Detailed Action1
America Invents Act Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are objected to because of an informality: the word “end” should be inserted after “the other”. Appropriate correction is required.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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 1-9 and 13-16 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites keeping the cross-sectional area of a cross section taken perpendicular to a direction of flow of the fluid path portion (A) constant along each channel. It is unclear how the cross-sections can remain constant if a single cross section is taken. The examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite: keeping the cross-sectional area taken perpendicular to a direction of flow of the fluid path portion (A) constant along each channel.
Claims 2, 3, 13, 14, 15, and 16 each recite from one end. It is unclear if the one end is referring to the one end introduced in claim 1, or is introducing another end.
Claims 3, 14, and 16 each recite an angle between the outer walls and the straight axial fluid path portion varies along the length of the channel in relation to the direction of fluid flow through the channel from one end to the other. It is unclear what the angle is taken between since the outer walls are part of the straight axial fluid path portion. Further, the “in relation” phrase is confusing. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as: an angle between the outer walls and the direction of fluid flow varies along the length of the channel from the one end to the other end.
The rest of the claims are rejected for depending from claim 1.
Rejections under 35 USC 1032
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 obvious3 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(a) 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 2,663,321 (“Jantsch”) in view of USPGPub No. 2018/0043482 (“Vos”).
Claim 1 recites a method of forming fluid flow channels for a heat exchanger core. Jantsch teaches forming a plurality of tubes 10 that each have a channel for a heat exchanger core (figs. 1 & 13, col. 3 lines 11-43 & cols. 7-8 lines 70-10). Jantsch further teaches manufacturing channels such that each channel includes a straight axial fluid path portion extending from one end of the channel to an other end of the channel and that a cross-sectional shape of the channel varies along its length to form curved contact surfaces for the fluid as it flows along the channel, while keeping the cross-sectional area of a cross section taken perpendicular to a direction of flow of the fluid path portion (A) constant along each channel (figs. 1-6, col. 2 lines 6-18, col. 3 lines 11-43, col. 4 lines 42-66 & col. 5 lines 72-75).
Jantsch fails to explicitly teach the manufacturing being additive manufacturing. However, this would have been obvious in view of Vos.
Vos is directed to manufacturing a heat exchanger having a plurality of channels (figs. 1-5, Abstract, ¶ [0002]-[0003]). Vos teaches to create the channels via additive manufacturing as additive manufacturing can improve techniques for manufacturing heat exchangers, enables the fabrication of channel designs that are not possible or practical using other fabrication techniques, and allows optimization in designing a heat exchanger and shape/direction of its channels (¶ [0026], [0031]-[0032], [0047] & [0052]).
It would have been obvious to manufacture the tube/channel of Jantsch using additive manufacturing because the mere idea of manufacturing a known structure using additive manufacturing is not patentable. It is obvious to apply a known technique to a known product or method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a base device (a method or apparatus that will be modified) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement, (2) teach a known technique that is applicable to the base device, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results that would improve the base device. See MPEP 2143(D).
In this case, Jantsch teaches manufacturing the plurality of tubes that delimit the plurality of channels. The only difference between the prior art and the claim is that the claim recites fabricating the structure using an additive manufacturing technique. Additive manufacturing, as taught by Vos, is now a known manufacturing method in the heat exchanger manufacturing arts. Additive manufacturing has the potential to make virtually any shape or structure, including the claimed structure. It would have been predictable to replace the previous fabrication method with an additive manufacturing method. Such a modification would have been predicable because Vos teaches that additive manufacturing is now used to make complicated channel shapes/designs. As such, it would have been obvious to manufacture the tubes/channels of Jantsch via additive manufacturing.
Put another way, it is not patentable to use a known manufacturing technique (in this case, additive manufacturing) to fabricate a known structure from the prior art, absent (1) evidence that those of ordinary skill would believe such a structure could not be successfully fabricated by additive manufacturing or (2) claim steps unique to the fabrication of the claimed structure by additive manufacturing.
Regarding claim 2, Jantsch further teaches each channel includes outer walls that define a shape that varies from one end of the channel to the other and wherein the straight axial fluid path portion (A) is defined between the outer walls (figs. 1-6).
Claim 3 recites the outer walls define a shape such that an angle between the outer walls and the straight axial fluid path portion varies along the length of the channel in relation to the direction of fluid flow through the channel from one end to the other. Since the channels of Jantsch have curved surfaces and different cross-sectional shapes, the angle between the wall and the fluid path will vary (see e.g. figs 2 & 6 of Jantsch).
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPub No. 2012/0138266 (“Yamada”) in view of Jantsch and Vos.
Regarding claim 1, Yamada teaches a method of forming fluid flow channels for a heat exchanger core (fig. 1, ¶ [0001] & [0039]), the method comprising: manufacturing channels (R1/R2) such that each channel includes a straight axial fluid path portion (F) extending from one end of the channel to an other end of the channel (figs. 2, 3A, 3B, 4 & 6, ¶ [0040]). Claim 1 also recites a cross-sectional shape of the channel varies along its length, while keeping the cross-sectional area of a cross section taken perpendicular to a direction of flow of the fluid path portion (A) constant along each channel. Yamada teaches the channels having an outline/boundary (i.e. shape) that changes along its length while keeping a constant cross-sectional area (figs. 2, 3A & 3B, ¶ [0043]-[0045], e.g. the shape of area T1 is wider and shorter than the shape of area T2).
While Yamada teaches that the flow paths can have curved shapes instead of step-wise shapes (¶ [0068]), Yamada fails to explicitly teach an embodiment having curved contact surfaces for the fluid as it flows along the channel, while also maintaining the constant cross-sectional area. However, this would have been obvious in view of Jantsch.
Jantsch is also directed to a heat transfer channel of a heat exchanger (figs. 1 & 13, col. 1 lines 1-4). Jantsch teaches each channel changing its shape along the length while maintaining a constant cross-sectional area, and while the channel has curved contact surfaces (figs. 1-6, col. 2 lines 6-18, col. 3 lines 11-43, col. 4 lines 42-66 & col. 5 lines 72-75).
In this case, each of Yamada and Jantsch is directed to heat exchange flow paths that change shape while keeping a constant cross-sectional area. While Yamada suggests that this can be accomplished while providing curved contact surfaces, Jantsch teaches that it is known and predictable to change the shapes of a channel while the channel has curved contact surfaces and a constant cross-sectional area. Thus, it would be obvious for the channels of Yamada to have curved contact surfaces while also changing shapes and having a constant cross-sectional area.
Yamada fails to explicitly teach the manufacturing being additive manufacturing. However, this would have been obvious in view of Vos.
Vos is directed to manufacturing a heat exchanger having a plurality of channels (figs. 1-5, Abstract, ¶ [0002]-[0003]). Vos teaches to create the channels via additive manufacturing as additive manufacturing can improve techniques for manufacturing heat exchangers, enables the fabrication of channel designs that are not possible or practical using other fabrication techniques, can make one-piece heat exchanger cores, and allows optimization in designing a heat exchanger and shape/direction of its channels (¶ [0026], [0031]-[0032], [0047] & [0052]).
It would have been obvious to manufacture the individual layers 11/12 of Yamada, or a one-piece heat exchanger core 10, using additive manufacturing because the mere idea of manufacturing a known structure using additive manufacturing is not patentable. It is obvious to apply a known technique to a known product or method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a base device (a method or apparatus that will be modified) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement, (2) teach a known technique that is applicable to the base device, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results that would improve the base device. See MPEP 2143(D).
In this case, Yamada teaches manufacturing the heat exchanger core comprising the plurality of channels. The only difference between the prior art and the claim is that the claim recites fabricating the structure using an additive manufacturing technique. Additive manufacturing, as taught by Vos, is now a known manufacturing method in the heat exchanger manufacturing arts. Additive manufacturing has the potential to make virtually any shape or structure, including the claimed structure. It would have been predictable to replace the previous fabrication method with an additive manufacturing method as taught by Vos. Such a modification would have been predicable because Vos teaches that additive manufacturing is now used to make complicated heat exchanger and channel shapes/designs. As such, it would have been obvious to manufacture the heat exchange core of Yamada via additive manufacturing.
Put another way, it is not patentable to use a known manufacturing technique (in this case, additive manufacturing) to fabricate a known structure from the prior art, absent (1) evidence that those of ordinary skill would believe such a structure could not be successfully fabricated by additive manufacturing or (2) claim steps unique to the fabrication of the claimed structure by additive manufacturing.
Regarding claim 2, Yamada further teaches each channel includes outer walls that define a shape that varies from one end of the channel to the other and wherein the straight axial fluid path portion (A) is defined between the outer walls (figs. 2, 3A, 3B, 4 & 6, e.g. the shape of area T1 is wider and shorter than the shape of area T2).
Claim 3 recites the outer walls define a shape such that an angle between the outer walls and the straight axial fluid path portion varies along the length of the channel in relation to the direction of fluid flow through the channel from one end to the other. Since the channels of Yamada were modified to have curved surfaces extending along the direction of fluid flow (i.e. between the differently shaped areas T1 & T2 of Yamada), the angle between the wall and the fluid path will vary (see e.g. figs 2 & 6 of Jantsch).
Regarding claim 4, Yamada et al. teaches a method of manufacturing a heat exchanger core, comprising: forming a plurality of fluid flow channels as claimed in claim 1 by additive manufacturing (see rejection to claim 1 above). Claim 4 also recites the plurality of fluid flow channels comprising alternate layers of hot channels and cold channels. This is an intended use limitation, thus the heat exchanger core of Yamada et al. merely has to be capable of this use. Since the core of Yamada has a plurality of layers having independent channels (see figs. 1-2), the core 10 is capable of being used so that there are alternating layers of hot and cold channels.
Regarding claim 7, Yamada et al. teaches a method of manufacturing a heat exchanger core, comprising: forming a plurality of fluid flow channels as claimed in claim 1 by additive manufacturing (see rejection to claim 1 above). Claim 7 also recites the plurality of fluid flow channels comprising alternate layers of channels, each layer comprising alternating hot and cold channels to result in a checkerboard pattern of hot and cold channels. This is an intended use limitation, thus the heat exchanger core of Yamada et al. merely has to be capable of this use. Since the core of Yamada has a plurality of layers, wherein each layer has a plurality of independent channels (see figs. 1-2), the core 10 is capable of being used so that there are alternating hot and cold channels in each layer that form a checkerboard pattern.
