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 .
Response to Amendment
The Applicant’s amendment filed 10/07/2025 has been fully considered and made of record.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because is not written in short sentences and narrative form and is over 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The following is a sample format:
A method for making a heat exchanger includes machining a plate of material having a starting thickness and at least one alignment feature. The machining includes machining down the starting thickness to produce a heat exchanger plate having at least one flow passage segment and at least two ribs arranged extending along each side of the at least one flow segment. The at least one alignment feature is removed to provide a trimmed heat exchanger plate and to stack the trimmed heat exchanger plate with a further heat exchanger plate. The at least two ribs are interlocked with ribs of the further heat exchanger plate and the at least one flow segment is aligned with a flow segment of the further heat exchanger plate. The at least two ribs of the trimmed heat exchanger plate and the ribs of the further heat exchanger plate are joined together.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, 11, 13, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stancliffe (US 1,662,870) in view of Hudson et al. (US 7,441,331, hereinafter “Hudson”).
As applied to claims 1, 7 and 13, Stancliffe teaches a method for making a heat exchanger, the method comprising steps of machining a plate of material having a starting thickness, the machining comprising machining down the starting thickness to produce a heat exchanger plate having at least one flow passage segment, and at least two ribs arranged extending along each side of the at least one flow segment; provide a trimmed heat exchanger plate; stacking the trimmed heat exchanger plate with a further heat exchanger plate with the at least two ribs interlocked with ribs of the further heat exchanger plate, and the at least one flow segment aligned with a flow segment of the further heat exchanger plate; and joining the at least two ribs of the trimmed heat exchanger plate and the ribs of the further heat exchanger plate together (specification, page 1, left column, lines 1-25, Figs. 3 and 6).
Although Stancliffe teaches that the machining step produces the at least one flow passage segment and the at least two ribs arranged extending along each side of the at least one flow segment, however, does not explicitly teach an excess material extending in at least one dimension lying in a plane of the plate of the heat exchanger and beyond the at least one flow passage segment and at least two ribs to define at least one alignment feature and that the at least one alignment feature, after machining and forming the passages and ribs, is removed by removing the excess material (as in claim 1); that the machining is done by wire EDM (as in claim 7); and that the at least one alignment feature comprises a hole passing through the excess material (as in claim 13).
Hudson teaches that it is well-known in the machining art to provide at least one alignment feature in form of holes (i.e., drilled holes 24, 26, 28, and 30, col. 3, lines 23-36, Fig. 1) in a precursor block (20) for facilitating the machining (cutting by wire EDM) while the block is registered in a cutting fixture via the drilled holes (col. 3, lines 37-40). Hudson further teaches that the finished component formed by cutting the precursor block includes flow passages (cooling circuits 100 and 120 including channels 110, 112) and that the alignment features (registration holes 24, 26, 28, 30) are located in an excess material extending away, in at least one dimension lying on a plane of the component (outer exterior plane Fig. 1), from the finished products and away from the flow passages and that the alignment features are further removed and discarded after the finished product is produced (Figs. 2 and 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated alignment holes in the excess material of the plate material of Stancliffe, as taught by Hudson, as an effective means of facilitating the registration of the material in machining fixture and followed by removing the excess material including the alignment features after the completion of the machining steps, as further taught by Hudson, resulting in formation of precisely sized and located flow passages. It would have been further obvious to use wire EDM for the machining step of Stancliffe, as taught by Hudson, considering the many advantages of wire EDM including high precision, burr-free cuts and minimized material stress. The combined method would have resulted in formation of a heat exchanger component having the precise dimensions and enhanced heat dissipation characteristics based on specific design requirements.
As applied to claim 8, the combination of Stancliffe and Hudson teaches the invention cited. Stancliffe further teaches the machining defines a plurality of machined flow passage segments extending along and defining a flow direction of the heat exchanger plate, wherein the at least two ribs comprise a plurality of ribs defined one on each side of each of the plurality of machined flow passage segments (Figs. 3 and 6).
As applied to claim 11, the combination of Stancliffe and Hudson teaches the invention cited. Stancliffe further teaches machining each side of the plate of material to produce a heat exchanger plate having the at least one flow passage segment and at least two ribs on each side of the heat exchanger plate (specification, page 2, right column, lines 107-113, Figs. 3 and 6).
