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, 12, 14-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder et al. (USP 9587561B2) in view of Wang et al. (Translation of CN102252558A) in further view of Semmes et al. (USP 7540320A), hereinafter referred to as Snyder, Wang and Semmes.
Regarding Claim 1, Snyder discloses a heat exchanger comprising:
a housing (housing is shown in figure 1 containing the passage (102), see also figures 2, 4 and 7 demonstrating the heat exchanger being contained within a housing) comprising:
an inlet at a proximal end for receiving a first fluid (shown in figure 7, allowing the airflow to flow through the module (722), see also figure 4 for reference); and
an outlet, downstream of the inlet at the distal end of the housing, through which the fluid is configured to exit the housing (shown in figure 7, allowing the airflow that passes through the module (722) to exit, see also figure 4 for reference); and
a plurality of heat exchanger cores within the housing (708a, 708b), wherein the plurality of heat exchanger cores meet at a junction and from the junction (shown in figure 7), diverge from each other towards one of the inlet or the outlet of the housing (shown in figure 7), and
one or more flow guide vanes (942) disposed within the housing (shown in figure 9), wherein the flow guide vane(s) (942) are configured to distribute the first fluid evenly across an area of the heat exchanger cores (“a plurality of vanes 942 disposed within the internal passage 940 for providing a more uniform pressure on the backside of the heat exchangers. This will help to provide better flow distribution through the heat exchangers”, col. 5 ll. 56-60), wherein
the plurality of heat exchanger cores comprises a plate fin arrangement (“The heat exchangers may be shell-and-tube heat exchangers spaced apart from one another. However, the heat exchangers may instead be plate-fin heat exchangers or other suitable heat exchangers”, col. 4 ll. 61-65); wherein
the plurality of heat exchanger cores comprise one or more first flow paths (709) through which the first fluid can pass through the heat exchanger cores, in use (shown in figure 7).
Snyder fails to disclose one or more flow guide vanes apart from the plurality of heat exchanger cores, wherein the flow guide vane(s) are configured to distribute the first fluid evenly across a frontal area of the heat exchanger cores.
Wang, also drawn to an inclined heat exchanger, teaches one or more flow guide vanes (31a,31b) apart from the plurality of heat exchanger cores (shown in figure 17), wherein the flow guide vane(s) are configured to distribute the first fluid evenly across a frontal area of the heat exchanger cores (“the guide part can guide the wind towards the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger, which improves the distribution uniformity of the surface of the heat exchanger, and improves the performance of the heat exchanger”, see abstract).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting one or more flow guide vanes being apart from the plurality of heat exchanger cores with one or more flow guide vanes being apart of the plurality of heat exchanger cores; further the prior art to Wang teaches one or more flow guide vanes being apart from the plurality of heat exchanger cores is known for improving the distribution uniformity of the surface of the heat exchanger, and improving the performance of the heat exchanger. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Snyder with having one or more flow guide vanes being apart from the plurality of heat exchanger cores, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat exchanger device; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Wang there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Snyder by having one or more flow guide vanes being apart from the plurality of heat exchanger cores in order to have a vane configuration that "improves the distribution uniformity of the surface of the heat exchanger, and improves the performance of the heat exchanger”.
Snyder fails to disclose the heat exchanger cores are arranged to fill substantially the entire cross-section of the housing such that the first fluid must flow through at least one of the heat exchanger cores when travelling from the inlet to the outlet.
Semmes, also drawn to a heat exchanger having multiple cores within a flow channel, teaches heat exchanger cores (2) are arranged to fill substantially the entire cross-section of the housing (shown in figure 10) such that the first fluid must flow through at least one of the heat exchanger cores when travelling from the inlet to the outlet (shown in figure 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Snyder with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Semmes, the motivation being to utilize previously under-utilized space to provide “advantages of increased heat transfer surface” and “ results in a higher overall efficiency”, col. 5 ll. 11-13).
Regarding Claim 12, Snyder further discloses the heat exchanger cores (708a, 708b) diverge from each other towards the outlet of the housing (shown in figure 7).
