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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/08/2025.
Specification
Changes to the abstract filed on 04/01/2026 are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the recitation “the first connection port-axis and the second connection port-axis extend horizontally” and should be “the axis of the first connection port axis of the second connection port
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Diego et al. (WO 2016/139158 A1, hereinafter “Diego”).
In regard to claim 1, Diego discloses a joint (Fig. 1A shows a joint) applicable to a radiator that exchanges heat between a cooling medium and outside air, the joint being capable of allowing the cooling medium discharged from a cooling medium discharge port of the radiator to flow toward a downstream side and performing gas-liquid separation of the cooling medium (Fig. 1A, the joint is capable of “applicable to a radiator…separation of the cooling medium”. See note below.), and comprising:
a first connection port (Fig. 1C, connection port at 23 defines at least a first connection port) connectable to the cooling medium discharge port (Fig. 1C, port at 23 is capable of being connectable to a cooling medium discharge port. See note below.);
a second connection port (Fig. 1C, second connection port at “a”) connectable to a tube (Fig. 1C, connection port at “a” is for connecting to at least a tube to be inserted through) that allows the cooling medium to flow toward the downstream side (Fig. 1C, the tube is capable of allowing the cooling medium to flow toward the downstream side. See note below.); and
an air discharge port through which air separated from the cooling medium is discharged (Fig. 1C, air discharge port at 10a and in [0070] of the English translation discloses the port at 10a is for purging air to the outside), wherein
a center of the second connection port is located below a center of the first connection port (Fig. 1C, at least in the orientation shown, a center at the axial opening of the second connection port at “a” can be reasonably interpreted as located below a center of the axial opening of the first connection port at 23 absent the claim defining a fixed reference of what is considered above and below relative to the claimed centers), and
a first tubular portion having the first connection port (See image below, indicated first tubular portion has the first connection port);
a second tubular portion having the second connection port (See image below, indicated second tubular portion has the second connection port); and
a coupling portion coupling the first tubular portion to the second tubular portion (See image below, indicated coupling portion connects the first tubular portion to the second tubular portion to form a single part similar to the applicant’s invention) such that an axis of the first connection port and an axis of the second connection port form an angle of one degree or greater with each other (See image below, longitudinal fluid axis of the first connection port and the longitudinal fluid axis of the second connection port are approximately 90 degrees relative to each other), wherein
the air discharge port is provided in an upper portion of the coupling portion (See image below, the air discharge port can be reasonably interpreted as provided in an upper portion of the coupling portion closer to the first connection port than the second connection port),
PNG
media_image1.png
488
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an inner diameter of the first connection port is larger than an inner diameter of the second connection port (See image below, at least one inner diameter of the first connection port is smaller than at least one inner diameter of the second connection port as indicated), and
PNG
media_image2.png
401
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a lower end of the first connection port and a lower end of the second connection port are located at a same height (Fig. 1C, a height can be defined at the cross-section shown and since both ports are on at least the same plane, then the ports can be reasonably interpreted as being at a same height and their lower ends defined at the point of transition to the coupling portion),
the axis of the first connection port and the axis of the second connection port extend horizontally (See image below, the axes are along a same plane, therefore, both can be reasonably interpreted as extending horizontally similar to applicant’s invention).
PNG
media_image3.png
464
567
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It is noted that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647. See MPEP § 2114. The following are recitations of intended use:
The recitation “applicable to a radiator…being capable of allowing the cooling medium discharged from a cooling medium discharge port of the radiator to flow toward a downstream side and performing gas-liquid separation of the cooling medium” is a recitation of intended use of the joint that does not structurally distinguish over the joint of Diego which also discloses a joint having at least two ports for connecting to other tubular components.
The recitation “connectable to the cooling medium discharge port” is a recitation of intended use of the first connection port that does not structurally distinguish over the connection port at 23 of Diego. Additionally, the connection port at 23 is similar to the applicant’s invention of a first connection port 41 shown in Fig. 5 such that the connection is formed by locking the connection port to a tubular part with a transverse locking clip.
The recitation “connectable to a tube that allows the cooling medium to flow toward the downstream side” is a recitation of intended use of the second connection port that does not structurally distinguish over the second connection port of Diego since the second connection port at “a” of Diego is for a tube.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that the axis of the first connection port of Diego is oriented vertically, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because horizontal and vertical directions can be arbitrarily defined absent any fixed reference point. Therefore, the first and second connection port axes are at least along a same plane as shown in the cross-section in the above image attached to claim 1 which the same plane can be reasonably interpreted as the horizontal direction. Claim 1 fails to provide any reference point of what is vertical and what is horizontal. If applicant intended “horizontally” to include further reference points that would distinguish over Diego, then it must be properly claimed. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Diego is in contrast to the applicant’s invention because in Diego both the axis of the inlet hole and the axis of the outlet hole face horizontally, and the center of the outlet hole is positioned lower than the center of the inlet hole, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because the claims do not provide such distinction between applicant’s invention and Diego. If applicant intends a particular distinction between the invention and Diego, then it must be properly claimed. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that aligning the lower ends of the inlet hole and the outlet hole—which have different diameters—air is accumulated in the upper portion can be efficiently discharged which is different than Diego, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because the claims do not provide such distinction over Diego. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that it is clear it would be difficult to arrive at applicant’s invention by referring to the invention of Diego which does not disclose such a configuration at all, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because Diego discloses the critical components of applicant’s invention which are two ports angled relative to each other with an air discharge port. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably arrive at applicant’s invention even if there are minor structurally differences. The crux of applicant’s invention is two ports angled relative to each other to transfer fluid and having an air discharge port which Diego discloses all of these features. While applicant attempts to argue structural distinctions between the claimed invention and Diego, claim 1 as amended failed to include any structural distinction over Diego. Therefore, amended claim 1 failed to overcome Diego and applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
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 William S. Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-8223. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
/WILLIAM S. CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights