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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed with respect to the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the Amendment. Accordingly, the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn. Please see below for new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), necessitated by Amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are moot. Applicant has amended the claims to recite new combinations of limitations. Applicant' s arguments are directed at the amendment. Please see below for new grounds of rejection, necessitated by Amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “substantially U-shaped cross-sections” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially U-shaped cross-sections” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets to read the above as “U-shaped cross-sections”.
Claims 17-19 are rejected at least insofar as they are dependent on rejected claim(s), and therefore include the same error(s).
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEKI (US 20180238642 A1: Previously cited) in view of Jansen (US 10359239 B1: Previously cited) and Kenney (US 20160204486 A1).
Regarding claim 1, SEKI teaches a tubular element for a heat exchanger (see Figures 1(a)-3), the tubular element comprising: at least one set of inlet channels (left set of 14 as shown in Figure 2); at least one set of outlet channels (right set of 14 as shown in Figure 2); and
at least one separating wall (13A) configured between the at least one set of inlet channels (left set of 14 as shown in Figure 2) and the at least one set of outlet channels (right set of 14 as shown in Figure 2),
a fluid distribution tank (tank of 20: see Figure 1(a)) coupled to a first end of the tubular element (see Figure 1(a)), wherein the fluid distribution tank includes at least one inlet opening (25) fluidically connected to the at least one set of inlet channels (left set of 14 as shown in Figure 2), and at least one outlet opening (27) fluidically connected to the at least one set of outlet channels (right set of 14 as shown in Figure 2); wherein the fluid distribution tank (tank of 20) includes a first plate (20) and a second plate ( plate of 10b that under 20) coupled to the first plate (see Figure 3).
SEKI does not teach wherein the at least one set of inlet channels and the at least one set of outlet channels are configured asymmetric with respect to each other with reference to the at least one separating wall and a U-shaped dividing wall defining at least two sub-chambers that form arched pathways for fluid.
However, it’s old and well known for tubular elements to have asymmetric configuration between inlet channels and outlet channels, as evidenced by Jansen, see in Jansen’s Figure 11 where the inlet channels (20a) and the outlet channels (20b) are asymmetric with respect to each other.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the inlet channels and outlet channels of SEKI to be configured asymmetric with respect to each other with reference to the at least one separating wall, since as evidenced by Jansen, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of slowing down/speeding up the flow of the working fluid to reach the optimum heat exchange rate.
Moreover, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the fluid distribution tank configuration from straight pathways (i.e. Applicant’s Figure 1) to arched pathways (i.e. Applicant’s Figure 3) would result in a difference in function of the heat exchanger of SEKI in view of Jansen. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the fluid distribution tank configuration of SEKI in view of Jansen, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the heat exchanger would function as intended being given the claimed configuration. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed configuration solves any stated problem, indicating in an alternative embodiment that the fluid distribution tank 152 “can” include a substantially U-shaped dividing wall 166a, (see specification at para. [0045]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the fluid distribution tank configuration as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result. Furthermore, it’s old and well known for heat exchangers to have fluid distribution tank with a U-shaped dividing wall defining at least two sub-chambers that form arched pathways for fluid, as evidenced by Kenney, see Kenney’s Figures 9B and 9C where the heat exchanger includes fluid distribution tank (28 and 30) with a U-shaped dividing wall (74) defining at least two sub-chambers (sub-chambers of 51 and sub-chambers of 53) that form arched pathways for fluid (arched pathways in 47 around 74).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fluid distribution tank configuration SEKI in view of Jansen to have a U-shaped dividing wall defining at least two sub-chambers that form arched pathways for fluid as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art and/or since as evidenced by Kenney, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of simplifying the manufacturing process of the fluid distribution tank.
Regarding claim 2, SEKI as modified further teaches wherein adjacent inlet channels of the at least one set of inlet channels (left set of 14 as shown in Figure 2) are arranged in series and are separated from each other in each case by a first partition wall (left partition walls of 13 as shown in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, SEKI as modified further teaches wherein thickness of the first partition wall (left partition wall 13 as shown in Figure 2) is less than thickness of the at least one separating wall (13A: see ¶ [0056]).
Regarding claim 4, SEKI as modified further teaches wherein thickness of the separating wall (13A: see Figure 2) is greater than or equal to a width of an inlet channel between adjacent first partition walls (see in Figure 2 where the thickness of 13A is at least equal to a width of an inlet channel between adjacent 13).
Regarding claim 5, SEKI as modified further teaches wherein adjacent outlet channels of the at least one set of outlet channels (right set of 14 as shown in Figure 2) are arranged in series and are separated from each other in each case by a second partition wall (right partition walls of 13 as shown in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, SEKI as modified further teaches wherein thickness of the second partition wall (right partition walls of 13 as shown in Figure 2) is less than thickness of the at least one separating wall (13A: see ¶ [0056]).
Regarding claim 7, SEKI as modified further teaches wherein thickness of the separating wall (13A: see Figure 2) is greater than or equal to a width of an inlet channel between adjacent second partition walls (see in Figure 2 where the thickness of 13A is at least equal to a width of an inlet channel between adjacent 13).
Regarding claim 8, SEKI does not teach wherein cross-section areas of at least two individual inlet channels within the at least one set of inlet channels are different from each other.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the cross-section areas of the inlet channels would result in a difference in function of SEKI’s tubular element. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying SEKI’s cross-section areas of the inlet channels, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the tubular element would function as intended being given the claimed configuration. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed configuration of the cross-section areas solves any stated problem, indicating that the cross-section areas of at least two individual inlet channels “can be different” (specification at para. [0042]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the claimed configuration such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SEKI’s cross-section areas of the at least one set of inlet channels to have the cross-section areas of at least two individual inlet channels within the at least one set of inlet channels are different from each other as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 9, SEKI does not teach wherein cross-section areas of at least two individual outlet channels within the at least one set of outlet channels are different from each other.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the cross-section areas of the outlet channels would result in a difference in function of SEKI’s tubular element. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying SEKI’s cross-section areas of the outlet channels, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the tubular element would function as intended being given the claimed configuration. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed configuration of the cross-section areas solves any stated problem, indicating that the cross-section areas of at least two individual outlet channels “can be different” (specification at para. [0047]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the claimed configuration such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SEKI’s cross-section areas of the at least one set of outlet channels to have the cross-section areas of at least two individual outlet channels within the at least one set of outlet channels are different from each other as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 10, SEKI as modified further teaches wherein cumulative cross-section area of the at least one set of inlet channels is different from the cumulative cross-section area of the at least one set of outlet channels (SEKI as modified by Jansen would result to have the cumulative cross-section area of the right set and the left set of 14 as shown in Figure 2 since Jansen teaches in Figure 11 that the inlet channels (20a) and the outlet channels (20b) are asymmetric with respect to each other, therefore, their cumulative cross-section areas must be different).
Regarding claim 11, SEKI as modified further teaches wherein a number of inlet channels within the at least one set of inlet channels is different from a number of the outlet channels within the at least one set of outlet channels (SEKI as modified by Jansen would result to have the numbers of the right set and the left set of 14 as shown in Figure 2 are different since Jansen teaches in Figure 11 that the numbers of the inlet channels (20a) and the outlet channels (20b) are different).
Regarding claim 12, SEKI as modified further teaches wherein a ratio between the number of the inlet channels within the at least one set of inlet channels to the number of the outlet channels within the at least one set of outlet channels is in a range of 1.5 to 3 (SEKI as modified by Jansen would result to have the ratio between the numbers of the right set and the left set of 14 as shown in Figure 2 is in a range of 1.5 to 3 since Jansen teaches in Figure 11 that the ratio between the numbers of the inlet channels (20a) and the outlet channels (20b) is in a range of 1.5 to 3 since (20a) are three channels and (20b) are eight).
Regarding claim 13, SEKI as modified further teaches wherein a ratio between the number of the outlet channels within the at least one set of outlet channels to the number of the inlet channels within the at least one set of inlet channels is in a range of 1.5 to 3 (SEKI as modified by Jansen would result to have the ratio between the numbers of the right set and the left set of 14 as shown in Figure 2 is in a range of 1.5 to 3 since Jansen teaches in Figure 11 that the ratio between the numbers of the inlet channels (20a) and the outlet channels (20b) is in a range of 1.5 to 3 since (20a) are three channels and (20b) are eight).
Regarding claim 14, SEKI as modified further teaches having a flat profile extending along an extension axis parallel to the general direction of the inlet channels and the outlet channels (see in Figures 1(a)-3 where 10 is having a flat profile extending along an extension axis parallel to the general direction of 14).