Regarding Claim 14, Snyder further discloses an aircraft comprising the heat exchanger according to claim 1 (shown in figure 1).
Regarding Claim 15, Snyder further discloses the heat exchanger (708a, 708b) is mounted on the aircraft such that its inlet is exposed to approaching air during flight (shown in figure 7) and its outlet faces substantially rearwards (shown in figure 7), relative to an intended direction of travel of the aircraft, during flight (shown in figures 1 and 7, wherein airflow travels through the heat exchangers of an aircraft).
Regarding Claim 20, Snyder further discloses the first fluid paths (709) entering the heat exchanger are oriented substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the housing (shown in figures 2 and 7, wherein the fluid flow is travelling parallel to housing).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder et al. (USP 9587561B2) in view of Wang et al. (Translation of CN102252558A) in view of Semmes et al. (USP 7540320A) as applied in Claims 1, 12, 14-15 and 20 above and in further view of Grieb et al. (USP 5272870A), hereinafter referred to as Grieb.
Regarding Claim 2, Snyder fails to disclose the housing comprises a substantially square-shaped cross section.
Grieb, also drawn to a heat exchanger for an airplane, teaches a housing (38) comprises a substantially square-shaped cross section (“the pressure housing 25 including a square flow duct 38 in which a matrix 20 is arranged which has special section tubes 35 bent in a U-shape”, col. 6 ll. 11-14).
Snyder does however teach a housing comprising a cross section for allowing the passing of a working fluid.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there is a need in the art to provide a flow path for the working fluid in order to enable the heat exchanger to provide cooling/heating. Therefore, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e. square duct, rectangular duct, circular duct, etc.., a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e. that the working fluid passes through the duct and encounters the heat exchanger in order to provide heat exchange, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Snyder, by having a substantially square-shaped cross section, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious matter of design choice for the housing to have a substantially square-shaped cross section, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV (B).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder et al. (USP 9587561B2) in view of Wang et al. (Translation of CN102252558A) in view of Semmes et al. (USP 7540320A) as applied in Claims 1, 12, 14-15 and 20 above and in further view of Davies et al. (US PG Pub. 2016/0109189A1), hereinafter referred to as Davies.
Regarding Claim 3, although Snyder discloses a length of the heat exchanger and a width of the heat exchanger, Snyder fails to explicitly disclose a length of the heat exchanger is approximately four times the length of a width of the heat exchanger. Davies, also drawn to a heat exchanger, teaches a length of the heat exchanger is approximately four times the length of a width of the heat exchanger (“The axial length of the heat exchanger may be at least four times the width of the heat exchanger”, ¶21).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting a length to width ratio as disclosed in Snyder with a length of the heat exchanger being approximately four times the length of a width of the heat exchanger; further the prior art to Davies teaches that the claimed ratio between length and width of a heat exchanger is known. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Snyder with having a length of the heat exchanger being approximately four times the length of a width of the heat exchanger, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat exchanger device; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Davies there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Snyder by having a length of the heat exchanger being approximately four times the length of a width of the heat exchanger in order to conform to a preexisting space that requires heat exchange or to provide a predetermined amount of pressure drop within the flow path.
Alternately, Snyder discloses the claimed invention except for a length of the heat exchanger being approximately four times the length of a width of the heat exchanger. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to have a heat exchanger with a length of the heat exchanger being approximately four times the length of a width of the heat exchanger, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV (A).
Claims 4-5, 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder et al. (USP 9587561B2) in view of Wang et al. (Translation of CN102252558A) in view of Semmes et al. (USP 7540320A) as applied in Claims 1, 12, 14-15 and 20 above and in further view of Wentworth (USP 1929618A), hereinafter referred to as Wentworth.
Regarding Claim 4, although Snyder states, “The heat exchangers may be a device that transfers heat from one fluid stream to another fluid stream”, Snyder fails to explicitly disclose each of the plurality of heat exchanger cores comprises a core inlet for receiving a second fluid and a core outlet through which the second flow is configured to exit the heat exchanger core.
