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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/21/2025 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of Claims 1-2, 6-10 and 21-27 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Miller. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 6-10, 12 and 17-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (USP 10107555B1) in view of Stoia et al. (US PG Pub. 2018/0328673A1), hereinafter referred to as Miller and Stoia, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Miller discloses a heat exchanger (see abstract) for a gas turbine engine (col. 4 ll. 4, see also intended use analysis below), the heat exchanger comprising:
a first wall (shown in figure 2, being the wall having the inlet openings (42));
a second wall spaced from the first wall and defining a wall gap therebetween (shown in figure 2, being the wall containing the third manifold (34) and having the outlets for the first fluid flow path, wherein exterior walls are situated on ends of the monolithic structure);
a cooling architecture comprising a unit cell extending between the first wall and the second wall (shown in figure 2) with walls of the unit cell having a thickness (shown at least in figure 2), wherein the unit cell comprises:
a first set of fluid conduits extending within the unit cell from the first wall to the second wall (“A plurality of inlet openings 42 formed in the housing 16 can fluidly couple the interior 20 to the first inlet 30 and form a portion of the first flow path…Similarly, a set of openings or outlets can be provided at the third and fourth manifolds 34, 36 providing egress of fluid from the interior 20”, col. 5 ll. 11-17), the first set of fluid conduits having multiple openings with each of the multiple openings having a hydraulic diameter (shown at least in figure 27, wherein the openings allow for furcated flow passages (358)), and
a second set of fluid conduits (“A plurality of inlets 46 can fluidly couple the interior 20 to the second fluid inlet 32 and form a portion of the second flow path. Similarly, a set of openings or outlets can be provided at the third and fourth manifolds 34, 36 providing egress of fluid from the interior 20”, col. 5 ll. 12-17) extending within the unit cell from the first wall to the second wall (“In yet another alternative example, the flow directions can travel in the same direction, defining a parallel flow direction”, col. 9 ll. 34-36), the second set of fluid conduits fluidly separate from the first set of fluid conduits (“the latticed or quasi-latticed structure of the heat exchanger minimizes the consequences of maldistribution through the heat exchanger by fully mixing the opposing flow paths of the sets of first and second flow passages 58, 78 with the intertwined geometry, while remaining fluidly isolated”, col. 8 ll. 36-41), and
the second set of fluid conduits having multiple openings with each of the multiple openings having the hydraulic diameter (shown at least in figure 27, wherein the openings allow for furcated flow passages (364)), wherein
the cooling architecture is configured to receive a cooling fluid having a fluid temperature (shown at least in figures 2 and 27, wherein the working fluid inherently comprises a temperature); wherein
the cooling architecture has a material temperature (shown at least in figures 2 and 27, wherein the monolithic structure inherently comprises material that has a temperature) to define a ratio of the fluid temperature to the material temperature (the aforementioned temperatures are capable of forming a ratio as claimed); wherein
the ratio, the thickness and the hydraulic diameter relate to each other (the aforementioned values for the claimed parameters relate to one another). Miller fails to disclose the ratio, the thickness and the hydraulic diameter relate to each other by an equation:
T
R
*
D
H
2
3
D
H
+
t
D
H
+
2
t
8
3
=
(
0
-
1.93
)
to define a unit cell performance factor; and wherein TR is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 1.25 and wherein the UCPF is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 0.15.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Unit Cell)]
[AltContent: textbox (Openings)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
450
325
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Stoia Figure 2
Stoia, also drawn to a cooling architecture comprising at least one unit cell (see abstract, shown at least in figure 7) having a set of walls with a thickness (shown in annotated figure 2) and having multiple openings (shown in annotated figure 2, wherein each conduit (104) contains multiple points for fluid to enter or exit a respective conduit) with each of the multiple openings having a hydraulic diameter (shown in annotated figure 2), teaches the ratio, the thickness (.100 mm, “Each of the plurality of conduits 104 have a wall thickness ranging from about 25 μm to about 200 μm”, ¶ [45]) and the hydraulic diameter (“1 mm”, ¶ [45]) relate to each other by an equation to define a unit cell performance factor (see above); and wherein
