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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 12/8/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4,7, 12-13 and 16-19 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. Claims 1-4,7,12-13 and 16-19 are now rejected under a new ground of rejection in which the limitation of “distributor”, “along the longitudinal direction” and “wherein the distributor is configured to be crossed by the first air flow and the second airflow” are now considered in the rejections below. Furthermore, regarding the combination of Hofmann and Aldurene, applicant’s argument that reference to Hofmann teach away from having the fins (in paragraph 15 of Hofmann) is not persuasive because Hofmann does not teach away from having the fins inside the air flow channel. In fact, Hofmann discloses (column 2, lines 58-63) that a rough surface, cooling ribs, within the heat exchange channel is for improving the heat transfer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aldurene et al. (WO 2020089680A1). Regarding claim 1, Aldurene discloses (figures 4-18) a heat exchanger comprising a support wall (24) extending in a longitudinal direction and a first plurality of fins (38) that each rise from an external surface of the support wall and intended to be swept by a first air flow (arrow, see figure 13), characterized in that the heat exchanger comprises, downstream of the first plurality of fins (38) in the longitudinal direction a second plurality of fins (40) that each rise from the external surface of the support wall (24), the first and the second plurality of fins being separated at least partly by a distributor (26, figure 9), in the longitudinal direction, which are configured such that the first air flow circulates outside the second plurality of fins (40) and a second air flow (see arrow, figure 18) circulating outside the first plurality of fins (40) along the longitudinal direction (second flow start at a downstream of the first air flow at the end of the first fin 38) passes through the second plurality of fins (40), wherein the distributor (26) is configured to be crossed by the first airflow and the second air flow (first air flow crosses in the longitudinal direction of the distributor, figure 13 and the second air flow crosses in the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, figure 18) Regarding the limitation of “ for a turbomachine”, it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). Regarding claim 12, Aldurene further discloses that the first and the second plurality of fins are continuous and rectilinear along a longitudinal direction (see figure 6, first and second fins continuous with connection 42).
Regarding claim 13, the method of forming the device “produced by additive manufacturing” is not germane to the issue of the patentability itself. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a heat exchanger of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In this case, the heat exchanger in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from the Aldurene’s heat exchanger though the prior heat exchanger was made by a different process.
Regarding claim 16, Aldurene discloses that the first air flow circulating outside the second plurality of fins circulate outside the heat exchanger (figure 13) and the second air flow circulating outside the first plurality of fins circulates outside the heat exchanger. (figure 18)
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 12, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Materna (US 6,668,915) in view of Malone et al. (US 6,935,419). Materna discloses (figure 11 and figure A shown below, column 1, lines 13-36 and column 25, lines 10-15) a heat exchanger comprising a first plurality of fins (1150d, 1180a, see figure A) and intended to be swept by a first air flow, and, downstream of the first plurality of fins (1150d) in the longitudinal direction a second plurality of fins (1180a), first and the second plurality of fins being separated at least partly by a distributor ( a whole section is interpreted to be a distributor figure A), in the longitudinal direction, which are configured such that the first air flow circulates outside the second plurality of fins (1180a) and a second air flow circulating outside the first plurality of fins (1150d) passes through the second plurality of fins (1180a) along the longitudinal direction, passes through the second plurality of fins , wherein the distributor is configured to be crossed by the first air flow and the second air flow (the first air flow flows cross the distributor on one side and the second air flow flows cross the distributor on adjacent side, see figure A, the distributor comprises two path for the first and second air flow to pass through). Regarding the limitation of “ for a turbomachine”, it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). Regarding claim 1, Materna is silent about a support wall, that has both the first and plurality of fins, each rises from the external surface of the support wall. Malone et al. discloses (figure 5C) a heat exchanger that has a plurality of first and second fins (102U, 102D), each rises from a support wall (100) for a purpose of supporting a plurality of fins in a heat exchanger so that the support wall can be cooled. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Malone’s teaching in Materna’s device for a purpose of supporting a plurality of fins in a heat exchanger so that the support wall can be cooled. Regarding claims 2 and 19, Materna discloses (figure A) that it comprises a first profiled wall which is disposed upstream of the first plurality of fins and which is configured so as to guide and slow down the first air flow entering the heat exchanger through the first plurality of fins (the first profiled wall extends an angle to enlarge the inlet so to slow down the first air flowing through) and a second profiled wall which is disposed downstream of the second plurality of fins and which is configured so as to accelerate the second air flow exiting the heat exchanger through the second plurality of fins (the second profiled wall extends at an angle to narrow the outlet through the second air flow exits the heat exchanger). Regarding claim 3, Materna discloses (figure A) that it comprises a first profiled panel covering the fins of the first plurality of fins, the first profiled wall being connected, upstream, to the first profiled panel. Regarding claim 4, Materna discloses (figure A) that the distribution comprise a first ramp arranged downstream of the first plurality of fins and which rises from the external surface of the support wall, being inclined, so that the first air flow exiting from the first plurality of fins is directed towards an outside of the heat exchanger (the first air flow exit out of the heat exchanger by passage 1160). Regarding claim 7, Materna further discloses (figure A) a second profiled panel covering the fins of the second plurality of fins, the second profiled wall being connected, downstream, to the second profiled panel. Regarding claim 12, Materna further discloses (figure 11) that the first fins and second plurality of fins are discontinuous and disposed in a staggered row. Regarding claim 13, the method of forming the device “produced by additive manufacturing” is not germane to the issue of the patentability itself. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a heat exchanger of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.