Wentworth, also drawn to a heat exchanger having multiple cores being angled to one another, teaches each of the plurality of heat exchanger cores (11 and 12, shown in figure 3) comprises a core inlet (shown in figure 3, being the bottom port) for receiving a second fluid and a core outlet (shown in figure 3, being the top port) through which the second flow is configured to exit the heat exchanger core (shown in figure 3, wherein working fluid passes through the legs (11 and 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Snyder with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Wentworth, the motivation being to allow for the working fluid to pass through the entirety of heat exchanger, thereby maximizing heat exchange with the immediate environment.
Regarding limitations “inlet” and “outlet” recited in Claim 4, which are directed to a flow passage direction through the heat exchanger core, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 5, a modified Snyder further teaches the core inlet of the heat exchanger core is arranged towards the distal end (“The radiator sits at an angle with respect to the vertical plane, it being sloped diagonally across the flue within the cabinet or enclosure”, Pg. 1 ll. 24-27) of the housing (shown in figure 3, wherein the inlet/outlet is located at the downstream portion of the housing).
Regarding Claim 9, Snyder fails to explicitly disclose the heat exchanger core comprises a plurality of layers.
Wentworth, also drawn to a heat exchanger having multiple cores being angled to one another, teaches a plurality of layers (“the single nipples for connection with other sections”, Pg. 3 ll. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Snyder with a plurality of layers, as taught by Joardar, the motivation being to provide uniform heat exchange throughout the entirety of the duct, while regulating the fluid resistance through the heat exchanger and to increase surface area of the heat exchanger thereby increasing heat exchange capability.
Regarding Claim 18, although Snyder states, “The heat exchangers may be a device that transfers heat from one fluid stream to another fluid stream” and Snyder discloses a housing, Snyder fails to explicitly disclose each heat exchanger core comprises a core inlet arranged adjacent to the junction and a core outlet arranged adjacent to one of the inlet or outlet of the housing.
Wentworth, also drawn to a heat exchanger having multiple cores being angled to one another, teaches each heat exchanger core (6 and 7) comprises a core inlet (8, shown in figure 1) arranged adjacent to the junction (shown in figure 1) and a core outlet (9) arranged adjacent to one of the outlet of the housing (shown in figures 1 and 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 Snyder with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Wentworth, the motivation being to allow for the working fluid to pass through the entirety of heat exchanger, thereby maximizing heat exchange with the immediate environment.
Regarding limitations “inlet” and “outlet” recited in Claim 18, which are directed to a flow passage direction through the heat exchanger core, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Claims 4, 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder et al. (USP 9587561B2) in view of Wang et al. (Translation of CN102252558A) in view of Semmes et al. (USP 7540320A) as applied in Claims 1, 12, 14-15 and 20 above and in further view of Wentworth (USP 1929618A), hereinafter referred to as Wentworth.
Regarding Claim 4, although Snyder states, “The heat exchangers may be a device that transfers heat from one fluid stream to another fluid stream”, Snyder fails to explicitly disclose each of the plurality of heat exchanger cores comprises a core inlet for receiving a second fluid and a core outlet through which the second flow is configured to exit the heat exchanger core.
Wentworth, also drawn to a heat exchanger having multiple cores being angled to one another, teaches each of the plurality of heat exchanger cores (6 and 7) comprises a core inlet (shown in figure 1, being the respective port (9)) for receiving a second fluid and a core outlet (shown in figure 1, being the central port (8)) through which the second flow is configured to exit the heat exchanger core (shown in figure 1, wherein working fluid passes through the barrels (6 and 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 Snyder with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Wentworth, the motivation being to allow the working fluid to pass through the entirety of heat exchanger, thereby maximizing heat exchange with the immediate environment.
Regarding limitations “inlet” and “outlet” recited in Claim 4, which are directed to a flow passage direction through the heat exchanger core, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 6, a modified Snyder further teaches the outlet (8, as previously taught by Wentworth in the rejection of Claim 4) of the heat exchanger core is arranged at the junction of the heat exchanger cores (shown in figure 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Snyder fails to disclose the heat exchanger cores diverge from each other towards the inlet of the housing.
Wentworth, also drawn to a heat exchanger having multiple cores being angled to one another, teaches the heat exchanger cores diverge from each other towards the inlet of the housing (shown in figure 2).
Since the prior art of Wentworth recognizes the equivalency of having a v-shaped core comprising the diverging sections facing the inlet and a v-shaped core comprising the diverging sections facing the outlet, regarding heat exchangers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the v-shaped core comprising diverging sections facing the outlet of Snyder with the v-shaped core comprising diverging sections facing the inlet of Wentworth as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent heat exchanger cores, recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Regarding limitations “inlet” recited in Claim 11, which are directed to a flow passage direction through the heat exchanger core, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder et al. (USP 9587561B2) in view of Wang et al. (Translation of CN102252558A) in view of Semmes et al. (USP 7540320A) as applied in Claims 1, 12, 14-15 and 20 above in view of Wentworth (USP 1929618A) as applied in Claims 4, 6 and 11 above and in further view of Joardar (US PG Pub. 2017/0356700A1), hereinafter referred to as Joardar.
Regarding Claim 7, although Snyder discloses fluid passing through a heat exchanger core, Snyder fails to disclose the heat exchanger core is arranged in a counterflow arrangement with respect to the first fluid.
Joardar, also drawn to a heat exchanger containing cores being situated at an angle, teaches the heat exchanger core is arranged in a counterflow arrangement with respect to the first fluid (“Although in the illustrated FIG., the fluid or refrigerant has a counter flow orientation relative to the direction of the airflow, other embodiments where the refrigerant has a parallel flow orientation are also within the scope of the invention.”, ¶36).
Snyder does however teach a heat exchanger core is arranged in a flow arrangement with respect to the first fluid.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there is a need in the art to provide a flow path for both working fluids in order to enable the heat exchange between the aforementioned fluids. Therefore, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e. counterflow arrangement, parallel flow arrangement, etc.., a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e. that the working fluids provide heat exchange, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Snyder, by having a heat exchanger core being arranged in a counterflow arrangement with respect to the first fluid, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding limitations “counterflow” recited in Claim 7, which are directed to a flow passage direction through the heat exchanger core, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder et al. (USP 9587561B2) in view of Wang et al. (Translation of CN102252558A) in view of Semmes et al. (USP 7540320A) as applied in Claims 1, 12, 14-15 and 20 above and in further view of Joardar (US PG Pub. 2017/0356700A1), hereinafter referred to as Joardar.
Regarding Claim 9, Snyder fails to explicitly disclose the heat exchanger core comprises a plurality of layers.
Joardar, also drawn to a heat exchanger having multiple cores being angled to one another, teaches a plurality of layers (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 Snyder with a plurality of layers, as taught by Joardar, the motivation being to provide uniform heat exchange throughout the entirety of the duct, while regulating the fluid resistance through the heat exchanger and to increase surface area of the heat exchanger thereby increasing heat exchange capability.
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder et al. (USP 9587561B2) in view of Wang et al. (Translation of CN102252558A) in view of Semmes et al. (USP 7540320A) as applied in Claims 1, 12, 14-15 and 20 above and in further view of Anders (USP 4542786A), hereinafter referred to as Anders.
Regarding Claim 8, although Snyder discloses the heat exchanger cores diverge from each other at an angle (shown in figure 7), Snyder fails the heat exchanger cores diverge from each other at an angle of between 60 to 160 degrees.
Anders, also drawn to a heat exchanger having cores separated by an angle, teaches the heat exchanger cores diverge from each other at an angle of between 60 to 160 degrees (“For example, in FIG. 2 where the fold angle 48 is about 16°, the air incidence angles B.sub.1,B.sub.2,B.sub.3,B.sub.4 between the tube major axes 54 and the flow direction F are about 4°, 24°, 39°, and 49° respectively. When the same cores are oriented at a wider fold angle, for example about 38° as shown in FIG. 3, the air incidence angles change to -18°, 2°, 17°, and 27°, respectively, thus presenting overall less flow restriction for the incoming air. Likewise, the air incidence angles D generally decrease as the preselected fold angle 48 is increased”, col. 5 ll. 48-58).
Snyder fails to explicitly disclose the heat exchanger cores diverge from each other at an angle of between 60 to 160 degrees. Snyder does disclose cores diverging from each other at an angle in order to exchange heat between working fluids. Therefore, the angle to which the heat exchanger cores are deployed is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that a larger angle between the cores reduces the air resistance passing through the heat exchanger, as explicitly disclosed in Anders, thereby reducing pressure drop and vice versa. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the heat exchanger cores are situated at an angle relative to one another, were disclosed in the prior art by Snyder, 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 heat exchanger cores diverging from each other at an angle of between 60 to 160 degrees See MPEP 2144.05 II. Further, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I)
Regarding Claim 11, Snyder fails to disclose the heat exchanger cores diverge from each other towards the inlet of the housing.
Anders, also drawn to a heat exchanger having cores separated by an angle, teaches the heat exchanger cores diverge from each other towards the inlet of the housing (shown in figure 2).
Snyder does however teach a heat exchanger core with multiple sections being angled toward one another within a duct.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there is a need in the art to provide a flow path for the working fluid through a heat exchanger core in a duct to enable the heat exchanger to provide cooling/heating. Therefore, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e. the angled sections of the heat exchanger core is facing the inlet or the outlet, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e. that the working fluid passes through the duct and encounters the heat exchanger in order to provide heat exchange, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Snyder, by having the heat exchanger cores diverge from each other towards the inlet of the housing, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding limitations “inlet” recited in Claim 11, which are directed to a flow passage direction through the heat exchanger core, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder et al. (USP 9587561B2) in view of Wang et al. (Translation of CN102252558A) in view of Semmes et al. (USP 7540320A) as applied in Claims 1, 12, 14-15 and 20 above and in further view of Tsuchida et al. (Translation of WO2017158714A1), hereinafter referred to as Tsuchida.
Regarding Claim 8, although Snyder discloses the heat exchanger cores diverge from each other at an angle (shown in figure 7), Snyder fails the heat exchanger cores diverge from each other at an angle of between 60 to 160 degrees and between 105 to 115 degrees.
Tsuchida, also drawn to a heat exchanger having cores separated by an angle, teaches the heat exchanger cores diverge from each other at an angle of between 60 to 160 degrees and between 105 to 115 degrees (“When the angle 33 is less than 10 °, the condenser 9 is disposed so as to be parallel to the ventilation direction 35 of the machine room 7, that is, to face the machine room wall surface 16 or the machine room cover 8. Since the air path into which the air flows becomes smaller and the pressure loss of the condenser 9 increases, the condensing performance deteriorates. On the other hand, when the angle 33 is larger than 80 °, the condenser 9 is arranged so as to be perpendicular to the ventilation direction 35 of the machine room 7, that is, to face the left side panel 1a, so that it is the same as a general condenser. In addition, the front surface area 27 cannot be increased” and “At this time, by adjusting the connection angle 30 between the rectangular condensers 15, it is possible to obtain the condenser 9 that matches the mounting space of the machine room 7 and can be easily changed in design”).
Snyder fails to explicitly disclose the heat exchanger cores diverge from each other at an angle of between 60 to 160 degrees and between 105 to 115 degrees. Snyder does disclose cores diverging from each other at an angle in order to exchange heat between working fluids. Tsuchida, also drawn to diverging heat exchanger cores, teaches varying the diverging angle between cores for complying with a mounting space, wherein the angle directly attributes to the amount of heat transfer area, pressure loss, flow velocity and effective heat transfer capability of the device. Therefore, the angle between the heat exchanger cores is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that a lesser angle between the cores increases air resistance and lessens flow velocity passing through the heat exchanger, as explicitly disclosed in Tsuchida, thereby affecting overall heat exchange rates and vice versa. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the heat exchanger cores are situated at an angle relative to one another, were disclosed in the prior art by Snyder, 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 heat exchanger cores diverging from each other at an angle of between 60 to 160 degrees and between 105 to 115 degrees. See MPEP 2144.05 II. Further, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I)
Alternately, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Snyder with the heat exchanger cores diverging from each other at an angle of between 60 to 160 degrees and between 105 to 115 degrees, as taught by Tsuchida, the motivation being to conform to the dimensions of the mounting space in order to maximize heat exchange between the working fluids.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder et al. (USP 9587561B2) in view of Wang et al. (Translation of CN102252558A) in view of Semmes et al. (USP 7540320A) as applied in Claims 1, 12, 14-15 and 20 above and in further view of Cordova et al. (US PG Pub. 2016/005407A1), hereinafter referred to as Cordova.