Regarding claim 15, SEKI does not teach wherein at least portion of the flat profile is waved along the extension axis.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the profile of the tubular element would result in a difference in function of SEKI’s tubular element. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying SEKI’s tubular element profile, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the tubular element would function as intended being given the claimed profile. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed profile of the tubular element solves any stated problem, indicating that at least portion of the flat profile of the tubular element “can be waved” (specification at para. [0044]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the claimed profile such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SEKI’s tubular element profile to have at least portion of the flat profile is waved along the extension axis as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEKI (US 20180238642 A1: Previously cited) in view of Jansen (US 10359239 B1: Previously cited) and Kenney (US 20160204486 A1).
Regarding claim 20, SEKI teaches a tank and tube assembly for a heat exchanger, the tank and tube assembly (1: see Figures 1(a)-3) comprising:
a tubular element (see Figures 1(a)-3) including:
at least one set of inlet channels (left set of 14 as shown in Figure 2); at least one set of outlet channels (right set of 14 as shown in Figure 2) configured in fluid communication with the at least one set of inlet channels (see Figure 2);
at least one separating wall (13A) configured between the at least one set of inlet channels (left set of 14 as shown in Figure 2) and the at least one set of outlet channels (right set of 14 as shown in Figure 2),
a fluid distribution tank (tank of 20: see Figure 1(a)) coupled to a first end of the tubular element (see Figure 1(a)), wherein the fluid distribution tank includes at least one inlet opening (25) fluidically connected to the at least one set of inlet channels (left set of 14 as shown in Figure 2), and at least one outlet opening (27) fluidically connected to the at least one set of outlet channels (right set of 14 as shown in Figure 2);
wherein the fluid distribution tank (tank of 20) includes a first plate (20) and a second plate ( plate of 10b that under 20) coupled to the first plate (see Figure 3) to define a distribution chamber (15 and 16: see Figure 2) with a connecting opening between the first plate and the second plate (connecting opening right before 14 on both sides: see Figure 2).
SEKI does not teach wherein the at least one set of inlet channels and the at least one set of outlet channels are configured asymmetric with respect to each other with reference to the at least one separating wall and a U-shaped dividing wall defining at least two sub-chambers that form arched pathways for fluid.
However, it’s old and well known for tubular elements to have asymmetric configuration between inlet channels and outlet channels, as evidenced by Jansen, see in Jansen’s Figure 11 where the inlet channels (20a) and the outlet channels (20b) are asymmetric with respect to each other.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the inlet channels and outlet channels of SEKI to be configured asymmetric with respect to each other with reference to the at least one separating wall, since as evidenced by Jansen, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of slowing down/speeding up the flow of the working fluid to reach the optimum heat exchange rate.
Moreover, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the fluid distribution tank configuration from straight pathways (i.e. Applicant’s Figure 1) to arched pathways (i.e. Applicant’s Figure 3) would result in a difference in function of the heat exchanger of SEKI in view of Jansen. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the fluid distribution tank configuration of SEKI in view of Jansen, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the heat exchanger would function as intended being given the claimed configuration. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed configuration solves any stated problem, indicating in an alternative embodiment that the fluid distribution tank 152 “can” include a substantially U-shaped dividing wall 166a, (see specification at para. [0045]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the fluid distribution tank configuration as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result. Furthermore, it’s old and well known for heat exchangers to have fluid distribution tank with a U-shaped dividing wall defining at least two sub-chambers that form arched pathways for fluid, as evidenced by Kenney, see Kenney’s Figures 9B and 9C where the heat exchanger includes fluid distribution tank (28 and 30) with a U-shaped dividing wall (74) defining at least two sub-chambers (sub-chambers of 51 and sub-chambers of 53) that form arched pathways for fluid (arched pathways in 47 around 74).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fluid distribution tank configuration SEKI in view of Jansen to have a U-shaped dividing wall defining at least two sub-chambers that form arched pathways for fluid as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art and/or since as evidenced by Kenney, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of simplifying the manufacturing process of the fluid distribution tank.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In view of the amended claims, applicant response, and further search, claims 16-19 are allowed over prior art since the prior art taken individually or in combination fails to particularly disclose, fairly suggest, or render obvious “at least one U-shaped dividing wall provided between the first plate and the second plate to divide the distribution chamber into at least two sub-chambers with U-shaped cross-sections”, in combination with the other limitations recited as specified in the independent claim(s). There is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the prior art to incorporate the above claimed features.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALED AL SAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-8685. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM~3:30PM, M-F (E.S.T.).
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.
/KHALED AHMED ALI AL SAMIRI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763