Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/722,036

HEAT EXCHANGER

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jun 20, 2024
Examiner
JONES, GORDON A
Art Unit
3763
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Hanon Systems
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
331 granted / 548 resolved
-9.6% vs TC avg
Strong +39% interview lift
Without
With
+39.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
65 currently pending
Career history
613
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
50.3%
+10.3% vs TC avg
§102
22.0%
-18.0% vs TC avg
§112
27.1%
-12.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 548 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §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 Election/Restrictions Claims 1-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/02/2026. Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B (figs 21-28) in the reply filed on 2/02/2026 is acknowledged. 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. Claims 19-22 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 19-22 recites the limitation "the end cap". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 21 recites the limitation " the bent tab of the end cap at a position corresponding to the tank side ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 21 recites the limitation " the bent tab at a position corresponding to the header side ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency from a claim that has been rejected. 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. Claim(s) 12-15, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuelson US 2010/0300667 Al in view of Seo et al. US 2013/0180695 Al. Re claim 12, Samuelson teach a heat exchanger comprising: a tank (3) having an opened lower side; a header (enlarged right portion fig 2), the header configured to define a space, in which a heat exchange medium is stored and flows, by being coupled to the tank; a baffle (26) coupled to an outer side of the tank and an outer side of the header to cover and block an opened side of an assembly made by coupling the tank and the header , the baffle having an opening penetrating two opposite surfaces of the baffle (fig 2); and a nozzle (24, 66, 28) having an insertion portion having at least a part formed in a shape corresponding to an inner shape of the tank, the insertion portion being inserted and coupled into an inner side defined by the tank and the header (fig 2). Samuelson fail to explicitly teach header details. Seo et al. teach a tank having an opened lower side; a header into which the opened lower side of the tank is inserted for header assembly (para 55, ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include header details as taught by Seo et al. in the Samuelson invention in order to advantageously allow for better bonding and reliability. Re claim 13, Samuelson teach wherein an upper side of the insertion portion of the nozzle is in contact with an inner peripheral surface of the tank, and a lower side of the insertion portion is in contact with and supported by an inner peripheral surface of the header (annotated fig). PNG media_image1.png 585 723 media_image1.png Greyscale Re claim 14, Samuelson teach wherein an upper side of the opening of the baffle is formed to correspond to an inner peripheral surface of the tank, and a lower side of the opening is formed in a curved shape connected to the upper side without a level difference (figs, noting the level difference is broad and depends on orientation, and the hole extends in one horizontal plane ). Re claim 15, Samuelson teach wherein the baffle has a bent tab extending and bent from a periphery toward an outer surface of the tank and an outer surface of the header (figs). Re claim 18, Samuelson teach wherein the nozzle further comprises a pipe connection portion (72) extending from the insertion portion and having a larger diameter of the insertion portion (figs 2-3). Re claim 19, Seo et al. teach wherein the tank and the header are formed in two rows, the baffle is coupled to one of the two rows, and the end cap (31, 32), which has a shape in which two opposite surfaces are blocked, is coupled to the other of the two rows at a position corresponding to the baffle and coupled to an opened outer side of an assembly made by coupling the tank and the header (fig 2) for header assembly (para 55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include header details as taught by Seo et al. in the Samuelson invention in order to advantageously allow for better bonding and reliability. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuelson US 2010/0300667 Al in view of Seo et al. US 2013/0180695 Al and Jeon US 20130312454 A1. Re claim 16, Samuelson, as modified, fail to explicitly teach tab details. Jeon teach wherein the bent tab of the baffle (150) is provided as a plurality of bent tabs (fig 5), and the bent tab of the baffle at a position corresponding to the tank side and the bent tab positioned at the position corresponding to the header side are disposed to be spaced apart from each other (fig 5) to accommodate the different width portions of the header. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include tab details as taught by Jeon in the Samuelson, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for improved heat exchanger performance. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuelson US 2010/0300667 Al in view of Seo et al. US 2013/0180695 Al and Lim US 20140069136 A1. Re claim 17, Samuelson, as modified, fail to explicitly teach tab details. Jeon teach wherein a catching projection protrudes from an inner surface of the header, and a lower end of the tank is in contact with and supported by the catching projection (annotated fig) to accommodate header construction . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include tab details as taught by Jeon in the Samuelson, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for improved heat exchanger performance with greater stability. PNG media_image2.png 701 599 media_image2.png Greyscale Claim(s) 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuelson US 2010/0300667 Al in view of Seo et al. US 2013/0180695 Al and KR ‘698 KR 10-2014-0095698, as cited on the IDS. Re claim 20, Samuelson, as modified, fail to explicitly teach baffle details. KR ‘698 teach wherein the end cap (middle 440) has a bent tab extending and bent from a periphery toward an outer surface of the tank and an outer surface of the header (fig 8, noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘tab’ is 1 a : a short projecting device: such as (1) : a small flap or loop by which something may be grasped or pulled (2) : a projection from a card used as an aid in filing b : a small insert, addition, or remnant c : appendage, extension ) to accommodate the different width portions of the header. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include baffle details as taught by KR ‘698 in the Samuelson, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for improved heat exchanger performance with multiple adjacent headers. Re claim 21, Samuelson, as modified, fail to explicitly teach tab details. KR ‘698 teach wherein the bent tab of the end cap is provided as a plurality of bent tabs (annotated fig), and the bent tab of the end cap at a position corresponding to the tank side and the bent tab at a position corresponding to the header side are disposed to be spaced apart from each other (fig 8, noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘tab’ is 1 a : a short projecting device: such as (1) : a small flap or loop by which something may be grasped or pulled (2) : a projection from a card used as an aid in filing b : a small insert, addition, or remnant c : appendage, extension ) to accommodate the different width portions of the header. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include tab details as taught by KR ‘698 in the Samuelson, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for improved heat exchanger performance with multiple adjacent headers. PNG media_image3.png 248 338 media_image3.png Greyscale Re claim 22, Samuelson, as modified, fail to explicitly teach baffle details. KR ‘698 teach wherein the baffle (left or right portion of 440) and the end cap (middle portion of 440) are integrated into a single connected shape (fig 8) to accommodate the different width portions of the header. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include baffle details as taught by KR ‘698 in the Samuelson, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for improved heat exchanger performance with multiple adjacent headers. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST. 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. /GORDON A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 20, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595065
100% AMBIENT AIR ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12568605
LOOP HEAT PIPE FOR LOW VOLTAGE DRIVES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12528588
VARIABLE CHILLER EXHAUST WITH CROWN VENTILATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12531218
WAFER PLACEMENT TABLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12529524
ULTRA-THIN HEAT PIPE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD OF THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 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
60%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+39.1%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 548 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