Regarding Claim 13, Snyder fails to disclose the weight of the heat exchanger is between 9kg and 12kg.
Cordova, also drawn to a heat exchanger, teaches the weight of the heat exchanger is between 9kg and 12kg (“The prototype heat exchanger desirably weighed about 20 pounds”, ¶107).
Snyder discloses the claimed invention except for the weight of the heat exchanger being between 9kg and 12kg. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the weight of the heat exchanger being between 9kg and 12kg, for the purpose of providing a light weight heat exchanger that minimizes the utilization of resources when deployed on a vehicle, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder et al. (USP 9587561B2) in view of Wang et al. (Translation of CN102252558A) in view of Semmes et al. (USP 7540320A) as applied in Claims 1, 12, 14-15 and 20 above in view of Wentworth (USP 1929618A) as applied in Claims 4, 6 and 11 above and in further view of Asselman et al. (USP 4144933A), hereinafter referred to as Asselman.
Regarding Claim 19, although Snyder states, “The heat exchangers may be shell-and-tube heat exchangers spaced apart from one another. However, the heat exchangers may instead be plate-fin heat exchangers or other suitable heat exchangers”, col. 4 ll. 61-65), Snyder fails to explicitly disclose each heat exchanger core comprises a plurality of alternating layers forming first fluid paths and second fluid paths that are isolated from each other within the housing, the layers being thermally coupled to transfer heat between the fluids.
Asselman, also drawn to a heat exchanger having multiple cores being angled to one another (shown in figure 3), teaches each heat exchanger core comprises a plurality of alternating layers forming first fluid paths and second fluid paths that are isolated from each other (shown in figures 4-5, wherein a fluid flows within the heat exchanger core (2c) and a fluid flows through the strips (8)), the layers being thermally coupled to transfer heat between the fluids (shown in figures 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Snyder with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Asselman, the motivation being to provide an increased heat exchange capacity though thermal conduction wherein the working fluids contact opposing sides of separating plates therefore maximizing the heat exchange area.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder et al. (USP 9587561B2) in view of Wang et al. (Translation of CN102252558A) in view of Semmes et al. (USP 7540320A) as applied in Claims 1, 12, 14-15 and 20 above in view of Means (US PG Pub. 2014/0224460A1), hereinafter referred to as Means.
Regarding Claim 20, in addition to Snyder, Means, also drawn to heat exchanger cores being placed within a housing, teaches first fluid paths (210, shown in figures 3-4) within the cores (shown in figures 3-4, being the heat exchanger situated on either side of the gap (218)) are oriented substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the housing (shown in figures 3-4, “each of the microchannel tubes 214 and associated fins 216 are generally oriented parallel relative to the primary airflow direction 210”, ¶35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Snyder with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Means, the motivation being “the pressure drop across the microchannel heat exchanger 108 is minimized. Furthermore, the indoor unit 102 may operate more efficiently at least because less energy is required to move air through the microchannel heat exchanger 108”, ¶35.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder et al. (USP 9587561B2) in view of Wang et al. (Translation of CN102252558A) in view of Semmes et al. (USP 7540320A) as applied in Claims 1, 12, 14-15 and 20 above in view of Schmitz (USP 10830543B2), hereinafter referred to as Schmitz.
Regarding Claim 22, Snyder fails to disclose the flow guide vanes are positioned both in front of and behind the plurality of heat exchanger cores disposed within the housing.
