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 .
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 1-4, 12-13, 16, 19 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of “a separate non-circular opening”, wherein it is unclear what “a separate non-circular opening” is referring to. Specifically, it is unclear as to what the exact relationship the “a separate non-circular opening” have with the “at least two non-circular openings”, since the term “a separate non-circular opening” has not differentiated how the “a separate non-circular opening” are distinct from the recited “at least two non-circular openings” (very specific to amount) in the claim. Is the term “a separate non-circular opening” requiring additional openings? Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite , the claim is rendered indefinite , determined to be an antecedent basis issue. For examination purposes, the phrase has been interpreted as -- a separate non-circular opening of the at least two non-circular openings -- for clarity.
Claim 2 recites the limitation of “its”, wherein it is unclear what “its” is referring to. Specifically, it is unclear as to what the exact relationship the “its” have with the entire claim, since the term “its” is vague. Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite, the claim is rendered indefinite and determined to be an antecedent basis issue. The phrase has been examined as --a channel--.
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) 1-8, 10-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR ‘375 FR 3 086 375 Al in view of Bjornsson WO 2005/088221 A1, as cited on the IDS.
Re claim 1, FR ‘375 teach a channel (para 4) intended for circulating fluid and formed by at least two plates (105), a bottom (106), a first section and a second section (left and right portions separated by 140 with thickness 124, fig 4, defined by a height of channel to top and bottom and bounded by 108a), the bottom extending in a first plane, the first section and the second section extending in a plane that is parallel and offset with respect to the first plane (volumes having three planes to define volume); the bottom, the first section and the second section being connected to one another by an intermediate portion (113, 140, 141), wherein both the first section and the second section each surround a separate opening (110);
the bottom of at least one of the plates including a first protuberance (112a,b), said first protuberance extending from the base of the at least one of the plates to a top wall (150), said top wall being in contact with the bottom of another, opposing plate of the at least two plates (fog 9) and partially facing the intermediate portion of the opposing plate (figs 7 -9, via multiple 112a,b, rounded top portions are facing all directions due to circular top and concavity).
FR ‘375 fail to explicitly teach a change in shape.
Bjornsson teach each plate of the at least two plates including at least two non-circular openings (21, 23)
a separate non-circular opening (in the instant combination) to provide a porthole with specific transition areas.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a change in shape as taught by Bjornsson in the FR ‘375 invention in order to advantageously allow for optimal stacking and heat exchange.
Additionally, It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to each plate of the at least two plates including at least two non-circular openings, a separate non-circular opening, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of the component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, section IV, part B.
Re claim 2, FR ‘375 teach wherein at least one of the plates includes at least one second protuberance, which extends from its base to a top wall , said top wall being in contact with the bottom of the opposing plate over the entirety of its surface (see the rejection of claim 1, fig 7 noting multiple 112a,b).
Re claim 3, FR ‘375 teach each of the at least two plates includes at least one raised edge (107, 105, 108b), said at least one raised edge surrounding the bottom (fig 9) .
Re claim 4, FR ‘375 teach the bottom (106) and the at least one raised edge of each of the at least two plates delimit the channel for circulating fluid (figs).
Re claim 5, FR ‘375, as modified by Bjornsson, teach a heat exchanger comprising a channel intended for circulating fluid and formed by at least two plates, each plate of the at least two plates including a bottom, at least two non-circular openings, a first section and a second section, the bottom extending in a first plane, the first section and the second section extending in a plane that is parallel and offset with respect to the first plane, the bottom the first section and the second section being connected to one another by an intermediate portion (see the rejection of claim 1), wherein both the first section and the second section each have a raised profile (noting the protuberances create a profile which has raised portions, fig 7 of FR ‘375) and surround a separate opening (figs, see the rejection of claim 1), the bottom of at least one of the plates including a first protuberance, said first protuberance extending from the base of the at least one of the plates to a top wall, said top wall being in contact with the bottom of another, opposing plate of the at least two plates and partially facing the intermediate portion of the opposing plate (see the rejection of claim 1).
Re claim 6, FR ‘375 wherein the at least two plates forms an alternating arrangement of first channels and of second channels, which are intended to circulate a refrigerant and a heat-transfer liquid, respectively (paras 2-5).
Re claim 7, FR ‘375 teach wherein the first section and the second section of one of the at least two plates is in contact with the bottom of the opposing plate (para 106-110; see the rejection of claim 1, fig 7 noting multiple 112a,b).
Re claim 8, FR ‘375, as modified, teach each of the at least two plates includes at least four openings non-circular (noting the modifying reference has four non circular ports) .
Re claim 10, FR ‘375, as modified by Bjornsson, teach an installation (2, figs FR ‘375) intended for thermal treatment of an element of a vehicle (paras 83-87, 3, FR ‘375), comprising at least one heat exchanger having a channel intended for circulating fluid and formed by at least two plates, each plate of the at least two plates including at least two non- circular openings, a bottom, a first section and a second section, the bottom extending in a first plane, the first section and the second section extending in a plane that is parallel and offset with respect to the first plane, the bottom the first section and the second section being connected to one another by an intermediate portion, wherein both the first section and the second section each surround a separate opening of the at least two non-circular openings, the bottom of at least one of the plates including a first protuberance, said first protuberance extending from [[its]] the base of the at least one of the plates to a top wall, said top wall being in contact with the bottom of another, opposing plate of the at least two plates and partially facing the intermediate portion of the opposing plate (see the rejections of claims 1 and 5).
Re claim 11, FR ‘375, as modified by Bjornsson, teach wherein each plate includes at least four non-circular openings (noting the modifying reference has four non circular ports).
Re claim 12, FR ‘375 teach wherein the first section and the second section each have a raised non-circular profile along their periphery (rectangular, figs).
Re claim 13, FR ‘375 teach wherein each of the first section and the second section are situated proximate a same longitudinal end of each plate (figs).
Re claim 14, FR ‘375 teach wherein each of the first section and the second section are situated proximate a same longitudinal end of each plate (figs).
Re claim 15, FR ‘375 teach wherein each of the first section and the second section are situated proximate a same longitudinal end of each plate (figs).
Re claim 16, FR ‘375 teach further comprising a rib (113) extending between a first longitudinal end and a second longitudinal end of one or more plates of the at least two plates (figs).
Re claim 17, FR ‘375 teach further comprising a rib (113) extending between a first longitudinal end and a second longitudinal end of one or more plates of the at least two plates (figs).
Re claim 18, FR ‘375 teach further comprising a rib (113) extending between a first longitudinal end and a second longitudinal end of one or more plates of the at least two plates (figs).
Re claim 19, FR ‘375 teach wherein the rib is remote from each of the first section and the second section (figs, noting remote from is broad; and the top of the rib is not directly adjacent to over 95% of the total portion of the first section and the second section volume ).
Re claim 20, FR ‘375 teach wherein the rib is remote from each of the first section and the second section (figs, noting remote from is broad; and the top of the rib is not directly adjacent to over 95% of the total portion of the first section and the second section volume).
Re claim 21, FR ‘375 teach wherein the rib is remote from each of the first section and the second section (figs, noting remote from is broad; and the top of the rib is not directly adjacent to over 95% of the total portion of the first section and the second section volume).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see reply, filed 4/21/2026, with respect to the 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive, except the 112 rejection of claim 2 regarding “its” which has not been addressed or argued. The (addressed) 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Tissot fails to teach “non circular”. However, the scope of the claims has been changed in the latest reply and therefore the examiner is now relying on Bjornsson to teach the recited “non circular” (see detailed rejection above). Therefore, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims dependent on the independent claim(s) are allowable based upon their dependence from an independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5 and 10 have been addressed above. Thus, the rejections are proper and remain.
Conclusion
Applicant's 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 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
Prosecution Insights