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 .
This correspondence is in response to applicant’s reply filed on 04/21/2026. Claims 11-30 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 11-13, 17-26, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fieger (U.S. Pub. 20210247111) in view of Mimlitch, III et al. (U.S. Pub. 20020104942).
Regarding claims 11 and 24, Fieger teaches a mounting plate for an expansion valve in a refrigerant circuit, comprising a body 15 with a flat portion (as seen in Figs. 1-2), the body 15 has a substantially rectangular design (as seen in Fig. 2), and two short sides and two long sides (see Fig. 2 below), where the body 15 has edges, where two basically U-shaped cutouts 18,19 are formed in the body 15, through which connecting tubes 11,12 pass, where the connecting tubes 11,12 are vaporizer connecting tubes. However, Fieger fails to teach where at least part of the edges of the body 15 are raised in order to reinforce the body 15. Mimlitch teaches a bracket 10 comprising a flat body 20, having raised edges 70,80,110,130.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body of Fieger’s bracket to have raised edges, in order to reduce deflection and buckling of the bracket, as taught to be desirable by Mimlitch (see discussion in para. [0030], lines 10-12).
With regards to claims 11 and 24, Fieger fails to explicitly disclose the dimensions of his mounting plate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size and dimensions of Fieger’s mounting plate, because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (see MPEP 2141, III. (E)).
Regarding claims 12 and 25, Mimlitch teaches the mounting plate, where the raised edges 70,80,110,130 of the body 20 are oriented at an angle between 80 degrees and 100 degrees with respect to a plane through the flat portion of the body 20 (as seen in Fig. 1 of Mimlitch).
Regarding claims 13 and 26, Mimlitch teaches the mounting plate, where at least one edge of one or both of the two U-shaped cutouts is raised. The Examiner notes that Mimlitch teaches where the perimeter of his bracket’s 10 body 20 has raised edges.
Regarding claims 17 and 30, Mimlitch teaches the mounting plate, where a raised edge of a U-shaped cutout 18,19 is connected to a raised edge 70,80,110,130 of one of the long sides.
Regarding claim 18, Mimlitch teaches the mounting plate, where a raised edge 70,80,110,130 of one of the short sides is connected to the raised edge of the long side.
Regarding claim 19, Mimlitch teaches the mounting plate, where the raised edges 70,80,110,130 of the short side and the long side are on the same side of the body 15.
Regarding claim 20, Mimlitch teaches the mounting plate, where the body 20 is made of metal, and the raised edges 70,80,110,130 are formed in a shaping process, that includes one of deep drawing or molding. The Examiner notes that Mimlitch discusses the process of making his bracket 10 in para. [0056].
Regarding claim 21, Mimlitch teaches the mounting plate, where the raised edges 70,80,110,130 of the body 15 are oriented at substantially 90 degrees to the plane through the flat body 15.
PNG
media_image1.png
387
615
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 14-16, 22-23, and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fieger and Mimlitch as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Mazur (U.S. Pat. 5312080).
Regarding claims 14 and 27, Fieger and Mimlitch are discussed above, and teach the mounting plate. However, Fieger and Mimlitch fail to teach where the mounting plate further comprises at least one hole in the body, where an edge of the at least one hole which is raised. Mazur teaches a bracket 64 made of a mounting plate that has at least one hole in the body, where an edge of the at least one hole which is raised.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bracket body of Fieger and Mimlitch to have raised threaded holes, in order to provide a means for securing fasteners (i.e. screws), as is well known in the art.
Regarding claims 15 and 28, Mazur teaches the mounting plate, where the at least one hole is threaded (as seen in Fig. 11 below).
Regarding claims 16 and 29, Mazur teaches the mounting plate, where the two U- shaped cutouts 18,19 are spaced apart, and the at least one hole is capable of being disposed in the middle of the flat portion of the body 15, between the two U-shaped cutouts 18,19.
Regarding claim 22, Mazur teaches the mounting plate, where the at least one hole in the body 64 is two holes in the body 64, where an edge of both of the two holes are raised (as seen in Fig. 11 below.
Regarding claim 23, Mazur teaches the mounting plate, where both of the two holes in the body 64 are threaded.
PNG
media_image2.png
455
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the Applicant’s argument that Fieger teaches where a thickness of the body is one eighth to one twelfth of a width of the body, the Examiner submits the following. Although Fieger fails to explicitly disclose the dimensions and of his mounting plate, it has been held that, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see MPEP 2144.03, IV. A.). Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the particular dimensions are in some embodiments. As noted above, the Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size and dimensions of Fieger’s mounting plate, because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (see MPEP 2141, III. (E)). Therefore, it is submitted that the limitations drawn to the size of the mounting plate, are rendered obvious in view of well established policies within the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL D MCDUFFIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3832. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM-4:30PM.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/Michael McDuffie/Examiner, Art Unit 3632 10-Jun-26
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights