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
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. As evident by the anticipatory reference of claim 1 shown below.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-7 and 17-20, drawn to a heat exchange device.
Group II, claim(s) 8-16, drawn to a method for fluid connection of a pipe.
During a telephone conversation with Jeff Gunn on 2/2/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of I, claims 1-7 and 17-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 8-16 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 provides the acronym EPDM, however, acronyms in patent claims should initially be spelled out and then can be used throughout the rest of the claims.
--- Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0229116, “Nakamura”).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura discloses a heat exchange device (fig 10), comprising:
a main member (T1) having a substantially planar assembly face, the main member comprising aluminum and including a fluid circulation channel leading to a port (see annotated fig 10 below) at the substantially planar assembly face of the main member; and
a connection end piece (BL2) comprising a planar connection base (see annotated fig 10 below), the planar connection base comprising a connection face through which a connection channel opens in an opening (see annotated fig 10 below), the planar connection base being assembled to the main member by way of an adhesive substance (OR2) linking an assembly zone (see annotated fig 10 below) of the substantially planar assembly face, the assembly zone being peripheral to the port, to a connection zone (see annotated fig 10 below) of the connection face, the connection zone is being peripheral to the opening, the opening and the port being in correspondence with one another, the adhesive substance comprising an epoxy adhesive (¶0048), the connection end piece comprising an internal shim (see annotated fig 10 below), projecting relative to the connection zone and circumscribed by the connection zone, the internal shim being configured to define an adhesion space, between the connection zone and the assembly zone wherein the adhesive substance is received.
PNG
media_image1.png
528
761
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura further discloses wherein the adhesive substance (OR2) mechanically sealably links the assembly zone to the connection zone (see annotated fig 10 above).
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura further discloses wherein the connection end piece further comprises a peripheral shim (see annotated fig 10 above) projecting relative to the connection zone and circumscribing the connection zone so as to define, with the internal shim (see annotated fig 10 below), the adhesion space (for OR2).
PNG
media_image2.png
528
761
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Nakamura further discloses wherein the adhesive substance also chemically sealably links the assembly zone to the connection zone (via the epoxy, ¶0048).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lebreton et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0168854, “Lebreton”).
Regarding claim 4, Nakamura discloses all previous claim limitations. However, Nakamura does not explicitly disclose a seal arranged in a groove in the connection face, and interposed between the opening and the internal shim, the internal shim being interposed between the adhesive substance and the groove. Lebreton, however, discloses a connection (fig 5) with a seal (117) arranged in a groove (116) in a connection face (see annotated fig 5 below), and interposed between an opening (see annotated fig 5 below) and an internal shim (see annotated fig 5 below), the internal shim being interposed between an adhesive substance (120) and the groove. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Nakamura to provide the seal of Lebreton in order to reduce the chance of leakage. It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably perti-nent to the particular problem with which the applicant was con-cerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. In this case Lebreton is reasonably perti-nent to the particular problem with which the applicant was con-cerned, i.e. reducing possible leakage.
PNG
media_image3.png
296
584
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 5 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tejima et al. (Japanese Patent Publication JP2004042247A, “Tejima”).
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura discloses all previous claim limitations. However, Nakamura does not explicitly disclose wherein a ratio between a surface area of the connection zone and a surface area of the port is such that an assembly of the connection face and the assembly zone has a tensile strength greater than 1 MPa. Tejima, however, discloses a heat exchange device (fig 1-3) wherein a ratio between a surface area of a connection zone (see annotated fig 3 below) and a surface area of a port (see annotated fig 3 below) is such that an assembly of the connection face and the assembly zone has a tensile strength greater than 1 MPa (page 3, lines 11-13). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Nakamura to have the tensile strength of the device be over 1 MPa in order to improve the reliability of the device.
PNG
media_image4.png
214
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Nakamura and Tejima discloses all previous claim limitations. Nakamura, as modified, further discloses wherein the ratio between the surface area of the connection zone and the surface area of the port is such that the assembly of the connection face and the assembly zone has a tensile strength greater than 4.3 MPa (page 3, lines 11-13 of Tejima).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura.
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura does not explicitly disclose wherein a ratio between a surface area of the connection zone and a surface area of the port is such that an assembly between the connection face and the assembly zone is sealed when a fluid is circulated at a pressure greater than 1 bar. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known to have Helium gas in a cooling system (such as taught by Nakamura) to have a pressure over 1 bar and thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Nakamura to have a ratio between a surface area of the connection zone and a surface area of the port is such that an assembly between the connection face and the assembly zone is sealed when a fluid is circulated at a pressure greater than 1 bar in order to ensure reliable operation.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ryman (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0003346).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura discloses all previous claim limitations. However, Nakamura does not explicitly disclose a motor vehicle provided with a battery pack coupled to a heat exchange device according to claim 1, the heat exchange device configured to regulate a temperature of the battery pack. Ryman, however, discloses a motor vehicle with a battery pack (¶0030) coupled to a heat exchange device (fig 3) the heat exchange device configured to regulate a temperature of the battery pack (¶0030). it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Nakamura to provide the heat exchange device of claim 1 in the motor vehicle of Ryman in order to ensure a reliable port for the fluid.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura and Lebreton as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Asahi et al. (PCT Publication WO2023112285A1, “Asahi”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Nakamura and Lebreton discloses all previous claim limitations. However, they do not explicitly disclose wherein the seal comprises an O-ring seal or a lip seal, the seal being made of EPDM or silicon. Asahi, however, discloses an O-ring seal (30) which is made of silicon (page 17, lines 45-46). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Nakamura, as modified, to provide the seal of Asahi in order to improve sealing performance.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Nakamura and Lebreton discloses all previous claim limitations. However, they do not explicitly disclose wherein the seal is in a compressed state within a range of 10% to 35% with respect to a free state volume of the seal. Asahi, however, discloses a seal which in a compressed state within a range of 10% to 35% with respect to a free state volume of the seal (page 17, lines 54-56). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Nakamura, as modified, to provide the seal of Asahi in order to improve sealing performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY E ARANT whose telephone number is (571)272-1105. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6 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, 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.
/HARRY E ARANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763