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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/10/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-3, 6, 9-11, 13-15, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JPS51058749) in view of Gao (CN106122925A).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka teaches a heat exchanger (see Fig. 5-7), comprising: a duct (1) including a flowpath (12), a first sidewall (see left wall thereof), a second sidewall (see right wall thereof), a first manifold wall (top wall thereof) and a second manifold wall (bottom wall thereof), the flowpath extending longitudinally through the duct, the flowpath extending laterally within the duct between the first sidewall and the second sidewall, the flowpath extending vertically within the duct between the first manifold wall and the second manifold wall, the first manifold wall configured to form a peripheral boundary of a first manifold plenum (30) outside of the duct, and the second manifold wall configured to form a peripheral boundary of a second manifold plenum (30’) outside of the duct; and a plurality of tubes (20) extending vertically across the flowpath and connected to the first manifold wall and the second manifold wall, each of the plurality of tubes having a bore (see bores thereof) configured to fluidly couple the first manifold plenum to the second manifold plenum, the plurality of tubes including a first tube and a second tube, and the first tube adjacent and angularly offset from the second tube (see angles thereof & “inclined at opposite angles relative to each other” – Page 2).
Tanaka does not teach the first tube is connected to the second tube at a first location within the flowpath vertically between the first manifold wall and the second manifold wall, wherein a connection between the first tube and the second tube at the first location is a compliant connection, and the first tube engages the second tube at the first location.
Gao teaches (see Fig. 1-2) the first tube (top one of pipe 1) is connected to the second tube (bottom one of pipe 1) at a first location (location of clamp 4), wherein a connection between the first tube and the second tube at the first location is a compliant connection (clamp 4), and the first tube engages the second tube at the first location.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tanaka to include the compliant connection of Gao, in order to reduce vibration of the heat exchanger (Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Tanaka does not teach at least one of the plurality of tubes is configured according to a heat exchange tube crossover parameter between 0.75 inches/crossover and 4.0 inches/crossover. While the reference does not explicitly disclose the specific crossover parameter, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to change the crossover parameter, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka teaches the limitations of claim 1, and in the embodiment relied upon, teaches wherein the first tube and second tube are longitudinally alternating and adjacent one another, and does not teach the first tube is laterally adjacent the second tube.
In another embodiment (Fig. 1-4), Tanaka teaches wherein the same effect of noise/vibration reduction by inducing turbulence (pages 1-2 of translation) may be achieved by arranging the first and second tubes in laterally alternating rows (see rows 2a,2b,2c of tubes 2 in Fig. 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tanaka to include wherein the tubes are laterally adjacent as taught by Tanaka in the embodiment above, in order to provide the same effect of noise/vibration reduction by inducing turbulence (pages 1-2 of translation) by providing a simple substitution (see MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Tanaka as modified further teaches the plurality of tubes further includes a third tube (see third one of tubes 20); the first tube is adjacent and angularly offset from the third tube; and the first tube is connected (via spring 5 as modified) to the third tube at a second location within the flowpath vertically between the first location and the second manifold wall (as modified above).
Regarding claim 9, Tanaka teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Tanaka further teaches the bore of the first tube is fluidly discrete from the bore of the second tube within the flowpath (see discrete flowpaths of tubes 20).
Regarding claim 10, Tanaka teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Tanaka further teaches the first tube is angularly offset from the second tube by a first acute angle (see angles therebetween).
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka teaches the limitations of claim 10, and Tanaka further teaches the first tube is angularly offset from the first manifold wall by a second acute angle (see angle therebetween).
Regarding claim 13, Tanaka teaches the limitations of claim 10, and Tanaka further teaches the first tube (20) extends along a straight first trajectory out of a first aperture in the first manifold wall (see apertures in top wall of 1), through the flowpath and into a first aperture in the second manifold wall (see apertures in bottom wall of 1).
Regarding claim 14, Tanaka teaches the limitations of claim 10, and Tanaka further teaches the second tube (20) extends along a straight second trajectory out of a second aperture in the first manifold wall (see apertures in top wall of 1), through the flowpath and into a second aperture in the second manifold wall (see apertures in bottom wall of 1).
Regarding claim 15, Tanaka teaches the limitations of claim 1, and in the embodiment relied upon, teaches wherein the first tube and second tube are longitudinally alternating and adjacent one another, and does not teach the plurality of tubes are arranged into a plurality of first arrays and a plurality of second arrays that are laterally interposed with the plurality of first arrays; the plurality of tubes arranged in the plurality of first arrays are parallel with one another; the plurality of tubes arranged in the plurality of second arrays are parallel with one another; one of the plurality of first arrays includes the first tube; and one of the plurality of second arrays includes the second tube.
In another embodiment (Fig. 1-4), Tanaka teaches wherein the same effect of noise/vibration reduction by inducing turbulence (pages 1-2 of translation) may be achieved by arranging the first and second tubes in laterally alternating rows (see arrays of rows 2a,2b,2c of tubes 2 in Fig. 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tanaka to include wherein the tubes are laterally adjacent as taught by Tanaka in the embodiment above, in order to provide the same effect of noise/vibration reduction by inducing turbulence (pages 1-2 of translation) by providing a simple substitution (see MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 21, Tanaka as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Gao further teaches wherein the first tube is connected to the second tube at the compliant connection through a damper (spring 5).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JPS51058749) in view of in view of Gao (CN106122925A) and Heusser (US20150083375A1).
Regarding claim 12, Tanaka teaches the limitations of claim 11, and Tanaka does not teach wherein the second acute angle is greater than the first acute angle.
Heusser teaches the second acute angle is greater than the first acute angle (see angles of webs 9, Fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tanaka to include the different angled tubes of Heusser, as it has been held obvious to try when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP2143).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JPS51058749) in view of in view of Gao (CN106122925A) and Martins (6167954B1).
Regarding claim 22, Tanaka teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Tanaka does not teach wherein the first manifold wall includes an inlet port extending vertically within the first manifold wall; and the second manifold wall includes an outlet port extending vertically within the second manifold wall. Tanaka is considered to implicitly disclose wherein the headers have an inlet and an outlet, however, are silent to details thereof.
Martins teaches wherein the manifolds include a first port, a flowpath, the first port configured as an inlet into the first manifold, a second port, the flowpath, and the second port configured as an outlet from the second manifold (see E and S of 4a/4b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tanaka to include the inlet and outlet ports of Martins, in order to supply and discharge the heat transfer medium (Col. 2, lines 45-55).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JPS51058749) in view of Martins (6167954B1) and Gao (CN106122925A).
Regarding claim 16, Tanaka teaches a heat exchanger comprising a heat exchanger housing including a first manifold including a first manifold wall and a first manifold plenum, the first manifold wall between and partially forming the first manifold plenum and a flowpath; a second manifold including a second manifold wall and a second manifold plenum, the second manifold wall between and partially forming the second manifold plenum and the flowpath; and a plurality of tubes extending vertically across the flowpath and connected to the first manifold wall and the second manifold wall, each of the plurality of tubes having an internal passage fluidly coupling the first manifold plenum to the second manifold plenum, and the plurality of tubes including a first tube and a second tube that is angularly offset from the first tube within the flowpath; the first tube extending along a straight first trajectory out from the first manifold wall, through the flowpath and to the second manifold wall; and the second tube extending along a straight second trajectory out from the first manifold wall, through the flowpath and to the second manifold wall (see mapping of claim 1 and 13-14 above).
Tanaka is considered to implicitly disclose wherein the headers have an inlet and an outlet, however, are silent to details thereof. Martins teaches wherein the manifolds include a first port, a flowpath, the first port configured as an inlet into the first manifold, a second port, the flowpath, and the second port configured as an outlet from the second manifold (see E and S of 4a/4b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tanaka to include the inlet and outlet ports of Martins, in order to supply and discharge the heat transfer medium (Col. 2, lines 45-55).
Tanaka does not teach the first tube is connected to the second tube at a first location within the flowpath vertically between the first manifold wall and the second manifold wall, wherein a connection between the first tube and the second tube at the first location is a compliant connection
Gao teaches (see Fig. 1-2) the first tube (top one of pipe 1) is connected to the second tube (bottom one of pipe 1) at a first location (location of clamp 4), wherein a connection between the first tube and the second tube at the first location is a compliant connection (clamp 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tanaka to include the compliant connection of Gao, in order to reduce vibration of the heat exchanger (Abstract).
Regarding claim 17, Tanaka teaches the limitations of claim 16, and Tanaka further teaches wherein at least one of the first tube extends along the straight first trajectory through at least one of the first manifold wall or the second manifold wall; or the second tube extends along the straight second trajectory through at least one of the first manifold wall or the second manifold wall (see mapping of claim 1 and 13-14 above).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JPS51058749) in view of Gao (CN110822942A), hereinafter Gao2.
Regarding claim 19, Tanaka teaches a heat exchanger, comprising: a first manifold including a first manifold wall and a first manifold plenum, the first manifold wall between and partially forming the first manifold plenum and a flowpath; a second manifold including a second manifold wall and a second manifold plenum, the second manifold wall between and partially forming the second manifold plenum and the flowpath; and a plurality of tubes extending vertically across the flowpath and connected to the first manifold wall and the second manifold wall, each of the plurality of tubes having an internal passage fluidly coupling the first manifold plenum to the second manifold plenum, and the plurality of tubes including a first tube and a second tube; the first tube angularly offset from the second tube at a first location vertically between the first manifold wall and the second manifold wall, and the internal passage of the first tube fluidly uncoupled from the internal passage of the second tube vertically between the first manifold wall and the second manifold wall (see mapping of claim 1 above)
Tanaka does not teach the first tube is connected to and contacting the second tube at a first location within the flowpath vertically between the first manifold wall and the second manifold wall, wherein a connection between the first tube and the second tube at the first location is a compliant connection.
Gao2 teaches (see Fig. 5-6) the first tube (4) is connected to and contacting the second tube (4) at a first location, wherein a connection between the first tube and the second tube at the first location is a compliant connection (flexible clip 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tanaka to include the compliant connections of Gao2, in order to reduce vibrations (Page 5).
Regarding claim 20, Tanaka teaches the limitations of claim 19, and Tanaka further teaches at least one of the first tube extends along a straight first trajectory out from the first manifold wall, through the flowpath and to the second manifold wall; or the second tube extends along a straight second trajectory out from the first manifold wall, through the flowpath and to the second manifold wall (as modified above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S RUPPERT whose telephone number is (571)272-9911. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm.
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.
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763