PNG
media_image1.png
624
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: the modified figure corresponds to figure 11 with limitation shown.
Claims 1, 4, 12, 13, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofmann (US 9,022,098) in view of Aldurene et al. (WO 202089680A1). Hofmann discloses (figures 1-2) a heat exchanger comprising a support wall (15.25,35, column 4, lines 43-44) extending in a longitudinal direction and a first plurality of fins (cooling ribs in a first stage heat exchange channel 11, column 3, lines 37-40) that each rise from an external surface of the support wall and intended to be swept by a first air flow (14), and downstream of the first plurality of fins in the longitudinal direction, a second heat exchange channel (21); the first and second heat exchange channels or stages (11 and 21) are separated by at least partly by a distribution (7 or 8), in the longitudinal direction, which are configured such that the first air flow (14) circulates outside the second heat exchange channel or stage (21) and a second air flow (24) circulating outside the first plurality of fins along the longitudinal direction, passes through the second heat exchange channel (21), wherein the distributor is configured to be crossed by the first air flow and the second air flow (see figure 1, air flows (14,24) cross the distributor (7 or 8) . Regarding claim 1, Hofmann does not disclose that second heat exchange channel or stage has a plurality of second fins rises from the support wall. Aldurene discloses a heat exchanger that has a multiple stage heat exchange channels, wherein each exchange channel comprises a plurality of fins rises from the external surface of the supporting wall or the cooling wall of the heat exchanger channel for a purpose of improving heat transfer of the heat exchange channel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Aldurene’s teaching in Hofmann’s device for a purpose of improving heat transfer of the second heat exchange channel. Regarding the limitation of “ for a turbomachine”, it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951).
Regarding claim 4, Hofmann discloses (figures 1-3 and figure B shown below) that a distribution feature (7 or 8) comprise a first ramp (plate discloses as a broken line shown in figure 1 and figure B) arranged downstream of the first plurality of fins and which rises from the external surface of the support wall, being inclined, so that the first air flow exiting from the first plurality of fins is directed towards an outside of the heat exchanger (first air flow exits at 13 or 23)
Regarding claim 12, Hofmann does not disclose that the first and second plurality of fins are continuous and rectilinear each along a longitudinal direction. Aldurene discloses (figure 4) a heat exchanger that has a first plurality of first and second fins (38 and 40) are continuous and rectilinear raise from the support wall (24) for a purpose of improving heat transfer performance of the heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 13, the method of forming the device “produced by additive manufacturing” is not germane to the issue of the patentability itself. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a heat exchanger of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.
Regarding claims 17, Hofmann discloses (figure 1) that the heat exchanger comprises a first profiled panel (16) and a second profiled panel (26) extending in a direction parallel to the support wall (15, 25); the first plurality of fins extending between the support wall (15) and the first profiled panel (16). The combination device of Hofmann in view of Aldurene also discloses that the second plurality of fins extending between the support wall (25) and the second profiled panel (26) (the second plurality fins in the second heat exchange channel are taught by Aldurene.
Regarding claim 18, Hofmann discloses that the first and second profiled panels (16,26) are connected by the distribution feature (7 or 8).
Regarding claim 20, Hofmann further discloses (figures 2 and 3) that the distributor (7 or 8) comprises a plurality of stacks and passages (41,42) which are alternated along a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (in the width direction shown in figure 2), the first air flow and the second air flow circulate each respective in one of the stacks and passage. (41,42)
PNG
media_image2.png
806
387
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B: the modified figure corresponds to figure 1 of Hofmann with limitations shown.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record either taken singularly or in combination fails to disclose the invention as claimed. In particular, references to Materna, Hofmann and Aldurene are the closet prior art but fail to disclose a plurality of stacks extending between the first profiled wall portion and the first ramp (claims 5-6, 9 and 11), the second profiled wall portion comprising through orifices into which passages open (claims 8, 10) and an opening or a recess in which the heat exchanger with the first profiled and second panels is installed, the first wall being connected upstream of a first panel to a segment of the annular wall (claims 14-15) in combination with other limitations in the claim.
Conclusion
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 THO V DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4793. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 10-6PM.
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, Atkisson Jianying 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.
/THO V DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763