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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steeb et al. (USP 4505419A) in view of Rhodes et al. (USP 6213158B1), hereinafter referred to as Steeb and Rhodes, respectively.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
326
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Row)]
Rhodes Figure 2
[AltContent: textbox (Central Portion)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
93
353
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Rhodes Figure 3
Regarding Claim 1, Steeb discloses a conformal heat exchanger, comprising:
a fin pack (6) comprising a row of fins defined in a lateral plane (shown in figure 2, being the alternating peaks and valleys from top to bottom),
each fin row comprises alternating upward and downward extending peaks extending upwardly and downwardly from the lateral plane (shown in figure 2), wherein
at least one parting plate (4) arranged along the fin pack in contact with at least one of the upward and the downward extending peaks (shown in figure 2), wherein the at least one parting plate (4) and the fin pack (6) are curved around an axis (8) extending parallel to the row (shown in figures 1-2, wherein the row extends along the axis (8)) and
further comprising side bars (3) arranged along ends of the row (shown in figure 2) to define heat exchange flow paths along the upward and downward extending peaks (shown in figure 2, wherein the strips (3) bound the flow paths along the corrugated fin row).
Steeb fails to disclose a fin pack comprising alternating rows of fins defined in a lateral plane, each row of fins comprising alternating upward and downward extending peaks extending upwardly and downwardly from the lateral plane wherein adjacent rows of fins are connected by central portions in the lateral plane, and wherein upward and downward extending peaks of adjacent rows are offset from each other along the rows.
Rhodes, also drawn to a heat exchanger having a fin, teaches a fin pack (54) comprising alternating rows of fins defined in a lateral plane (shown in figures 2-3, being the alternating peaks and valleys from right to left), each row of fins comprising alternating upward and downward extending peaks extending upwardly and downwardly from the lateral plane (shown in figures 2-3), wherein
adjacent rows of fins are connected by central portions (being the flat stock portions situated between the peaks and valleys, shown in annotated figure 3) in the lateral plane (shown in figures 2-3), and wherein upward and downward extending peaks of adjacent rows are offset from each other along the rows (shown in figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Steeb with a fin pack comprising alternating rows of fins defined in a lateral plane, each row of fins comprising alternating upward and downward extending peaks extending upwardly and downwardly from the lateral plane wherein adjacent rows of fins are connected by central portions in the lateral plane, and wherein upward and downward extending peaks of adjacent rows are offset from each other along the rows, as taught by Rhodes, the motivation being “to increase the surface area of conductive material available for heat transfer to cause turbulence of the fluid carried in the interior of the tube and to increase the burst strength of the tube” (col. 1 ll. 21-23), wherein turbulence within the tube is increased due to additional flow restrictions that concurrently increase heat transfer and pressure drop.
Regarding Claim 2, a modified Steeb further teaches each upward extending peak of one row is laterally aligned with a downward extending peak of an adjacent row (shown in figure 2 of Rhodes).
Regarding Claim 3, a modified Steeb further teaches the upward and downward extending peaks comprise legs extending between the lateral plane and the peak (shown in figures 2-3 of Rhodes being the inclined plate portions of the corrugated sheet directly adjacent to either a peak or a valley), and wherein
the central portions (being the flat stock portions situated between the peaks and valleys, shown in annotated figure 3 of Rhodes) comprise horizontal connecting portions defined in the plane (shown in figure 2 of Rhodes), wherein the horizontal connecting portions connect legs of alternating upward and downward extending peaks along each row (shown in figure 2 of Rhodes), and the horizontal connecting portions also connect to horizontal connecting portions of each adjacent row (shown in figure 2 of Rhodes).
Regarding Claim 6, a modified Steeb further teaches the fin pack (6 of Steeb and 54 of Rhodes) is defined from sheet metal (“sheet metal fins 6”, col. 2 ll. 28 of Steeb and “flat turbulator 54 is made of a metal material” col. 4 ll. 23 of Rhodes) such that the central portions are contiguous sheet metal material with the adjacent rows (shown in figure 2 of Steeb and shown in figure 2 of Rhodes).
Regarding Claim 7, a modified Steeb further teaches each peak terminates in a rounded peak (shown in figure 2 of Steeb and figure 2 of Rhodes).
Regarding Claim 9, a modified Steeb further teaches the fin pack is flexible at the central portions (shown in figures 2-3, wherein the metal fin of Rhodes is flexible to some degree) and, when bending at the central portions an upward extending peak of one row extends into a space created by a downward extending peak of the adjacent row (see intended use analysis below).
A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed, regarding “when bending at the central portions an upward extending peak of one row extends into a space created by a downward extending peak of the adjacent row”, does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. Please see Section 2114 of the MPEP entitled Functional Language.
Alternately, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steeb et al. (USP 4505419A) in view of Rhodes et al. (USP 6213158B1) as applied in Claims 1-3, 6-7 and 9 above and in further view of Yamaguchi et al. (US PG Pub. 2001/0011586A1), hereinafter referred to as Yamaguchi.
Regarding Claims 4-5, although a modified Steeb teaches the legs (shown in figures 2-3 of Rhodes being the inclined plate portions of the corrugated sheet) are arranged at an angle with respect to the lateral plane (shown in figures 2-3 of Rhodes) between 0 and 90 degrees, a modified Steeb fails to explicitly disclose the angle is between 50 and 80 degrees and between 60 and 70 degrees.
Yamaguchi, also drawn to a heat exchanger with a corrugated sheet fin, teaches legs (shown in figure 9 being the inclined side walls of the corrugated fin) are arranged at an angle (ϴ) with respect to the lateral plane (shown in figure 9) is between 50 and 80 degrees and between 60 and 70 degrees (“The length A and the inclination angle ϴ may be arbitrarily selected. The height H of the raised portion may be inevitably determined by the selection of length A and angle ϴ”, ¶47).
Regarding Claims 4-5, Steeb fails to explicitly disclose the angle is between 50 and 80 degrees and between 60 and 70 degrees. Yamaguchi does, however, teach that the angle of a fin leg with respect to the lateral plane is arbitrary depending on the total height desired for the fin. Therefore, the angle of the fin leg is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that with an increased angle, the number of fins increase within a predetermined area and the length of the fin decreases along with heat transfer surface area, other parameters remaining consistent. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the legs of the fin are arranged at an angle with respect to the lateral plane, was disclosed in the prior art by Steeb, Rhodes and Yamaguchi, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the angle with respect to the lateral plane of the fin legs being between 50 and 80 degrees and between 60 and 70 degrees. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steeb et al. (USP 4505419A) in view of Rhodes et al. (USP 6213158B1) as applied in Claims 1-3, 6-7 and 9 above and in further view of Suzuki et al. (Translation of JPH11311488A), hereinafter referred to as Suzuki.
Regarding Claim 8, although Steeb and Rhodes teach the rounded peak is defined in a material having a thickness, a modified Steeb fails to disclose an inner radius of the rounded peak (IR) is greater than one-half the thickness of the material.
Suzuki, also drawn to a corrugated fin stock, teaches the rounded peak is defined in a material having a thickness (“the fin plate thickness FT is set to 0.06 to 0.12 mm”), and wherein an inner radius of the rounded peak (IR) is greater than one-half the thickness of the material (“Radius of curvature (R): 0.25 mm, 0.35 mm”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Steeb with an inner radius of the rounded peak (IR) being greater than one-half the thickness of the material, as taught by Suzuki, the motivation being “the buckling strength of the heat exchange fin is improved without affecting the heat exchange rate. Buckling of the fins can be prevented, and the height of the fins for heat exchange at the time of assembly can be easily controlled. Therefore, the work of assembling the heat exchanger can be easily performed, and the yield of products can be improved. Further, the strength of the heat exchanger can be improved”.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steeb et al. (USP 4505419A) in view of Rhodes et al. (USP 6213158B1) as applied in Claims 1-3, 6-7 and 9 above and in further view of So’922 (USP 5107922A), hereinafter referred to as So’922.
Regarding Claim 11, Steeb fails to disclose the fin pack is bonded to the at least one parting plate at the upward and downward extending peaks.
So’922, also drawn to a heat exchanger having a fin pack, teaches the fin pack (42) is bonded to the at least one parting plate at the upward and downward extending peaks (“thermal contact between top portions 56 and bottom portions 60 with the respective portions of tubes 32 and 34 may be achieved in several ways including direct mechanical contact or by forming a metallurgical bond such as by brazing, the details of which will be determined by the particular material used in the construction of fin 42 and tubes 32 and 34”, col. 6 ll. 35-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Steeb with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by So’922, the motivation being to increase the structural rigidity of the heat exchanger or increase thermal contact between components of the heat exchanger.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steeb et al. (USP 4505419A) in view of Rhodes et al. (USP 6213158B1) as applied in Claims 1-3, 6-7 and 9 above and in further view of Traore (US PG Pub. 2019/0041140A1), hereinafter referred to as Traore.
Regarding Claim 12, Steeb fails to disclose the at least one parting plate comprises grooves arranged to receive peaks of the fin pack.
Traore, also drawn to a heat exchanger, teaches an at least one parting plate (walls of tube (2)) comprises grooves (20) arranged to receive peaks of the fin pack (3, shown in figure 1). Traore states, “The presence of these grooves can facilitate the assembly of the bundle by providing a housing into which the ends of the spacers may be inserted. These grooves also improve the contact between the outer surface of the flat tubes and the spacers, thereby improving the heat exchange between these two elements”,¶7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Steeb with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Traore, the motivation being to improve heat transfer.
Regarding Claim 13, a modified Steeb further teaches the peaks of the fin pack are bonded to the at least one parting plate in the grooves (“The flat tubes and the spacers are made of a metallic material and are fixed to one another by brazing”, ¶16 of Traore).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of the arguments the Applicant states, “there is no discussion
given as to the structure of sheet metal fins 6. As indicated by the examiner, they are shown in a structure in FIG. 2 where apparently they would be curved around axis 8. Turning to Rhodes, the fin structure of FIG. 2 does have alternating up and down portions at 58, but there is no mention of this structure being curved, and in fact Rhodes refers repeatedly to a flat turbulator 54. Thus, the teaching of Rhodes to have the alternating corrugations 58 is coupled with repeated references to them being part of a flat turbulator 54, and thus this teaching would not commend the disclosure to putting the turbulator in an annular space as shown in Steeb”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The fins being curved is taught in Steeb (shown in figures 1-2), wherein the fins are curved around a center point allowing for the working fluid to travel in a circular manner between two collectors. The fin pack of Steeb has a sinusoidal configuration (shown in figure 2), wherein a fluid passes straight through separated passages and along the length of the fin for heat transfer. Rhodes teaches a modification to the fin of Steeb, being additional slits and obstructions in the sinusoidal configuration along the length of the fin. Regarding Rhodes not explicitly disclosing the fin pack being curved, “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Further, the name of the fin pack in Rhodes does not rise to the level of teaching away, wherein Rhodes does not implicitly or explicitly teach away from the fin being curved.
On page 8 of the arguments the Applicant states, “the motivation statement is drawn from a portion of Rhodes referring generally to corrugated fins or ribs. Further, these structures are already present in the called for location in Steeb. Thus, a person having this motivation would have no reason to modify the fins already in place in Steeb, and this is particularly true with the admonition that the assembly is a difficult process that is made more difficult by virtue of the corrugated fin being extremely thin and subject to deformation during the insertion process. Keeping this teaching in mind, the person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the flat turbulator 54 of Rhodes is actually more subject to deformation than a normal straight corrugation as apparently disclosed by Steeb.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The motivation provided in Rhodes is drawn to the corrugated fin described therein, wherein the fin is utilized to initiate turbulence and therefore heat transfer. The motivation of the rejection further reads “turbulence within the tube is increased due to additional flow restrictions that concurrently increase heat transfer and pressure drop”. One of ordinary skill in the art having read Rhodes would understand that turbulence is a known result of an enclosed fin, wherein the fin of Rhodes causes increased turbulence due to additional flow restrictions placed within the flow path when compared to the fin of Steeb.
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 PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0930-1800.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights