamatsu does not teach the first and second grooves. Kasamatsu teaches a first groove (one of the recessed portions between 12a) formed to be recessed from a first protruding portion being a portion of the protrusion part body, which is located in a second direction being one direction being perpendicular to the first direction and an upward/downward direction, in an opposite direction to the first direction (Figures 4-5; Paragraph 18); and a second groove (one of the recessed portions between 12a) recessed from a second protruding portion being a portion of the protrusion part body, which is located in an opposite direction to the second direction, in the opposite direction to the first direction (Figures 4-5; Paragraph 18). Therefore, it is seen that Kasamatsu does teach the first and second grooves as currently claimed. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
The applicant further asserts on page 11 “Thus, the claimed grooves are not merely regions located between adjacent bosses. Rather, the claimed grooves are structural features formed by recessing portions of the protrusion part body itself”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., specific structure of the grooves and how that distinguishes from other regions as argued) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim requires that the groove is only formed to be recessed from the protruding part. Since there are recessed portions between 12a, those recessed portions read on the first and second groove as currently claimed. Therefore, the applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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