Detailed Action1
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 25, 2025 has been entered.
America Invents Act Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 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.
Duplicate Claim Warning
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 4 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Rejections under 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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 and 3-4 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a direction in which the plurality of fins are arranged in the last two lines. It is unclear if this is referring to the same direction the plurality of fins are arranged in as recited in line 8, or if a second direction is being introduced.
Claims 3-4 are rejected for depending from claim 1.
Rejections under 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ABB Robotics, YuMi Technical Details, YouTube, Published April 13, 2015, available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UluhIJXIkBA (“ABB”).
Claim 1 recites a manufacturing device for manufacturing a heat exchanger including a flat tube and a fin that is formed in an elongated plate shape and that includes a fin slit formed by notching the fin in a direction orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the fin. ABB teaches a manufacturing device comprising dual arms (see generally pages 1-22, wherein all references to ABB refer to the document submitted with the Office action mailed on May 19, 2025). The device is capable of being mounted adjacent a variety of manufacturing stations (figures 2-3), has a large working range (pages 5-6), has 14-axis agility (0:43 seconds of video), and can learn many different manufacturing/assembling steps including vision-guided assembling and force guided assembling (pages 7-22). Thus, the device of ABB is capable of assembling/inserting a flat tube in a fin slit.
Claim 1 also recites the manufacturing device comprising: an insertion head configured to move up and down in order to insert the flat tube held by the insertion head into the fin slit from above the fin. The examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “insertion head” is relatively broad. One gripping mechanism/head of the device of ABB is capable of grasping a flat tube from above, lifting the tube, and lowering the tube into a fin slit from above. This gripping head reads on insertion head because it can lower the tube into the fin slit. The gripping head of ABB can perform this function by a user manually moving the arms (see ABB from 1:47-2:00, wherein a user manually moves the arms to teach movements to the robot, i.e. lead-through programming), after having learned the movements via the lead-through programming, or by connecting the robotic arm with a processor that already has the programming to perform the functions.
Claim 1 further recites a support configured to support, from below, the flat tube held by the insertion head. The examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “support” is relatively broad. The other gripping mechanism of the device of ABB is capable of contacting a bottom surface of the flat tube while the flat tube is held by the insertion head. This reads on support because the flat tube can be supported on the other gripping mechanism. The support of ABB can perform this function by a user manually moving the arms (see ABB from 1:47-2:00, wherein a user manually moves the arms to teach movements to the robot, i.e. lead-through programming), after having learned the movements via the lead-through programming, or by connecting the robotic arm with a processor that already has the programming to perform the functions.
Claim 1 further recites the fin includes a plurality of fins arranged in the direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction. Since the claims are only directed to the manufacturing device, the structure of the fins and tubes need not be taught—the device of ABB merely has to be capable of being used with the claimed structure of the fins and tube. In this case, the device of ABB can insert a tube into a fin that includes a plurality of fins as claimed because the device of ABB can still grasp, align, and insert a flat tube into the plurality of fins.
Claim 1 lastly recites the support supporting, from below, outer portions of the flat tube such that when the flat tube arranged on the plurality of fins is viewed from above, the outer portions of the flat tube are located outside of two of the fins each located at a respective one of both ends of the flat tube in a direction in which the plurality of fins are arranged. Given the large working area of the arms of ABB, the support arm is capable of supporting outer portions of the flat tube from below (including when the tube is arranged on the fins). In addition, the device of ABB is capable of being used with tubes that have outer portions located outside of the plurality of fins because the device of ABB can still grasp, align, and insert a flat tube into the plurality of fins.
Claim 3 recites the support performs a first operation to come into contact with the flat tube and a second operation to separate from the flat tube. Since the device of ABB can be taught a variety of movements and has a large working area, the support arm/gripper is capable of performing a first operation of coming into contact with the flat tube, e.g. to support an end, and capable of subsequently separating from the flat tube.
Claim 4 recites the support performs a first operation to come into contact with the flat tube and a second operation to separate from the flat tube. Since the device of ABB can be taught a variety of movements and has a large working area, the support arm/gripper is capable of performing a first operation of coming into contact with the flat tube, e.g. to support an end, and capable of subsequently separating from the flat tube.
Rejections under 35 USC 1032
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 obvious3 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ABB in view of Weiwei Wan, Four-Arm Collaboration: Two Dual-Arm Robots Work Together to Maneuver Tethered Tools, YouTube, Published on September 29, 2020, available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwHvEJqBaLE (“Wan”).
Regarding claim 1, ABB teaches all the limitations as detailed in the 102 rejection above. Assuming arguendo that the claim requires opposite outer portions of the flat tube to be supported simultaneously, this would be obvious in view of Wan.
Wan is directed to dual-arm robots (page 1, wherein all references to Wan refer to the document submitted herewith). Wan teaches that it is known to have two dual-arm robots work together to complete a task (pages 1-5). Wan teaches that utilizing a second dual-arm robot can aid in completing tasks and can assist in tasks that a single dual-arm robot could not complete without collisions or difficulties (see pages 1-5, and also see the summary of the video below the video).
In this case, ABB teaches a dual-arm robot used to assemble/manufacture products. Wan teaches that it is known and predictable to use two dual-arm robots to complete tasks and that this can allow tasks to be completed in an easier and more efficient manner. Thus, it would be obvious to provide two of the dual-arm robots of ABB that are arranged to work together to complete assembly and manufacturing steps.
Given the above modification, one of the dual-arm robots (or the two arms/gripper of one of the dual-arm robots) is interpreted as the “insertion head” since it is capable of performing the intended use of holding the flat tube with both arms, and moving it up and down to insert it into the fin slit. The other one of the dual-arm robots ((or the two arms/gripper of the other one of the dual-arm robots) is interpreted as the support since it is capable of performing the intended use of supporting the opposite outer portions of the flat tube at the same time (by respective arms) when the flat tube is arranged on the plurality of fins.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 25, 2025 (“the remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Each of applicant’s remarks is set forth, followed by examiner’s response.
On pages 5-6 of the remarks, Applicant argues the prior art must have the structure, and have software programmed to perform the specific functions.
Applicant is attempting to add limitations to the claimed invention that are not there. The claims do not require any programming/controller or any electronics. Thus, a prior art reference does not need specific programming or software (just like “a door configured to open and close” is not required to have software/means specifically programmed to open and close it). Thus, an operator manually moving the insertion head and support reads on the claim. As detailed in the 102 rejection, an operator is capable of moving the arms to teach the robot, thus an operator is capable of moving the arms to perform the claimed functions. Further, since the arms/grippers of the ABB robot are in communication with a controller in the base of the robot, this controller capable of being programmed to move the arms/grippers as recited in the claim would also read on the claim since the claim does not require the base or controller (the gripping head is merely interpreted as one arm or gripper, and the support is interpreted as the other arm or gripper).
In order to require the device of claim 1 to be specifically programmed to perform the functions, the claim has to require a computer/processor implemented functional limitation. Applicant points to Typhoon Touch Technologies, Inc. v. Dell, Inc. in the remarks. That case dealt with a claim directed to a computer and comprising limitations such as “memory for storing” and “processor for executing”. Similarly, in order to require the device of claim 1 to be specifically programmed to perform the functions, the claim should have a limitation similar to: “a controller configured to …”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Thomas Hong (571-272-0993). 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2 In 103 rejections, when the primary reference is followed by “et al.”, “et al.” refers to the secondary references. For example, if Jones was modified by Smith and Johnson, subsequent recitations of “Jones et al.” mean “Jones in view of Smith and Johnson”.
3 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”