Claims 6 and 9 each recite the channels are formed in a direction perpendicular to the fluid flow direction. Vos suggests that it is known and predictable to form channels in a direction perpendicular to the fluid flow direction by using supporting structures for the overhangs that can be removed after fabrication (fig. 1, ¶ [0030]). Thus, when manufacturing the heat exchanger core of Yamada as a one-piece, it would be obvious and predictable to form the channels in a direction perpendicular to the fluid flow direction (i.e. from the bottom to the top when viewing fig. 1) by using supporting structures for the overhangs that can be removed after fabrication.
Regarding claim 13, Yamada further teaches each channel includes outer walls that define a shape that varies from one end of the channel to the other and wherein the straight axial fluid path portion (A) is defined between the outer walls (figs. 2, 3A, 3B, 4 & 6, e.g. the shape of area T1 is wider and shorter than the shape of area T2).
Claim 14 recites the outer walls define a shape such that an angle between the outer walls and the straight axial fluid path portion varies along the length of the channel in relation to the direction of fluid flow through the channel from one end to the other. Since the channels of Yamada were modified to have curved surfaces extending along the direction of fluid flow (i.e. between the differently shaped areas T1 & T2 of Yamada), the angle between the wall and the fluid path will vary (see e.g. figs 2 & 6 of Jantsch).
Regarding claim 15, Yamada further teaches each channel includes outer walls that define a shape that varies from one end of the channel to the other and wherein the straight axial fluid path portion (A) is defined between the outer walls (figs. 2, 3A, 3B, 4 & 6, e.g. the shape of area T1 is wider and shorter than the shape of area T2).
Claim 16 recites the outer walls define a shape such that an angle between the outer walls and the straight axial fluid path portion varies along the length of the channel in relation to the direction of fluid flow through the channel from one end to the other. Since the channels of Yamada were modified to have curved surfaces extending along the direction of fluid flow (i.e. between the differently shaped areas T1 & T2 of Yamada), the angle between the wall and the fluid path will vary (see e.g. figs 2 & 6 of Jantsch).
Claims 5-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. as applied to claims 4 or 7 above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2022/0205735 (“Lynch”).
Regarding claims 5 and 8, Yamada et al. fail to explicitly teach the channels are formed from the bottom up in the fluid flow direction. However, this would have been obvious in view of Lynch.
Lynch is also directed to additively manufacturing heat exchanger cores having channels (figs. 1A-1C, ¶ [0001] & [0042]). Lynch teaches the direction of manufacture of the core can be in either a direction aligned with the passages (i.e. the Z-direction when viewing figs. 1A-1C) or orthogonal to channel alignment (i.e. direction Y).
In this case, each of Yamada et al. and Lynch are directed to additively manufacturing heat exchanger cores having channels. Lynch teaches one of skill in the art that the build direction of the heat exchange core can be either in a direction aligned with the flow direction of the channels, or can be orthogonal to flow direction of the channels. Thus, it would be obvious and predictable to additively manufacture the heat exchanger core of Yamada in a one-piece construction so that, at least when forming channels R1 of Yamada, the build direction is in a direction parallel to the flow direction of channel R1 (i.e. from a bottom of the channels R1 upward to the top).
Regarding claims 6 and 9, assuming arguendo that Yamada et al. fail to teach the channels are formed in a direction perpendicular to the fluid flow direction, this would have been obvious in view of Lynch.
Lynch is also directed to additively manufacturing heat exchanger cores having channels (figs. 1A-1C, ¶ [0001] & [0042]). Lynch teaches the direction of manufacture of the core can be in either a direction aligned with the passages (i.e. the Z-direction when viewing figs. 1A-1C) or orthogonal to channel alignment (i.e. direction Y).
In this case, each of Yamada et al. and Lynch are directed to additively manufacturing heat exchanger cores having channels. Lynch teaches one of skill in the art that the build direction of the heat exchange core can be either in a direction aligned with the flow direction of the channels, or can be orthogonal to flow direction of the channels. Thus, it would be obvious and predictable to additively manufacture the heat exchanger core of Yamada so that the build direction is in a direction perpendicular to the flow direction of channels R1 and R2.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and to the knowledge of one of skill in the art.
USPGPub No. 2017/0205146 teaches that it is known to additively manufacture channels of various shapes, including round/circular shapes, and wherein the channels have a constant area or varying area (figs. 1-4, ¶ [0007]-[0008] & [0024]).
Conclusion
This action is made non-final because the prior art rejections could have been made in the previous Office action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Thomas Hong (571-272-0993). 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2 In 103 rejections, when the primary reference is followed by “et al.”, “et al.” refers to the secondary references. For example, if Jones was modified by Smith and Johnson, subsequent recitations of “Jones et al.” mean “Jones in view of Smith and Johnson”.
3 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”
Prosecution Insights