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 .
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 11/14/2025 are as follows:
Claims 1-15, 30, 33, and 34 are cancelled by the applicant;
Claims 16-29, 31, 32, and 35-38 are pending and are being examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Currently, no claim limitations invoke 112(f).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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 16-25, 31, 32, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US2016/0123230A1, as cited in the IDS) in view of Gonner (US5791406, as previously cited).
Re Claim 16. Thomas teaches a heat exchanger plate (240) for providing heat transfer between a first flow along a first flowpath (flow from 250 along 258) and a second flow along a second flowpath (flow from 260 in Figure 3) (Figures 3-6),
the heat exchanger plate comprising a substrate (240) having (Figures 3-6; Paragraphs 43-45):
a first face (back side of 240 in Figure 3) and a second face (front side of 240 in Figure 3) opposite the first face (Figures 3-6; Paragraphs 43-45; See annotated Figure 3);
a leading edge (side of 240 closest to 260) along the second flowpath and a trailing edge (side of 240 at opposite end of 260) along the second flowpath (Figures 3-6; Paragraphs 43-45; See annotated Figure 3);
a proximal edge (edge of 240 closest to 110) having at least one inlet port along the first flowpath and at least one outlet port along the first flowpath (Figure 3 illustrates the inlet and outlet ports both located at the proximal edge; Figures 3-6; Paragraphs 43-45; See annotated Figure 3); and
at least one passageway (258) along the first flowpath between the at least one inlet port of the plate and the at least one outlet port of the plate (Figure 3; Paragraphs 43-45; See annotated Figure 3),
PNG
media_image1.png
498
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the heat exchanger plate further comprising a plurality of fin structures (142, 432a-d) along the first face, each fin structure comprising: a base (bottom U-shaped portion of 432a-d) secured to the first face (the base is in contact with the first face and thus is “secured”); and a first fin (one of the horizontal portions of 432a-d) and a second fin (another one of the horizontal portions of 432a-d) extending from respective first and second edges of the base (Figures 3-6; Paragraphs 43-45).
Thomas teaches corrugated fins but fails to specifically teach the fin structure comprises the base secured to the first face by brazing, welding, or diffusion bonding; and the first fin and the second fin extending from respective first and second edges of the base to respective first and second free edges.
However, Gonner teaches it is known to form a fin structure as either a continuous corrugated fin (Figures 1, 3, 5) or as U-shaped fins (Figures 2, 6, 7), wherein the U-shaped fins (13) comprise a base (13c) secured to the first face by brazing, welding, or diffusion bonding (Figures 2, 6, 7; Column 2 lines 10-21, Column 2 lines 29-42 teaches using solder coated sheet metal for securing the fins and Column 4 lines 1-4 teaches the solder is made of brazing filler metal. Thus, the fins of Gonner are secured via brazing); and a first fin (13a) and a second fin (13b) extending from respective first and second edges of the base to respective first and second free edges (Figures 2, 6, 7; Column 4 lines 5-25; Column 5 lines 10-14 also teaches using welding to secure the fins, as well as that the ends of the connected fins can be cut to form fins with free ends).
Therefore, in view of Gonner's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the fins of Thomas as free ends in order to enhance the turbulence of the air flow, thereby increasing the heat exchange between the two flows. Thomas teaches that it is beneficial for the corrugated sheets to have “perforations or other turbulating features that disturb gasses”, wherein the free end fin configuration of Gonner would accomplish that function. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement the turbulating features of Gonner into the heat exchanger of Thomas. Additionally, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Re Claim 19. Thomas as modified by Gonner teach a heat exchanger (200 of Thomas) for providing heat transfer between a first flow along a first flowpath (flow from 250 along 258 of Thomas) and a second flow along a second flowpath (flow from 260 in Figure 3 of Thomas) (Thomas Figures 3-6);
the heat exchanger comprising: at least one plate bank (Thomas, the plurality of plates 240) comprising a plurality of plates (Thomas 240) according to claim 16 (see above; Thomas Figures 3-4 illustrate a plurality of plates), wherein: for each plate, the fin structures are arrayed in parallel and progressively change in height from the first face from one fin structure to the next (Thomas Figures 3-5 illustrate progressive heights from the inner wall to the outer wall, Paragraphs 40-46; Gonner Figures 2, 6, 7); and within each plate bank, the progressive change in fin height accommodates a progressive change in plate orientation from one plate to the next (Thomas Figures 3-5 illustrate progressive heights from the inner wall to the outer wall. The curved inner wall 210 results in each plate 240 having a progressive change in plate orientation as the inner wall curves; Thomas, Paragraphs 41-46; Gonner Figures 2, 6, 7).
