DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/20/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 10/20/2025, has been entered. Claims 1-2, 5, 10-13, 15, 17, 19, and 21 has been amended. Claims 1-2, 4-17, and 19-21 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
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 1-2, 4-9, 11, 13-17, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otto (US2015034287A1) in view of Brisebois (US20190056147) (refer to enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 1,
Otto teaches a heat exchange assembly (1) comprising:
(I) two or more panels (annotated Fig. 3, “upper panel” and “lower panel”);
(II) a plurality of channels formed between the two or more panels (Fig. 3, 3.1);
and (III) a reservoir located adjacent to the plurality of channels and configured to at least temporarily store a temperature control material (Fig. 3, 4, 5; [0027], “fluid collectors”),
wherein the plurality of channels are configured to direct a flow path of the temperature control material ([0009], “coolant flows”; wherein a cooling is a temperature control material because it cools) between the two or more panels (annotated Fig. 3, wherein 3.1 directs flow path between “upper panel” and “lower panel”);
and wherein the plurality of channels are providing structural rigidity to the assembly (annotated Fig. 3, wherein 3.1 supports the “upper panel” and “lower panel” such that they provide structural rigidity to the assembly).
However, Otto fails to teach wherein the two or more panels are separately formed, the plurality of channels separately formed from the two or more panels, and an adhesive disposed in between the two or more panels. Brisebois teaches wherein two or more panels (Fig. 4, heat conduction layer 110 and envelope 120; [0087]) are separately formed [0100], the plurality of channels (Fig. 4, channels 224; [0091]) separately formed [0100] from the two or more panels (120 and 110), (IV) an adhesive ([0100], [0110], “polyurethane adhesive”) disposed in between the two or more panels ([0100], between 120 and 110. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to substitute the materials of Brisbois such that the two or more panels are separately formed, the plurality of channels separately formed from the two or more panels, and an adhesive disposed in between the two or more panels, as taught by Brisebois, with the heat exchange assembly of Otto because Brisebois teaches the two panels and plurality of channels each to have different functions requiring different materials, panel 110, corresponding to the lower panel of Otto in annotated Fig. 3, being a heat conduction layer with materials for efficient heat conduction [0099], panel 120, corresponding to the upper panel of Otto in annotated Fig. 3, made of material for lower thermal conductivity and flexibility [0099] [0011], the channels 224 with hydrophobic materials to reduce Van der Waals forces [0093], and the adhesive to assemble the separable pieces together [0100], enabling a tailored composite structure to improve functionality of the heat exchanger.
Additionally, absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have two or more separately formed panels and the plurality of channels separately formed from the two or more panels because Brisebois teaches the limitations thereof as an acceptable embodiment in the art for improving heat exchange. The Courts have held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art when “considered desirable for any reason” (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 2,
Otto in view of Brisebois teaches the heat exchange assembly according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising a core (annotated Fig. 3, wherein the face of 3.1 is the “core”) disposed between the plurality of channels (annotated Fig. 3, 3.1), wherein a plurality of projections (annotated Fig. 3, wherein the “core” comprises a plurality of projections forming channels 3.1) of the core (annotated Fig. 3, “core”) forms the plurality of channels (annotated Fig. 3, sidewall projections off of “core” forms the plurality of channels 3.1).
Regarding claim 4,
Otto in view of Brisebois teaches the heat exchange assembly according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein a first panel (see annotated Fig. 3, lower panel) is metallic (Brisebois; [0099], “metal”, see modification in claim 1 above) and a second panel (see annotated Fig. 3, upper panel) is metallic or polymeric (Brisebois; [0099], “plastic”, see modification in claim 1 above)
Regarding claim 5,
Otto in view of Brisebois teaches the heat exchange assembly according to claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above), further comprising a plurality of side walls (annotated Fig. 3, see side walls of 301) that abut terminal edges of the two or more separately formed (see rejection of claim 1 above) panels (annotated Fig. 3, abut terminal edges of “upper panel” and “lower panel”) to form a housing (annotated Fig. 3, wherein side walls of 301 that abut terminal edges of “upper panel” and “lower panel” form a housing) around the plurality of channels (annotated Fig. 3, 3.1).
