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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 07/06/2026, has been entered. Claim 19 has been canceled. Claims 1-2, 4-17, and 20-21 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2-5 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “a core disposed between the plurality of channels, wherein a plurality of projections of the core forms the plurality of channels”. It is unclear whether the core is separate from the channels or if the core comprises channels. Claim 2 is interpreted in view of the specification and figures, wherein a core (Fig. 1, 16) comprises channels (Fig. 1, 18).
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).
PNG
media_image1.png
1013
1172
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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).
wherein the two or more panels are separately formed (annotated Fig. 3, wherein the channels 3.1 are separate structures)
However, Otto fails to teach wherein the two or more panels are separately formed ([0015]-[0016], wherein the heat exchanger is made via overmolding, a type of injection molding, such that it is integrally formed) 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], thereby allowing each component to comprise a material selected for its respective function.
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 annotated Fig. 3, wherein reservoir 5 has opening between 9/10) that abuts (see annotated Fig. 3, portion 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 Fig. 5 illustratively, wherein channels 3.1 are disposed substantially parallel, and [0027]-[0028], “U-flow”, which describes two fluid streams flowing in opposite directions, thereby teaching simultaneous flow).
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.
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), but fails to teach wherein the core is formed of metal or polymeric material. Brisebois teaches wherein the core ([0099], “heat exchanger may be formed of metal”, wherein the core of Fig. 4 comprises the heat exchanger channels, see 112(b) rejection above) is formed of metal or polymeric material (Brisebois; [0100], “metallic).It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use metal for the core of a heat exchange assembly, as discussed in the materials substitution of claim 1 above, as Brisebois teaches metal is thermally conductive [0011].
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 teaches wherein at least one of the two or more separately formed panels 120 is permeable [0104]. 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 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 (illustratively Fig. 2, partition wall 8, which extends between and thus spaces apart the opposing panels, defining a gap therebetween) the two or more separately formed panels (see illustratively Fig. 2, 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, the two or more panels spaced apart by the thickness of the adhesive after expansion. 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], resulting in the two or more panels spaced apart by the thickness of the adhesive after expansion, as Braun teaches expanding adhesive better protect the heat exchange assembly from flames (Braun; [0025]).
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otto (US2015034287A1) in view of Brisebois (US20190056147) and Zess (WO9966279A2).
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. Zess teaches wherein a plurality of channels 25 have a height of more than 0.3mm ([0008], 2 to 12mm). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to construct the channels 3.1 of Otto’s heat exchange assembly with a height of more than 0.3mm, as Zess teaches this is within the typical height range employed for optimal heat exchange dimensions [0015].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Applicant argues that the Office action fails to provide evidence that Otto teaches or even suggests wherein two or more panels are separately formed, the plurality of channels separately formed from the two or more panels, and an adhesive disposed between the two or more panels. However, this is not persuasive, as Brisebois is relied upon for teaching the features thereof. The rejection of claim 1 recites,
“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], thereby allowing each component to comprise a material selected for its respective function.”
Applicant argues that the plurality of channels are not separately formed, citing paragraph [0100]. However, this is not persuasive, as paragraph [0100] recites that the channels may exist as independent entities at some point in the manufacturing process. Specifically, [0100] states, “Ridges 222 may be formed thereon, where the ridges include side walls of the envelope 120, 620. The ridges 222 may be formed by any suitable mechanism, including… by additive processing, such as attaching ridges by epoxy, glue, or stenciled deposition and cure of epoxy.”. The term “additive processing” when describing the formation of the ridges is consistent with the channels being separately formed.
Regarding claim 12, application argues that the combination with Behr lacks sufficient motivation. However, this is not persuasive, as the combination with Behr is cited to amplify the heat sink capability of Otto (col 4 lines 1-12, see also col 8, lines 54-65). Specifically, the rejection of claim 12 recites,
“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).”
Behr specifically ties a sandwiched structure of flow paths to better heat sink performance (col 4 lines 1-12, see also col 8, lines 54-65), such that Behr teaches a clear motivation for using such a structure.
Applicant argues that Otto’s use of multiple fluid channels makes modification with Behr redundant; however, this is not persuasive, as Otto fails to teach the advantageous features that Behr is relied upon for, such as intermediate panels, such that modifying Otto in view of Behr would be an obvious modification rather than redundant as Behr teaches the sandwiched structure thereof as advantageous.
Applicant argues that all other claims should be allowed based off allowable claims 1 and 10; however, this is not persuasive, as the rejection on all 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) and Gallagher (<https://gallaghercorp.com/polyurethane-temperature-range/#:~:text=In%20general%2C%20polyurethane%20can%20be,C%20(300%C2%B0F)>), relevant to 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).
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 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 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights