Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/764,038

HIGH PERFORMANCE HEAT EXCHANGER

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 03, 2024
Examiner
ROJOHN III, CLAIRE E
Art Unit
3763
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Applied Materials, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
364 granted / 557 resolved
-4.6% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+18.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
583
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
50.8%
+10.8% vs TC avg
§102
22.0%
-18.0% vs TC avg
§112
25.2%
-14.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 557 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Election/Restrictions Claims 17-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/15/2026. Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 1/15/2026 is acknowledged. 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. Claims 1 and 5-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manzo (US Publication No.: 2018/0187984) in view of Doubina et al (US Publication No.: 2015/0299886 hereinafter “Doubina”). With respect to claim 1, Manzo discloses a heat exchanger (Fig. 5) comprising: a shell (Fig. 5, shell 502); and a gyroid structure (Figs. 3-5, gyroid structures in figs 3-4 and 514 and 512 can be used within the heat exchanger shell 502) comprising a first plurality of holes forming a first fluid path and a second plurality of holes forming a second fluid path (Para 0048, holes for fluid path from inlet 504 to outlet 506 and inlet 508 to outlet 510), wherein the first fluid path and the second fluid path are mutually sealed off (Para 0048 and Fig. 5), wherein the first plurality of holes is configured to pass a coolant through the first fluid path of the heat exchanger, and wherein the second plurality of holes is configured to pass a fluid through the second fluid path of the heat exchanger (Para 0048, holes for fluid path from inlet 504 to outlet 506 and inlet 508 to outlet 510). Manzo discloses the heat exchanger and be used for a wide variety of applications (Para 0076-0091) but is silent to the intended use limitation of configured to pass a plating chemistry fluid through the second fluid path. Doubina teaches a heat exchanger used in a system using a plating chemistry fluid (Para 0108-0109 and 0139). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the heat exchanger of Manzo within the system having a plating chemistry fluid of Doubina to aid in better controlling the temperature of the reaction (Para 0073 of Manzo). It is noted that the phrases “is configured to pass…” are statements of intended use and the structure as disclosed by the combined teachings are capable of performing the function. Further, the teachings disclose all of the structural features of the claim. With respect to claims 5-7, Manzo and Doubina teach the heat exchanger of claim 1 as discussed above. Manzo also discloses wherein each hole of the first plurality of holes has a first diameter (as per claim 5)(Fig. 16, holes in fluid flow path 1604 and 1610), wherein each hole of the second plurality of holes has a second diameter (as per claim 6)(Fig. 16, holes in fluid flow path 1612 and 1606), wherein the second diameter is larger than the first diameter (as per claim 7)(Fig. 16, holes in 1612 and 1606 are larger than the holes in 1610 and 1604 and Para 0067). With respect to claim 8, Manzo and Doubina teach the heat exchanger of claim 1 as discussed above. Manzo also discloses wherein the coolant passes through the first plurality of holes of the first fluid path from a coolant inlet to a coolant outlet ( Fig. 5, coolant inlet 504 on top of shell passes to coolant outlet 506 on the bottom of the shell) With respect to claim 9, Manzo and Doubina teach the heat exchanger of claim 8 as discussed above. Manzo also discloses wherein the coolant inlet is disposed on one side of the shell, and wherein the coolant outlet is disposed on another side of the shell (Fig. 5, coolant inlet 504 on top of shell passes to coolant outlet 506 on the bottom of the shell). With respect to claims 10-11, Manzo and Doubina teach the heat exchanger of claim 8 as discussed above. Manzo also teaches wherein the coolant inlet and the coolant outlet are disposed on a same side of the shell (as per claim 10) wherein the coolant inlet and the coolant outlet are flush with the same side of the shell (as per claim 11)(Fig. 12, inlet 1208 and outlet 1210 are on a same side of shell 1202 and flush with 1202). It would have been obvious to have modified the inlet and outlet ports of the first embodiment with the embodiment in figure 12 to have a desired flow path. With respect to claim 12, Manzo and Doubina teach the heat exchanger of claim 1 as discussed above. Manzo modified by Doubina also discloses wherein the plating chemistry fluid passes through the second plurality of holes of the second fluid path from a plating inlet to a plating outlet (Fig. 5, fluid can pass from inlet 504 to outlet 506). With respect to claim 13, Manzo and Doubina teach the heat exchanger of claim 12 as discussed above. Manzo modified by Doubina teach the plating inlet is disposed on a top side of the shell, and wherein the plating outlet is disposed on a bottom side of the shell (Fig. 5, fluid can pass from inlet 504 at the top side of shell 502 to outlet 506 which is at the bottom of 502). With respect to claim 14, Manzo and Doubina teach the heat exchanger of claim 12 as discussed above. Manzo modified by Doubina teach wherein the plating inlet and the plating outlet are disposed at a same angle (Fig. 5, 504 and 506 are at a same angle). With respect to claim 15, Manzo and Doubina teach the heat exchanger of claim 1 as discussed above. Manzo also teaches wherein the shell is cylindrical (Figs. 10 and 12, shell 1002 and 1202 can be cylindrical). With respect to claim 16, Manzo and Doubina teach the heat exchanger of claim 1 as discussed above. Manzo also teaches wherein the shell is a rectangular prism (Fig. 5 and Fig. 11, Para 0021). Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manzo (US Publication No.: 2018/0187984) in view of Doubina et al (US Publication No.: 2015/0299886 hereinafter “Doubina”) and further in view of Satoh et al. (US Publication No.: 2023/0156969 hereinafter “Satoh”). With respect to claims 2-4, Manzo and Doubina teach the heat exchanger of claim 1 as discussed above. Manzo does not disclose wherein a material of the gyroid structure comprises Tungsten (as per claim 2), Tantalum (as per claim 3) or Zirconium (as per claim 4). Satoh teaches a gyroid heat exchanger that comprises tungsten (Para 0083), tantalum (Para 0083) and zirconium (Para 0083). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the material of the gyroid of Manzo to be tungsten, tantalum or zirconium as taught by Satoh to have a suitable material property for a particular application (Para 0082). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE E ROJOHN III whose telephone number is (571)270-5431. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 M-F. 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. /CLAIRE E ROJOHN III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 03, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604438
MODULE WITH IMPROVED THERMAL COOLING PERFORMANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593555
CERAMIC SUBSTRATE WITH HEAT SINK AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12571292
EXHAUST HEAT RECOVERY FOR A MOBILE POWER GENERATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12575060
COOLING SYSTEM, CABINET, AND DATA CENTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571576
HOT SWAPPABLE PUMP DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
65%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+18.8%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 557 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