Regarding claim 6,
Otto in view of Brisebois teaches the heat exchange assembly according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the reservoir 5 includes an opening (see Fig. 3, wherein reservoir 5 has opening between 9 and 10) that abuts the plurality of channels 3.1 so that the flow path of the temperature control material ([0027]; [0032]) moves from the reservoir 5, through the opening, and into the plurality of channels, or vice versa (see Fig. 3, wherein reservoir 5 has opening between 9 and 10 so that the flow path of the temperature control material moves from the reservoir, through the opening (see Fig. 3, wherein reservoir 5 has opening between 9 and 10; [0027], [0032]), and into the plurality of channels 3.1.
Regarding claim 7,
Otto in view of Brisebois teaches the heat exchange assembly according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the flow path ([0027], [0032]) of the temperature control material ([0027], [0032]) loops through the plurality of channels in a snake-like pattern (see [0027] “U-flow cooler”, which describes how the flow path between the channels 3.1 and the reservoirs 4 and 5 forms a U shape, such that the plurality of channels 3.1 ultimately connect together in a snake-like pattern).
Regarding claim 8,
Otto in view of Brisebois in view of Brisebois teaches the heat exchange assembly according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the flow path of the temperature control material flows through the plurality of channels in a substantially parallel and simultaneous manner (see [0027] “U-flow cooler”, wherein coolant that flows through a snake-like pattern of channels necessarily flows in a substantially parallel and simultaneous manner).
Regarding claim 9,
Otto in view of Brisebois in view of Brisebois teaches the heat exchange assembly according to any of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach the flow path of the temperature control material is substantially random. Brisebois teaches the flow path of the temperature control material is substantially random (Fig. 27, 2710; [0129], wherein flow path along 2710 follows a distribution of possible routes, wherein no single deterministic path dominates, see https://www.dictionary.com/browse/random for the statistical definition of random). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have a flow path of the temperature control material as substantially random as this is an acceptable embodiment, as taught by Brisebois, allowing the temperature control material to flow past and collect energy from a bank of batteries, maximizing cooling without increasing cost (Brisebois, [0129], [0131]).
Regarding claim 11,
Otto in view of Brisebois teaches the heat exchange assembly according to claim 3 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein the two or more separately formed panels include a coating to protect from galvanic or other type of corrosion. Brisebois teaches wherein the two or more separately formed panels include a coating ([0272], “PTFE”; see also [0115], wherein PTFE is corrosion resistant) to protect from galvanic or other type of corrosion (wherein PTFE is a known corrosion resistant material and thus necessarily protects from corrosion). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the two or more separately formed panels’ inner surfaces with the coating of Brisebois [0115] in order to protect from galvanic or other type of corrosion [0115] enabling a longer lasting device. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be familiar with galvanic and electrochemical corrosion occurring in instances of metal contacting metal or water contacting metal (see https://public.ksc.nasa.gov/corrosion/forms-of-corrosion/#:~:text=The%20natural%20differences%20in%20metal,the%20one%20that%20will%20corrode.), which further suggests incorporating the corrosion resistant layer disclosed in Brisebois.
Regarding claim 13,
Otto in view of Brisebois in view of Brisebois teaches the heat exchange assembly according to claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above), but fails to teach wherein the temperature control material is polyethylene glycol, air, refrigerant, water, alcohol, a phase change material, or a combination thereof. However, Brisebois teaches the temperature control material is water [0104]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use water as the temperature control material in Otto, as Brisebois teaches water as an acceptable embodiment of a temperature control material (coolant).
Regarding claim 14,
Otto in view of Brisebois teaches the heat exchange assembly according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein the core is a formed metal or polymeric material (Brisebois; [0100], see modification in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 15,
Otto in view of Brisebois teaches the heat exchange assembly according to claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above), but fails to teach wherein at least one of the two or more separately formed panels is permeable. Brisebois, in a different embodiment (see Fig. 10) teaches wherein at least one of the two or more separately formed (see rejection of claim 1 above) panels 120 is permeable [0104]. While Brisebois teaches this permeable sheet in addition to impermeable panels, any embodiment with permeable panels would still require a surrounding structure to prevent leaking of the temperature control material, such that the permeable sheet, in this embodiment (see Fig. 10), may read as the two or more separately formed panels. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have wherein at least one of the two or more panels is permeable, as taught by Brisebois, in order to improve the flow of the temperature control material and provide wicking action [0104] in the battery of Otto.