TR (TR is defined as Tf/Tm, Tf being the fluid temperature and Tm being the material temperature limit) is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 1.25 (Stoia contemplates a working fluid temperature between “0°C to about 200°C”, ¶ [53] and a list of materials such as “stainless steel, titanium, nickel super-alloy, aluminum, polymer composites (e.g., carbon fiber reinforced nylon) and polymer nanocomposites (e.g., carbon nanotube filled nylon), polyether ether ketone (PEEK), polyethylene (PE), or polypropylene (PP)”, ¶ [49], see below for further analysis). All of the aforementioned materials have a temperature at which the ultimate tensile strength decreases, for example polyethylene has a maximum temperature limit of 70°C, refer to the conclusion section for an example and detailed explanation wherein references are cited but not relied upon regarding the instant rejection. Referring to TR being greater than 0 and less than or equal to 1.25, the temperature of the working fluid is capable of being passed through the heat exchanger at 0°C - 200°C (see above) and with a material temperature limit of 70°C:
if Tf = 1°C, Tf /Tm = TR = 0.014, UCPF = .0096
if Tf = 5°C, Tf /Tm = TR = 0.071, UCPF = .0483
if Tf = 200°C, Tf /Tm = TR = 2.86, UCPF = 1.93, (see intended use analysis below), wherein
UCPF is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 0.15 (the range of TR is between 0.014 and 2.86 and the range of UCPF is between 0.0096 and 1.93 that corresponds with the temperature range for Tf). For example, if Tf = 5°C, TR = 0.071, UCPF = .0483.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Miller with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Stoia, the motivation being “improved efficiency and responsiveness over current state-of-the-art designs by (i) promoting mixing of the coolant fluid as it traverses the heat exchanger, which enhances heat transfer rates and inhibits thermal stratification within the coolant fluid” (¶5) and regarding the thickness, “Such a preferred thickness provides low cost and weight to the heat exchanger 100, while also providing improved heat transfer properties” ¶45. Further, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I)
Regarding limitations “for a gas turbine engine”, “(TR)” recited in Claim 1, which are directed to how the heat exchanger is being used, specifically a temperature of the working fluid does not affect the structural configuration of the heat exchanger, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, 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, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114. The temperature of the working fluid is capable of being supplied at various temperatures, one of which is the material temperature limit, wherein the working fluid temperature does not structurally limit the heat exchanger.
Regarding Claim 2, a modified Miller further teaches the cooling architecture is disposed within a substrate (see at least figure 2 of Miller and 124 of Stoia, “The shell 124 is coupled to the first manifold 112 and the second manifold 118, to thereby form a closed container into which the PCM 116 is confined...the shell 124 is formed unitarily with the lattice structure 102 and first manifold 112”, ¶ [39]).
Regarding Claim 6, a modified Miller further teaches the UCPF is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 0.11 (see rejection of Claim 1). Further, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I)
Regarding Claim 7, a modified Miller further teaches the thickness is greater than or equal to 0.05 mm and less than or equal to 5 mm (.100 mm, see rejection of Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 8, a modified Miller further teaches the thickness is greater than or equal to 0.1 mm and less than or equal to 2 mm (.100 mm, see rejection of Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 9, a modified Miller further teaches the diameter is greater than or equal to 0.25 mm and less than or equal to 10 mm (1 mm, see rejection of Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 10, a modified Miller further teaches the diameter (DH) is greater than or equal to 0.75 mm and less than or equal to 6 mm (1 mm, see rejection of Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Miller discloses a cooling architecture for a heat exchanger, the cooling architecture comprising:
a unit cell (shown in figure 2) having a set of walls with a thickness (shown at least in figure 2),
the unit cell defining a first fluid conduit fluidly separate from a second fluid conduit (“the latticed or quasi-latticed structure of the heat exchanger minimizes the consequences of maldistribution through the heat exchanger by fully mixing the opposing flow paths of the sets of first and second flow passages 58, 78 with the intertwined geometry, while remaining fluidly isolated”, col. 8 ll. 36-41), with the first fluid conduit and the second fluid conduit each conduits having multiple openings, with each of the multiple openings having a hydraulic diameter (shown at least in figure 27, wherein the openings allow for furcated flow passages (358)), wherein