As applied to claim 17, the combination of Stancliffe and Hudson teaches the invention cited. Stancliffe further teaches wherein the machining comprises machining both sides of a plurality of plates to produce a plurality of heat exchanger plates having the at least one flow passage segment and the at least two ribs on a first side, and having a second at least one flow passage segment and at least two ribs on a second side (specification, page 2, right column, lines 107-113, Figs. 3 and 6).
As applied to claim 20, the combination of Stancliffe and Hudson teaches the invention cited. Stancliffe further teaches wherein the at least one flow passage segment on the first side is substantially perpendicular (transverse) to the at least one flow passage on the second side (specification, page 2, right column, lines 107-113, Figs. 3 and 6).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stancliffe (US 1,662,870) in view of Hudson et al. (US 7,441,331, hereinafter “Hudson”) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Moro-Le-Gall et al. (US 20170157723, hereinafter “Moro”).
As applied to claim 2, the combination of Stancliffe and Hudson teaches the invention cited including joining the stack of the heat exchanger plates including the at least two ribs of the trimmed heat exchanger plate and ribs of the further heat exchanger plate together by welding, soldering or otherwise (Stancliffe, specification, page 2, left column, lines 2-22) but does not explicitly teach the diffusion bonding.
Moro teaches that it is well-known in the art of heat exchanger manufacturing to produce heat exchanger modules by producing diffusion bonding of grooved plates (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ diffusion bonding technique for the joining/welding step of Stancliffe, as taught by Moro, resulting in a finished heat exchanger having minimal residual porosity in the joints and thus, enhanced mechanical strength (Moro, paragraphs [0014] and [0015]).
Claim(s) 7, in alternative, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stancliffe (US 1,662,870) in view of Hudson et al. (US 7,441,331, hereinafter “Hudson”) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ognibene et al. (US 6,634,421, hereinafter “Ognibene”).
As applied to claim 7, the combination of Stancliffe and Hudson teaches the invention cited including Hudson teachers cutting the precursor block into subpieces using wire EDM.
However, if Applicant does not agree that the wire EDM taught by Hudson is applicable to forming a heat exchanger plate, then Ognibene teaches that it is well-known in the art of fabricating heat exchangers (cooling device 100 including stack of a plurality of plates 102, col. 4, lines 40-48, Figs. 1-7) to use wire and plunge EDM (see claim 20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ wire EDM for the machining step of Stancliffe and Hudson, as taught by Ognibene, considering the many advantages of wire EDM including high precision, burr-free cuts and minimized material stress. The combined method would have resulted in formation of a heat exchanger component having the precise dimensions and enhanced heat dissipation characteristics based on specific design requirements.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stancliffe (US 1,662,870) in view of Hudson et al. (US 7,441,331, hereinafter “Hudson”) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kirtley et al. (US 20150041590A, hereinafter “Kirtley”).
As applied to claims 9 and 10, the combination of Stancliffe and Hudson teaches the invention cited including producing, be machining, the heat exchanger plates having flow passages and ribs but does not explicitly teach machining turbulator structures in to a surface of the at least one flew passage segment (as in claim 9) using a plunge EDM (as in claim 10).
Kirtley teaches that it is well-known to integrally fabricate cooling passages (86) and cooling features (i.e., turbulators 96) by plunge EDM to provide flow manipulating components (paragraphs [0036]-[0038]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have formed flow turbulators, using well-known plunge-EDM technique, into the flow passages of the exchanger plates of Stancliffe/Moro, as taught by Kirtley, as an effective means of controlling and optimizing cooling characteristics of the flow passages based on the specific design criteria. The resulting method would allow fabricating a heat exchanger plate with flow passages having complex turbulator shapes in a non-contact process with minimal workpiece deformation in a high precision and efficient manner.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stancliffe (US 1,662,870) in view of Hudson et al. (US 7,441,331, hereinafter “Hudson”) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Saito Yoshihiro et al. (CZ383696A3, hereinafter “Saito”).
As applied to claims 14 and 15, the combination of Stancliffe and Hudson teaches the invention cited including machining a plate material to produce a heat exchanger plate having at least one flow passage segment and at least two ribs arranged extending along each side of the at least one flow passage. Stancliffe teaches the plate thickness defined between opposed surfaces of the plate and the rib thickness formed but does not explicitly teach the thicknesses are within the claim ranges.