Regarding claim 16,
Otto in view of Brisebois teaches the heat exchange assembly according to claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising a second reservoir (Fig. 1, 4), wherein the reservoirs are positioned on opposing ends (Fig. 1, wherein 5 and 4 are on opposing front and back ends, respectively) of the plurality of channels (Fig. 3, 3.1) so that the temperature control material flows between the reservoirs through the plurality of channels (Fig. 1, 4, 5; [0027], see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 17,
Otto in view of Brisebois teaches the heat exchange assembly according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the plurality of channels are formed via a plurality of projections extending between the two or more separately formed panels (see rejection of claim 2 above, “projections”).
Regarding claim 20,
Otto teaches the heat exchange assembly according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein the plurality of channels have a height of more than 0.3mm. However, Brisebois teaches that increasing the surface area involved in heat exchange improves efficiency of the heat exchange assembly [0108]. Therefore, increasing the height of the plurality of channels can be considered a result effective variable for improving the efficiency of the heat exchange assembly. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to optimize by routine experimentation the height of the heat exchange assembly in order to achieve efficient heat exchange via increased surface area.
Regarding claim 21,
Otto teaches the heat exchange assembly according to claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above), wherein the two or more separately formed panels (see rejection of claim 1 above) are spaced apart via one or more spacers (Fig. 1, 8; wherein the broadest reasonable interpretation of a spacer is any component or device used to make a space or division, such that partition wall 8, which holds and divides the space between the two or more panels such that it is a component used to make a division, reads as a spacer) to create a desired gap (Fig. 1, wherein 8 occupies space and thus creates a gap) between the two or more separately formed (see rejection of claim 1 above) panels (See annotated Fig. 3).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otto (US2015034287A1) in view of Brisebois (US20190056147) and Braun (CN105702891A) (refer to enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 10,
Modified Otto teaches the heat exchange assembly according to claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3), wherein Brisebois teaches the two or more separately formed panels (see rejection of claim 1 above) are spaced apart by a thickness of the adhesive material ([0110], wherein the panels are necessarily spaced apart by the adhesive), but fails to teach the adhesive is a foamable material. Braun teaches wherein an adhesive material is a foamable material ([0025], “polyurethane foam”; wherein it is the examiner’s position polyurethane foam is an adhesive that expands due to it being a sticky foam). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to substitute polyurethane foam as the polyurethane adhesive taught by Brisebois [0110], in order to better protect the heat exchange assembly from flames (Braun; [0025]).
Accordingly, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that the two or more separately formed panels are spaced apart by a thickness of the adhesive material after expansion as that necessarily results when using an expanding foam for the adhesive.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otto (US2015034287A1) in view of Brisebois (US20190056147) and Behr (US5836383A) (refer to enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 12,
Otto teaches the heat exchange assembly according to claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above), but fails to teach wherein the two or more separately formed panels includes a top panel, a bottom panel, and an intermediate panel, and the plurality of channels is disposed between both the top panel and intermediate panel, and the intermediate panel and the bottom panel. Behr teaches wherein two or more separately formed panels includes a top panel (Fig. 1, 5; col 4. Lines 1-10), a bottom panel (Fig. 1, 3; col 4. Lines 1-10), and an intermediate panel (Fig. 1, 4; col 4. Lines 1-10), and the plurality of channels (Fig. 1, 10/11/12/8; col 4. lines 1-12) is disposed between (wherein 12 is between) both the top panel (Fig. 1, 5; col 4. Lines 1-10) and the intermediate panel (Fig. 1, 4; col 4. Lines 1-10), and the intermediate panel 4 and the bottom panel (Fig. 1, wherein 8 is 4 and 3; col 4. Lines 1-10). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have wherein the two or more panels includes a top panel, a bottom panel, and an intermediate panel, and the plurality of channels is disposed between both the top panel and intermediate panel, and the intermediate panel and the bottom panel, as taught by Behr, in order to amplify the heat sink capability of the heat transfer device of Otto with a sandwiched structure of flow paths, as suggested by Behr (col 4 lines 1-12, see also col 8, lines 54-65).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otto (US2015034287A1) in view of Brisebois (US20190056147) and Gallagher (<https://gallaghercorp.com/polyurethane-temperature-range/#:~:text=In%20general%2C%20polyurethane%20can%20be,C%20(300%C2%B0F)>) (refer to enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 19,
Otto in view of Brisebois teaches the heat exchange assembly according to claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above), wherein the adhesive material is polyurethane (Brisebois; [0102], “polyurethane adhesive”), but fails to teach that it remains structurally intact between -62 °C and 93 °C. Gallagher teaches that polyurethane remains structurally intact between -40 °C and 80 °C, which encompasses with the claimed range, such that the polyurethane adhesive in Otto in view of Brisebois necessarily remains structurally intact between -40 °C and 80 °C. "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." (see MPEP 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Claim 1 lacks sufficient burden of technical proof for doing so. However, this is not persuasive, as the rejection of claim 1 now provides clear reasoning for combining with Brisebois, namely using separate materials for the top panel, bottom panel, and channels allows for a tailored composite in respect to the functions of each element (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Applicant argues that the rejection fails to suggest a core disposed between the two or more channels. However, this is not persuasive, as depicted in annotated Fig. 3 above, the core comprises wall partitions that delineates, and thus lies between the plurality of channels (see rejection of claim 2 above).