Re Claim 22. Thomas as modified by Gonner teach a gas turbine engine (20 of Thomas) including the heat exchanger of claim 19 (see claim 19 rejection above) wherein: the first flow is a bleed flow and the second flow is a bypass flow (Thomas Figures 1-6, Paragraph 38 teaches using hot engine air and bypass air. Thus, the heat exchanger is capable of accepting bleed flow and bypass flows. It is noted that the claims are directed towards an apparatus, wherein the material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims. Specifically, MPEP 2115 states that “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parteThibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Additionally, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e. using different heat transfer medium) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP2114(II)).
Re Claim 17. Thomas as modified by Gonner teach the fin structures are arrayed in parallel and progressively change in height from the first face from one fin structure to the next (Thomas Figures 3-5 illustrate progressive heights for the fins from the inner wall to the outer wall, Paragraphs 41-42; Gonner Figures 2, 6, 7).
Re Claim 18. Thomas as modified by Gonner teach the heat exchanger plate further comprising a plurality of second fin structures along the second face, each second fin structure comprising: a base secured to the second face; and a first fin and a second fin extending from respective first and second edges of the second fin structure base to respective first and second free edges (Figures 3-4 of Thomas illustrate multiple sets of fins; Thomas Paragraph 40-42; Gonner Figures 2, 6, 7).
Re Claim 20. Thomas as modified by Gonner teach an inlet manifold (Thomas 255) having at least one inlet port (Thomas 255 where 250 enters) and at least one outlet port (Thomas, part of 255 that connects to 240); and an outlet manifold (Thomas 257) having at least one outlet port (where 250 exits from 257) and at least one inlet port (Thomas, part of 257 connected to 240), the first flowpath (Thomas 258) passing from the at least one inlet port of the inlet manifold, through the at least one passageway of each of the plurality of plates, and through the at least one outlet port of the outlet manifold (Thomas Figure 3).
Re Claim 21. Thomas as modified by Gonner teach the inlet manifold and outlet manifold are arcuate having a convex first face and a concave second face; and the at least one plate bank is mounted to the convex first faces (Thomas Figures 2-4 illustrates the arcuate convex faces).
Re Claim 23. Thomas as modified by Gonner teach the fin structures are along a distal portion of the substrate; and the heat exchanger further comprises one or more integrally cast fins along a proximal portion (Thomas Paragraph 40-42, Figures 3-6 illustrate the fins extending from the proximal to distal end, thereby satisfying the limitation; Gonner Figures 2, 6, 7. Gonner Figure 2 specifically teaches combining cast fins 2b with the fin structures 13). Additionally, the presence of process limitations (i.e. methods of manufacturing via casting) on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See MPEP 2113. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to integrally form the fins, since it has been held that the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art as a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP 2144.04 (V, B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the fins integral, since it has been held that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art as a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP 2144.04 (V, B).
Re Claim 24. Thomas as modified by Gonner teach the fin structures and the one or more integrally cast fins along a proximal portion have a diverging height profile from proximal to distal (Thomas Figures 3-5 illustrate progressive heights for the fins from the inner wall to the outer wall, Paragraphs 41-42; Gonner Figures 2, 6, 7. Gonner Figure 2 specifically teaches combining cast fins 2b with the fin structures 13).
Re Claim 25. Thomas as modified by Gonner teach the heat exchanger plate further comprising a plurality of second fin structures along the second face, each second fin structure comprising: a base secured to the second face; and a first fin and a second fin extending from respective first and second edges of the second fin structure base to respective first and second free edges; the second fin structures are along a distal portion of the substrate (Figures 3-4 of Thomas illustrate multiple sets of fins; Thomas Paragraph 40-42; Gonner Figures 2, 6, 7); and
the heat exchanger further comprises one or more integrally cast fins along a proximal portion of the second face (Thomas Paragraph 40-42, Figures 3-6 illustrate the fins extending from the proximal to distal end, thereby satisfying the limitation; Gonner Figures 2, 6, 7. Gonner Figure 2 specifically teaches combining cast fins 2b with the fin structures 13). Additionally, the presence of process limitations (i.e. methods of manufacturing via casting) on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See MPEP 2113. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to integrally form the fins, since it has been held that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art as a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP 2144.04 (V, B); and
the base is secured to the first face by brazing, welding, or diffusion bonding (Gonner Figures 2, 6, 7; Column 2 lines 10-21, Column 2 lines 29-42 teaches using solder coated sheet metal for securing the fins and Column 4 lines 1-4 teaches the solder is made of brazing filler metal. Thus, the fins of Gonner are secured via brazing).
Re Claim 31. Thomas as modified by Gonner teach the fin structures are respective pieces (Thomas Figures 3-6, Paragraphs 40-42; Gonner Figures 2, 6, 7 illustrate pieces).
Re Claim 32 & 35. Thomas as modified by Gonner teach the substrate is a cast substrate (Thomas Figures 3-6, Paragraphs 40-42 teach a solid substrate, thus satisfying the structural limitations; Gonner Figures 2, 6, 7. It is noted that the claims are directed to a product and not a method of manufacturing. Therefore, the presence of process limitations (i.e. process of forming via casting) on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See MPEP 2113. Therefore, how the substrate is formed, whether via casting or additive manufacturing or some other method, does not impart patentability to the substrate).
Claims 26-29 and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US2016/0123230A1, as cited in the IDS) in view of Gonner (US5791406, as previously cited) and in further view of Sennoun (US2018/0245853A1, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claims 26 & 27. Thomas teaches forming the fins from metal (Paragraph 52) and Gonner teaches forming the assemblies from aluminum or copper (Page 3 lines 39-45 and Column 4 lines 53-58) but fail to specifically teach the fin structures and the substrate are of nickel-based superalloy.
However, Sennoun teaches forming the fin structures and the substrate from a nickel-based superalloy (Paragraph 47).
Therefore, in view of Sennoun's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the fin structures and substrate from a nickel-based superalloy in order to provide the known benefits of high-temperature strength, corrosion resistance, and oxidation resistance. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the fin structures and substrate from a nickel-based superalloy, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re Claim 28. Thomas as modified by Gonner teach the fin structures are respective pieces (Thomas Figures 3-6, Paragraphs 40-42; Gonner Figures 2, 6, 7 illustrate pieces).
Re Claim 29 & 36. Thomas as modified by Gonner teach the substrate is a cast substrate (Thomas Figures 3-6, Paragraphs 40-42 teach a solid substrate, thus satisfying the structural limitations; Gonner Figures 2, 6, 7. It is noted that the claims are directed to a product and not a method of manufacturing. Therefore, the presence of process limitations (i.e. process of forming via casting) on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See MPEP 2113. Therefore, how the substrate is formed, whether via casting or additive manufacturing or some other method, does not impart patentability to the substrate).
Re Claims 37 & 38. Thomas as modified by Gonner teach the fin structures are sheet metal (Thomas Figures 3-6, Paragraphs 40-42; Gonner Figures 2, 6, 7, Column 2 lines 28-42, Column 3 lines 36-53).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 9 of the reply that “First, the examiner is not drawing a motivation/benefit from the secondary reference but is, instead, drawing it from the primary reference. This is utterly unprecedented”. Applicants arguments lack factual evidence to support their argument and therefore amount to arguments of counsel. MPEP 2145 states that “arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence”. MPEP 2141-2144 outlines multiple times that the motivation for combining references is based on the combined teachings. There is no explicit rule stating that the motivation to combine must be solely in the secondary reference as alleged by the applicant. Thus, the applicant’s assertion that doing so is “utterly unprecedented” is incorrect.
Applicant argues on page 9 of the reply that “There is no basis for the unsupported assertion that the removal of the end turns from Gonner et al. "would accomplish the turbulation of Thomas” There is no basis furthermore for the required finding that Gonner et al. would have commended itself to Thomas to achieve this. The examiner has not even explained how the gases are disturbed”. The unconstrained free ends of the fins of Gonner would generate turbulent flow due to the intermixing of the airstreams. Therefore, the applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 10-11 that it is not simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and further outlines the graham factors. Gonner teaches it is known to form a fin structure as either a continuous corrugated fin (Figures 1, 3, 5) or as U-shaped fins (Figures 2, 6, 7), wherein the U-shaped fins (13) comprise a base (13c) secured to the first face by brazing, welding, or diffusion bonding (Figures 2, 6, 7). Thus, Gonner explicitly outlines the simple substitution for either configuration of fins. Therefore, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 12 of the reply that “Col. 3, lines 36-46. This captures the corrugation. Nothing identifies this as cast”. The presence of process limitations (i.e. methods of manufacturing via casting) on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See MPEP 2113. Therefore, the applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 12 of the reply that “Furthermore, the examiner has offered no factfinding regarding this structure (e.g., purpose/functioning) explanation of how this structure would or could be integrated into Thomas, let alone why”. The examiner has set forth the facts as outlined in the office action above. Thomas teaches corrugated fins and Gonner teaches it is known to form fins as either corrugated or individual U-shaped fins with free ends. Thomas establishes that turbulence features are desirable for the fins, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the free end configuration of Gonner would generate more turbulence than connected corrugated fins. Thus, contrary to the applicants’ repeated assertions, the facts have been clearly outlined in the office action. Therefore, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TRAVIS C RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763