the cooling architecture has a material temperature (Tm) to define a ratio (TR) of a fluid temperature (Tf) to the material temperature (Tm), wherein the thickness (t) and the hydraulic diameter (DH) relate to each. Miller fails to disclose the ratio, the thickness and the hydraulic diameter relate to each other by an equation:
T
R
*
D
H
2
3
D
H
+
t
D
H
+
2
t
8
3
=
(
0
-
1.93
)
to define a unit cell performance factor; and wherein TR is greater than 0.05 and less than or equal to 1.25 and wherein the UCPF is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 0.15.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Unit Cell)]
[AltContent: textbox (Openings)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
450
325
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Stoia Figure 2
Stoia, also drawn to a cooling architecture comprising at least one unit cell (see abstract, shown at least in figure 7) having a set of walls with a thickness (shown in annotated figure 2) and having multiple openings (shown in annotated figure 2, wherein each conduit (104) contains multiple points for fluid to enter or exit a respective conduit) with each of the multiple openings having a hydraulic diameter (shown in annotated figure 2), teaches the ratio, the thickness (.100 mm, “Each of the plurality of conduits 104 have a wall thickness ranging from about 25 μm to about 200 μm”, ¶ [45]) and the hydraulic diameter (“1 mm”, ¶ [45]) relate to each other by an equation to define a unit cell performance factor (see above); and wherein
TR (TR is defined as Tf/Tm, Tf being the fluid temperature and Tm being the material temperature limit) is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 1.25 (Stoia contemplates a working fluid temperature between “0°C to about 200°C”, ¶ [53] and a list of materials such as “stainless steel, titanium, nickel super-alloy, aluminum, polymer composites (e.g., carbon fiber reinforced nylon) and polymer nanocomposites (e.g., carbon nanotube filled nylon), polyether ether ketone (PEEK), polyethylene (PE), or polypropylene (PP)”, ¶ [49], see below for further analysis). All of the aforementioned materials have a temperature at which the ultimate tensile strength decreases, for example polyethylene has a maximum temperature limit of 70°C, refer to the conclusion section for an example and detailed explanation wherein references are cited but not relied upon regarding the instant rejection. Referring to TR being greater than 0.05 and less than or equal to 1.25, the temperature of the working fluid is capable of being passed through the heat exchanger at 0°C - 200°C (see above) and with a material temperature limit of 70°C:
if Tf = 1°C, Tf /Tm = TR = 0.014, UCPF = .0096
if Tf = 5°C, Tf /Tm = TR = 0.071, UCPF = .0483
if Tf = 200°C, Tf /Tm = TR = 2.86, UCPF = 1.93, (see intended use analysis below), wherein
TR being greater than 0.05 and less than or equal to 1.25 and UCPF is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 0.15 (the range of TR is between 0.014 and 2.86 and the range of UCPF is between 0.0096 and 1.93 that corresponds with the temperature range for Tf). For example, if Tf = 5°C, TR= .071, UCPF = .0483.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Miller with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Stoia, the motivation being “improved efficiency and responsiveness over current state-of-the-art designs by (i) promoting mixing of the coolant fluid as it traverses the heat exchanger, which enhances heat transfer rates and inhibits thermal stratification within the coolant fluid” (¶5) and regarding the thickness, “Such a preferred thickness provides low cost and weight to the heat exchanger 100, while also providing improved heat transfer properties” ¶45. Further, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I)
Regarding limitations “for a gas turbine engine”, “(TR)” recited in Claim 1, which are directed to how the heat exchanger is being used, specifically a temperature of the working fluid does not affect the structural configuration of the heat exchanger, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, 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, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114. The temperature of the working fluid is capable of being supplied at various temperatures, one of which is the material temperature limit, wherein the working fluid temperature does not structurally limit the heat exchanger.
Regarding Claim 17, a modified Miller further teaches the UCPF is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 0.11 (see rejection of Claim 12). Further, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I)
Regarding Claim 18, a modified Miller further teaches the thickness is greater than or equal to 0.05 mm and less than or equal to 5 mm (.100 mm, see rejection of Claim 12).
Regarding Claim 19, a modified Miller further teaches the diameter is greater than or equal to 0.25 mm and less than or equal to 10 mm (1 mm, see rejection of Claim 12).