Applicant argues that the office action fails to provide adequate reasoning that Otto in view of Brisebois suggests a substantially random flow path. However, this is not persuasive, as the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term random includes the definition of random as applied in statistics: “of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen “, see https://www.dictionary.com/browse/random. As demonstrated in Fig. 27 of Brisebois, the flow paths follow a distribution of possible routes, wherein no single deterministic path dominates, such that the flow paths are, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term, random. Alternatively, fluid entering at a heavily branched pathway system at slightly different positions results in path selection dependent on infinitesimal variations in entry position or velocity, corresponding to a substantially random flow paths at micro level.
Applicant argues that there is insufficient evidence in Brisebois for teaching of a corrosion resistant coating. However, this is not persuasive, as the rejection now cites [0272] of Brisebois which specifies PTFE as a coating layer, wherein PTFE is a corrosion resistant material.
Applicant argues that the combination for claim 10 is unnecessary. However, this is not persuasive, as a combination need not be necessary but only suggested, wherein Braun suggests that a foamable adhesive can better protect from flames (see rejection of claim 10 above)
Applicant argues that the mappings are not specific for claim 12. However, this is not persuasive under the updated rejection of claim 12, which clearly delineate the separate panels. The rejection of claim 12 states:
Behr teaches wherein two or more separately formed panels includes a top panel (Fig. 1, 5; col 4. Lines 1-10), a bottom panel (Fig. 1, 3; col 4. Lines 1-10), and an intermediate panel (Fig. 1, 4; col 4. Lines 1-10), and the plurality of channels (Fig. 1, 10/11/12/8; col 4. lines 1-12) is disposed between (wherein 12 is between) both the top panel (Fig. 1, 5; col 4. Lines 1-10) and the intermediate panel (Fig. 1, 4; col 4. Lines 1-10), and the intermediate panel 4 and the bottom panel (Fig. 1, wherein 8 is 4 and 3; col 4. Lines 1-10). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have wherein the two or more panels includes a top panel, a bottom panel, and an intermediate panel, and the plurality of channels is disposed between both the top panel and intermediate panel, and the intermediate panel and the bottom panel, as taught by Behr, in order to amplify the heat sink capability of the heat transfer device of Otto with a sandwiched structure of flow paths, as suggested by Behr (col 4 lines 1-12, see also col 8, lines 54-65).
Applicant argues that the rejection of claim 19 does not have sufficient reasoning as Gallagher’s temperature stability recitation is only with respect to polyurethane. However, this is not persuasive, as polyurethane adhesive is incorporated into the combination of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Therefore, Gallagher’s temperature stability recitation is directly relevant to the adhesive mapped in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Applicant argues that all other claims should be allowable based off allowable independent claims. However, this is not persuasive, as the rejections on the independent claims have been sustained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Rawlinson (US-20170229748-A1), relevant to a snaking, parallel and simultaneous flow path heat exchanger (see Fig. 11).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL WYROUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-4806. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10am-5pm.
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, TIFFANY LEGETTE can be reached on (571) 270-7078. 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.
/PAUL CHRISTIAN ST WYROUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 1728 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights