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
1. 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 1-11 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 "wherein the at least one sealed connection is formed by: a brazed junction between a fluidic connection end piece of the support” in lines 11-15. The limitations render the claim indefinite as the recitation of “sealed connection is formed by: a brazed junction” amount to method or process steps, while the claim is drawn to a device (as provided by the preambles of the claims). Accordingly, the apparent conflicts between the limitations render the claims indefinite as it is unclear which statutory category the claimed invention falls within. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-11 are rejected based upon their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "A method for manufacturing the fluid management module of claim 1, wherein the method comprises brazing, in a furnace, a first plate to the heat exchanger, and wherein the method further comprises welding a second plate to the first plate after the first plate is brazed to the heat exchanger”. The limitations render the claim indefinite as the recitation of “brazing, in a furnace, a first plate to the heat exchanger, and wherein the method further comprises welding a second plate to the first plate after the first plate is brazed to the heat exchanger” amount to method or process steps, while the claim is drawn to a device (as provided by the preambles of the claims). Accordingly, the apparent conflicts between the limitations render the claims indefinite as it is unclear which statutory category the claimed invention fall within. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 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 of this title, 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.
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 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAGNIER et al. (English Translated WO Publication No.: 2010060657 A1), hereinafter referred to as MAGNIER et al. ‘657, in view of NACER et al (English Translated French Patent No.: 3133434 A1), hereinafter referred to as NACER et al ‘434; further in view of RAMPP (U.S. PG Pub No.: 2013/0283855 A1), hereinafter referred to as RAMPP et al ‘855.
Regarding claim 1, MAGNIER et al. ‘657 disclose a fluid management module for a vehicle, the fluid management module having a support (216) comprising: at least one channel (270/290) for flow of a refrigerant fluid (R134a), at least one main two-fluid heat exchanger (214) arranged to allow heat exchange between the refrigerant fluid and a heat-transfer fluid (CO2), wherein the support is assembled with the at least one main two-fluid heat exchanger so as to form at least one sealed connection for the refrigerant fluid flowing between the channel of the support and the at least one main two-fluid heat exchanger {as shown in Figs. 11 and 15: ¶¶ [0032], [0039], [0075], [0079], [0082], [0085-0089] and [0092-0094]}.
However, MAGNIER et al. ‘657 fail to disclose the limitations of wherein the bears at least one component with a fluidic function, the at least one component comprising an expansion member or a refrigerant valve; and wherein the at least one sealed connection is formed by: a brazed junction between a fluidic connection end piece of the support, wherein the fluidic connection end piece is at one end of the channel of the support, and a fluidic connection zone of the at least one main two-fluid heat exchanger
NACER et al. ‘434 teach: the concept of support (8) bearing at least one component with a fluidic function such as an expansion member (30) or a refrigerant valve (22) {as shown in Fig. 1: ¶¶ [0037], [0045-0047]}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify MAGNIER et al. ‘657 in view of NACER et al. ‘434 to include the use of at least one component bearing on its support structure, in order to have a more compact refrigeration module readily available for transport which reducing the amount of material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the MAGNIER et al. ‘657 in view of NACER et al. ‘434 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
RAMPP ‘855 teaches: the concept of the at least one sealed connection is formed by: a brazed junction between a fluidic connection end piece of the support, wherein the fluidic connection end piece is at one end of the channel of the support, and a fluidic connection zone of the at least one main two-fluid heat exchanger {see ¶¶ [0014], [0016] and [0038]}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify MAGNIER et al. ‘657 in view of RAMPP ‘855 to include the at least one sealed connection is formed by: a brazed junction between a fluidic connection end piece of the support, wherein the fluidic connection end piece is at one end of the channel of the support, and a fluidic connection zone of the at least one main two-fluid heat exchanger, in order to facilitate modules prefabrication that enables efficient assembly and erection {RAMPP ‘855 – [0044]}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the MAGNIER et al. ‘657 in view of RAMPP ‘855 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of MAGNIER et al. ‘657, NACER et al. ‘434 and RAMPP ‘855 disclose and teach the fluid management module as claimed in claim 1, MAGNIER et al. ‘657 disclose further comprising; two main two-fluid heat exchangers (212/214), wherein the support being connected to the two main two-fluid heat exchangers so as to allow circulation of the refrigerant fluid between the support and the two main two-fluid heat exchangers {as shown in Figs. 14-15: ¶¶ [0072], [0074-0075], [0077-0078] and [0082]}.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of MAGNIER et al. ‘657, NACER et al. ‘434 and RAMPP ‘855 disclose and teach the fluid management module as claimed in claim 2, MAGNIER et al. ‘657 disclose wherein one (212) of the two main two-fluid heat exchangers is a low-pressure exchanger forming a refrigerant fluid/heat-transfer fluid cooler, and the other (214) of the two main two- fluid heat exchangers is a high-pressure exchanger forming a refrigerant fluid/heat-transfer fluid condenser {see ¶¶ [0077-0078]}.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of MAGNIER et al. ‘657, NACER et al. ‘434 and RAMPP ‘855 disclose and teach the fluid management module as claimed in claim 2, MAGNIER et al. ‘657 disclose wherein the two main two-fluid heat exchangers are fluidically connected to an internal exchanger arranged to allow heat exchange between the refrigerant fluid circulating at high pressure and the refrigerant fluid circulating at low pressure {see ¶¶ [0008], [0011], [0038] and [0077]}.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of MAGNIER et al. ‘657, NACER et al. ‘434 and RAMPP ‘855 disclose and teach the fluid management module as claimed in claim 1, MAGNIER et al. ‘657 disclose wherein the support comprises a first plate (264) and a second plate (268) that are assembled with one another so as to define the channel (270), wherein the first plate and the second plate are joined and forming together a circumference of the channel {as shown in Figs. 11 and 15: ¶¶ [0086-0090]}.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of MAGNIER et al. ‘657, NACER et al. ‘434 and RAMPP ‘855 disclose and teach the fluid management module as claimed in claim 6, MAGNIER et al. ‘657 disclose wherein the first plate is brazed to the at least one main two-fluid heat exchanger at the location of the fluidic connection end piece of the support, and the second plate is welded to the first plate {see ¶ [0086]}.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of MAGNIER et al. ‘657, NACER et al. ‘434 and RAMPP ‘855 disclose and teach the fluid management module as claimed in claim 1, MAGNIER et al. ‘657 disclose further comprising: a first plate (264) and/or a second plate, where at least one of the first plate and the second plate comprise sites to receive one or more elements selected from: a valve, the expansion member, a flange (236/238), a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor, a temperature and a pressure sensor {as shown in Fig. 12: ¶¶ [0086] and [0094]}.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of MAGNIER et al. ‘657, NACER et al. ‘434 and RAMPP ‘855 disclose and teach the fluid management module as claimed in claim 1, MAGNIER et al. ‘657 disclose wherein the support formed by a first plate (264) and a second plate (268), wherein the support comprises a passage (226) for receiving a fluidic connection member; for the heat-transfer fluid{see Fig. 16: ¶¶ [0033], [0039] [0049], [0074], [0099] and [0100-0101]}.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of MAGNIER et al. ‘657, NACER et al. ‘434 and RAMPP ‘855; wherein MAGNIER et al. ‘657 disclose a two-fluid circuit (CC/CR) of a heat pump {as shown in Fig. 16: ¶ [0035] and [0071-0072}, having the fluid management module as claimed in claim 1.
Claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAGNIER et al. ‘657, NACER et al ‘434 and RAMPP ‘855, further in view of Tissol et al (U.S. PG Pub No.: 2024/0295365 A1), hereinafter referred to as Tissol et al ‘365.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of MAGNIER et al. ‘657, NACER et al. ‘434 and RAMPP ‘855 disclose and teach the fluid management module as claimed in claim 4, EXCEPT the limitations of wherein the internal exchanger is placed against a base of the two main two-fluid heat exchangers.
Tissol et al ‘365 each: the concept of the internal exchanger (1) is placed against a base (20) of the two main two-fluid heat exchangers (10, 30) {as shown in Fig. 1: ¶ [0054]}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify MAGNIER et al. ‘657 fluid management module by the fluid management module of Tissol et al ‘365 so as to include the internal exchanger placed against a base of the two main two-fluid heat exchangers, in order to facilitate better compactness for better integration within a motor vehicle {Tissol et al ‘365 – ¶[0090]}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the MAGNIER et al. ‘657 in view of Tissol et al ‘365 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-14, filed 08/14/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4 and 6-10 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection as detailed above.
Conclusion
4. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL E DUKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5290. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday; 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571)272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMMANUEL E DUKE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
09/04/2026
Prosecution Insights