Saito teaches that it is well-known in the art of heat exchanger manufacturing to fabricate a heat exchanger plate having flow passages and ribs wherein the thickness of the plate between opposing surfaces of the plate after the formation of the flow passages and ribs is 0.35 mm (equivalent to 0.014 inches which is within the claimed range of 0.005-0.020 inches) and the thickness of the ribs is 0.2 mm (equivalent to 0.007 inches which is within the claimed range of 0.005-0.20 inches, see English Machine Translation, page 7, paragraph 2, Figs. 1 and 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the thickness of the plate after machining and the thickness of the ribs within the claim ranges, as taught by Saito, as a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143, KSR, Rationale ‘A”). The resulting method would be reasonably expected to perform in the manner taught by Stancliffe and Moro without modification of the principles of Stancliffe/Moro combination, because Stancliffe teaches that the plate has a convenient thickness (Stancliffe, specification, page 2, right column, lines 93-95) and thus understood to permit any conventional thickness for the plate and ribs.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stancliffe (US 1,662,870) in view of Hudson et al. (US 7,441,331, hereinafter “Hudson”).
As applied to claims 18 and 19, the combination of Stancliffe and Hudson teaches the invention cited including machining both sides of a plurality of plates to produce a plurality of heat exchanger plates having the at least one flow passage segment and the at least two ribs on a first side, and having a second at least one flow passage segment and at least two ribs on a second side. Stancliffe further teaches in different embodiments (i.e., Fig. 5) that the shapes and dimensions of the grooves and ribs can be different than other embodiments (i.e., Figs. 3 and 6). Stancliffe further teaches that the stacking step comprises stacking the plurality of heat exchanger plates with the first side of one heat exchanger plate facing the first side of an adjacent heat exchanger plate (as in Fig. 3) and that the stacking of the plurality of plates can be done using different combination of plates (i.e., combining plates with grooves/ribs on one side only with each other and with flat plates as in Fig. 7 or combining plates with grooves/ribs on opposite sides as in Fig. 6) and contemplates different types of stacking arrangements (specification, page 2, right column, lines 107-130, page 3, left column, lines 1-2).
As such, although the combination appears to implicitly teach the limitations of claims 18 and 19, however, fails to explicitly teach in a single embodiment wherein the first at least one flow passage segment has different dimensions as compared to the second at least one flow passage segment (as in claim 18) and wherein the second side of the one heat exchanger plate facing the second side of another adjacent heat exchanger plate (as in claim 19).
However, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to employ in the method of Stancliffe/Hudson heat exchanger plates having first at least one flow passage segment and the second at least one flow passage segment with different dimensions and to employ the second side of the one heat exchanger plate facing the second side of another adjacent heat exchanger plate since Applicant has not disclosed that only the above claimed limitations provide any advantages, are used for any particular purposes, or solve any stated problems. As such, it seems that one of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected applicant’s invention to perform equally well with any other dimensions and with any other stacking combinations such as ones taught by Stancliffe and Hudson or the claimed limitations because either ones perform the same function of forming the heat exchanger suitable for use in particular operating environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ in the method of Stancliffe/Hudson heat exchanger plates having first at least one flow passage segment and the second at least one flow passage segment with different dimensions (as I claim 18) and to employ the second side of the one heat exchanger plate facing the second side of another adjacent heat exchanger plate (as in claim 19) depending on the specific design requirement which would result in forming a heat exchanger having enhanced design and flexibility (i.e., different fluid flow rates and different types of fluid mediums) that would perform well in the specific operating environment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendment to the abstract does not obviate the objection to the abstract as outlined in the Office action mailed on 07/07/2025 and a sample format has been suggested to obviate such objection.
As for rejection of claims, in particular claim 1 which now includes the subject of original claim 12 in addition to a newly amended limitation that the at least one alignment feature extends in a plane of the plate, Applicant mainly argues that the primary art of Stancliffe is absolutely silent to any alignment feature or any need for such a feature and that the secondary art of Hudson discloses a different subject matter (an airfoil) and in a completely different location (see Remarks page 1 and first paragraph of page 2).
The examiner respectfully disagrees with such arguments. First, the subject of previous claim 12 was rejected by the combination of Stancliffe and Hudson in previous Office action. As for the secondary art of Hudson as apparently not being an analogous art, the examiner submits that in order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention and that a reference is analogous to the claimed invention if 1) the reference is from same field of endeavor as claimed invention or 2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (See MPEP 2141.01(a)). It appears that Applicant is arguing that the examiner has not met either of the two requirements. The examiner again respectfully disagrees with such argument. The examiner has clearly shown that the secondary art of Hudson is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor by teaching the use of registering holes in the machining process of the workpiece. As such, the combination of Stancliffe and Hudson is proper and maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm EST.
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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 12/19/2025
Prosecution Insights