Regarding Claim 20, Miller discloses a method of forming a heat exchanger, the method comprising:
forming a unit cell (shown in figure 2) with a wall having a thickness (shown at least in figures 2 and 27), the unit cell formed from a material (shown at least in figures 2 and 27, wherein the monolithic structure inherently comprises material that has a temperature);
forming the unit cell having a first flow path and a second flow path extending through the unit cell with the second flow path fluidly separate from the first flow path (“the latticed or quasi-latticed structure of the heat exchanger minimizes the consequences of maldistribution through the heat exchanger by fully mixing the opposing flow paths of the sets of first and second flow passages 58, 78 with the intertwined geometry, while remaining fluidly isolated”, col. 8 ll. 36-41), and
with each of the first flow path and the second flow path having an opening extending through the unit cell (shown at least in figures 2 and 27), the flow path having an opening with a hydraulic diameter (shown at least in figures 2 and 27); and
manufacturing the unit cell, wherein the unit cell is associated with a material temperature (Tm) to define a ratio (TR) of a fluid temperature (Tf) to the material temperature (Tm), wherein the unit cell has a relationship between the hydraulic diameter (DH) and the thickness (t) to have a unit cell performance factor (UCPF) (the aforementioned values for the claimed parameters provide a UCPF in Miller). Miller fails to disclose a wall having a thickness greater than or equal to 0.05 mm and less than or equal to 5 mm, the flow path having an opening with a hydraulic diameter greater than or equal to 0.25 mm and less than or equal to 10 mm; and
the unit cell has a relationship between the hydraulic diameter (DH) and the thickness (t) such that a unit cell performance factor (UCPF) is greater than or equal to 0.000245 and less than or equal to 0.15 (0.000245 < UCPF < 0.15) wherein the UCPF is defined as TR
T
R
*
D
H
2
3
D
H
+
t
D
H
+
2
t
8
3
=
(
0
-
1.93
)
Stoia, also drawn to a cooling architecture comprising at least one unit cell (see abstract, shown at least in figure 7) having a set of walls with a thickness (shown in annotated figure 2) and having multiple openings (shown in annotated figure 2, wherein each conduit (104) contains multiple points for fluid to enter or exit a respective conduit) with each of the multiple openings having a hydraulic diameter (shown in annotated figure 2), teaches the ratio, the thickness (.100 mm, “Each of the plurality of conduits 104 have a wall thickness ranging from about 25 μm to about 200 μm”, ¶ [45]) and the hydraulic diameter (“1 mm”, ¶ [45]) relate to each other by an equation to define a unit cell performance factor (see above); and wherein
TR (TR is defined as Tf/Tm, Tf being the fluid temperature and Tm being the material temperature limit, Stoia contemplates a working fluid temperature between “0°C to about 200°C”, ¶ [53] and a list of materials such as “stainless steel, titanium, nickel super-alloy, aluminum, polymer composites (e.g., carbon fiber reinforced nylon) and polymer nanocomposites (e.g., carbon nanotube filled nylon), polyether ether ketone (PEEK), polyethylene (PE), or polypropylene (PP)”, ¶ [49], see below for further analysis). All of the aforementioned materials have a temperature at which the ultimate tensile strength decreases, for example polyethylene has a maximum temperature limit of 70°C, refer to the conclusion section for an example and detailed explanation wherein references are cited but not relied upon regarding the instant rejection. The temperature of the working fluid is capable of being passed through the heat exchanger at 0°C - 200°C (see above) and with a material temperature limit of 70°C:
if Tf = 1°C, Tf /Tm = TR = 0.014, UCPF = .0096
if Tf = 5°C, Tf /Tm = TR = 0.071, UCPF = .0483
if Tf = 200°C, Tf /Tm = TR = 2.86, UCPF = 1.93, (see intended use analysis below), wherein
UCPF is greater than 0.000245 and less than or equal to 0.15 (the range of UCPF is between 0.0096 and 1.93 that corresponds with the temperature range for Tf). For example, if Tf = 5°C, Tf /Tm = TR = 0.014, UCPF = .0483.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Miller with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Stoia, the motivation being “improved efficiency and responsiveness over current state-of-the-art designs by (i) promoting mixing of the coolant fluid as it traverses the heat exchanger, which enhances heat transfer rates and inhibits thermal stratification within the coolant fluid” (¶5) and regarding the thickness, “Such a preferred thickness provides low cost and weight to the heat exchanger 100, while also providing improved heat transfer properties” ¶45. Further, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I)
Regarding limitations “for a gas turbine engine”, “(TR)” recited in Claim 1, which are directed to how the heat exchanger is being used, specifically a temperature of the working fluid does not affect the structural configuration of the heat exchanger, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, 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, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114. The temperature of the working fluid is capable of being supplied at various temperatures, one of which is the material temperature limit, wherein the working fluid temperature does not structurally limit the heat exchanger.
Regarding Claim 21, a modified Miller further teaches the TR is greater than or equal to 0.05 and less than or equal to 0.9 (see rejection of Claim 1). Further, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I)
Regarding Claim 22, a modified Miller further teaches the walls of the at least one unit cell, the first set of conduits, and the second set of conduits fully occupy the wall gap between the first wall and the second wall (shown at least in figures 2-3, wherein the monolithic component comprising the plurality of unit cells is integrally formed and the plurality of unit cells occupy the entirety of space along the fluid flow paths).
Regarding Claim 23, in the embodiment of figure 27 Miller fails to disclose the first set of fluid conduits are trifurcated, and wherein the second set of fluid conduits are quad-furcated, however in the embodiment of figure 20 Miller teaches a first set of fluid conduits are trifurcated and wherein the second set of fluid conduits are quad-furcated (“The third flow passage 278 can include one or more sets of third furcated flow passages 282 that converge to a third interconnecting passages 284 and diverge to another set of furcated flow passages 282 oriented orthogonal to the converging set of third furcated flow passages 282. Similarly, the fourth flow passage 280 can include one or more sets of fourth furcated flow passages 286 that converge to a fourth interconnecting passage 288 and then diverge to another set of fourth furcated flow passages 286 oriented orthogonal to the converging set of fourth furcated flow passages 286 to define a hyperbolic shape for the fourth flow passage 280”, col. 13 ll. 41-51). Miller further states, “The heat exchanger assembly 14 including the lattice cell body 44 provides for improved heat transfer within the heat exchanger. The hyperbolic shape of the first and second sets of flow passages 58, 78 defined by the first and second sets of furcated flow passages 62, 80 provides for a very small length-to-diameter ratio before requiring the passages to turn or converge. The small ratio minimizes pressure drop along the first and second flow passages 58, 78.”, col. 8 ll. 25-33 and “The heat exchanger 14 further provides for improved strength. The latticed or quasi-latticed structure provides for improved strength within the heat exchanger”, col. 8 ll. 52-54.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the embodiment of figure 27 in Miller with the first set of fluid conduits being trifurcated, and wherein the second set of fluid conduits being quad-furcated, as taught by Miller in figure 20, the motivation being to increase the heat exchange capacity, heat transfer coefficient and efficiency through an increased effective length while minimizing the pressure drop within the heat exchanger.
Regarding Claim 24, a modified Miller further teaches the first set of fluid conduits are interwoven with the second set of fluid conduits (shown at least in figures 2 and 27, “The first and second sets of flow passages can be intertwined with one another”, abstract).
Regarding Claim 25, a modified Miller further teaches the first set of fluid conduits and the second set of fluid conduits are intertwined in three dimensions (shown at least in figures 2 and 27).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (USP 10107555B1) in view of Stoia et al. (US PG Pub. 2018/0328673A1), as applied in Claims 1-2, 6-10, 12 and 17-25 above and in further view of Erno et al. (US PG Pub. 2018/0328673A1), hereinafter referred to as Erno.
Regarding Claim 23, in addition to Miller, Erno, also drawn to a passage furcated heat exchanger for two fluids, teaches a first set of fluid conduits (60) are trifurcated (“each of the first fluid passages 50 extends from the first manifold 42 and furcates or split apart into two or more first furcated flow passages 60”, ¶43) and wherein the second set of fluid conduits are quad-furcated (“each of the second fluid flow passages 52 extends from the second manifold 44 and furcates or splits apart into two or more second furcated flow passages 62”, ¶50). Erno further states, “The furcated flow passages 60, 62 extending from the inlet flow passages 51, 61 and the joinders 63, 71 between furcated flow passages 60, 62. These provide division of flow and changes of direction of the fluid flows providing the thermal heat exchange. In linear tubes, thermal boundary layers and momentum boundary layers build. However, the flow division and change of direction corresponding to the furcated flow passages 60, 62 and joinders 63, 71 provide reduction of these boundary layers. The reduction of these boundary layers reduces resistivity to thermal transfer thereby allowing improved thermal transmission. Unfortunately, the changes of direction and entrance region of effects also create pressure drop across the furcating heat exchanger 40. Therefore, acceptable pressure drops may be determined and number of direction changes be designed to stay within an acceptable pressure drop limit or range”, ¶50.
Regarding Claim 23, Miller fails to disclose the first set of fluid conduits are trifurcated, and wherein the second set of fluid conduits are quad-furcated. Erno does, however, teach that the number of furcated passages of a fluid flow contributes to the heat transfer capabilities of the heat exchanger and related pressure drop. Therefore, the number of furcated flow channels is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that with an increased number of furcated flow channels, the heat exchange capability increases along with the pressure drop, other parameters remaining constant. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the heat exchanger has furcated conduits, was disclosed in the prior art by Miller, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the heat exchanger as disclosed by Miller having the first set of fluid conduits being trifurcated, and the second set of fluid conduits being quad-furcated in order to provide a predetermined level of heat transfer and pressure drop. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Claims 16 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (USP 10107555B1) in view of Stoia et al. (US PG Pub. 2018/0328673A1), as applied in Claims 1-2, 6-10, 12 and 17-25 above and in further view of Robinson et al. (USP 10493693A), hereinafter referred to as Robinson.
Regarding Claim 16, although Miller discloses the unit cell having multiple openings, Miller fails to disclose the unit cell is multiple unit cells, and the multiple openings fluidly connect consecutive unit cells to further define the fluidly separate conduits.
Robinson, also drawn to an additively manufactured heat exchanger, teaches unit cell is multiple unit cells, and the multiple openings fluidly connect consecutive unit cells to further define the fluidly separate conduits (“An exemplary monolithic structure comprises a plurality of tiled unit cells having a same shape, where the tiled unit cells are integrally formed as a single component”, see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Miller with the unit cell is multiple unit cells, and the multiple openings fluidly connect consecutive unit cells to further define the fluidly separate conduits, the motivation being to increase the heat exchange capacity with an increased working fluid flow path.
Alternately, Miller discloses the claimed invention except for multiple unit cells. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include multiple unit cells, and the multiple openings fluidly connect consecutive unit cells to further define the fluidly separate conduit, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI (B).
Regarding Claim 26, Miller fails to disclose the unit cell is a prism.
Robinson, also drawn to an additively manufactured heat exchanger, teaches a unit cell is a prism (shown in figure 2, wherein the “By way of example, while cubic unit cells and tilings of cubic unit cells are described herein, other geometries of unit cells are contemplated (e.g., hexagonal prism unit cells, logpile unit cell, etc.)”, col. 3 ll. 35-38).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting a box shape heat exchanger as shown in figure 2 of Miller with a prism shape; further the prior art to Robinson teaches a prism shape for an additively manufactured heat exchanger is known for a unit cell that allows for heat exchange between two working fluids. Therefore, since modifying the heat exchanger of Miller with having a prism shape, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat exchanger device; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Robinson there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Miller by having a prism shape in order to be installed in a predetermined area.
Regarding Claim 27, a modified Miller further teaches the unit cell is a hexagonal prism (“By way of example, while cubic unit cells and tilings of cubic unit cells are described herein, other geometries of unit cells are contemplated (e.g., hexagonal prism unit cells, logpile unit cell, etc.)”, col. 3 ll. 35-38 of Robinson).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 12 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Engineering Toolbox, “Thermoplastics -Physical Properties” discloses Maximum temperature Limit of PE (Polyethylene).
PNG
media_image2.png
299
1155
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0930-1800.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763