Schmitz, also drawn to a core heat exchanger with guide vanes, teaches the flow guide vanes (130, 140) are positioned both in front of and behind (shown in figure 5) the heat exchanger core (90) disposed within the housing (100). Schmitz states, “to further minimize flow misdistribution or to direct flow towards or away from certain areas to minimize thermal stresses a multiple of additively manufactured internal splitters 130, 140 may be located within the respective inlet header 96, and/or the exit header 98. The internal splitters 130, 140, being additively manufactured, are readily shaped to minimize the flow distribution or direct the flow where desired and facilitate the flow through the core 90. (24) Reduced pressure losses allow the overall ducted heat exchanger system 62 size to be decreased to facilitate, for example, ideal nacelle aero curves. Cost reductions may also be realized due to the reduced system size”, col. 6 ll. 15-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the guide vanes of Snyder being positioned both in front of and behind the plurality of heat exchanger cores disposed within the housing, as taught by Schmitz, the motivation being “to minimize the flow distribution or direct the flow where desired and facilitate the flow through the core 90”.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder et al. (USP 9587561B2) in view of Wang et al. (Translation of CN102252558A).
Regarding Claim 23, Snyder discloses a heat exchanger comprising:
a housing (housing is shown in figure 1 containing the passage (102), see also figures 2, 4 and 7 demonstrating the heat exchanger being contained within a housing) comprising:
an inlet at a proximal end for receiving a first fluid (shown in figure 7, allowing the airflow to flow through the module (722), see also figure 4 for reference); and
an outlet, downstream of the inlet at the distal end of the housing, through which the fluid is configured to exit the housing (shown in figure 7, allowing the airflow that passes through the module (722) to exit, see also figure 4 for reference); and
a plurality of heat exchanger cores disposed within the housing (708a, 708b), wherein the plurality of heat exchanger cores meet at a junction and, from the junction (shown in figure 7), diverge from each other towards one of the inlet or the outlet of the housing (shown in figure 7), and
one or more flow guide vanes (942) disposed within the housing (shown in figure 9), wherein the flow guide vane(s) (942) are configured to distribute the first fluid evenly across the heat exchanger cores (“a plurality of vanes 942 disposed within the internal passage 940 for providing a more uniform pressure on the backside of the heat exchangers. This will help to provide better flow distribution through the heat exchangers”, col. 5 ll. 56-60), wherein
the plurality of heat exchanger cores comprise one or more first flow paths (709) through which the first fluid can pass through the heat exchanger cores, in use (shown in figure 7).
Snyder fails to disclose one or more flow guide vanes apart from the plurality of heat exchanger cores.
Wang, also drawn to an inclined heat exchanger, teaches one or more flow guide vanes (31a,31b) apart from the plurality of heat exchanger cores (shown in figure 17), wherein the flow guide vane(s) are configured to distribute the first fluid evenly across the heat exchanger cores (“the guide part can guide the wind towards the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger, which improves the distribution uniformity of the surface of the heat exchanger, and improves the performance of the heat exchanger”, see abstract).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting one or more flow guide vanes being apart from the plurality of heat exchanger cores with one or more flow guide vanes being apart of the plurality of heat exchanger cores; further the prior art to Wang teaches one or more flow guide vanes being apart from the plurality of heat exchanger cores is known for improving the distribution uniformity of the surface of the heat exchanger, and improving the performance of the heat exchanger. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Snyder with having one or more flow guide vanes being apart from the plurality of heat exchanger cores, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat exchanger device; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Wang there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Snyder by having one or more flow guide vanes being apart from the plurality of heat exchanger cores in order to have a vane configuration that "improves the distribution uniformity of the surface of the heat exchanger, and improves the performance of the heat exchanger”.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder et al. (USP 9587561B2) in view of Wang et al. (Translation of CN102252558A) as applied in Claim 23 above in view of Semmes et al. (USP 7540320A) and in further view of Bei (Translation of CN110641246A), hereinafter referred to as Semmes and Bei.
Regarding Claim 24, Snyder fails to explicitly disclose the heat exchanger cores are arranged to fill substantially the entire cross-section of the housing such that the first fluid must flow through at least one of the heat exchanger cores when travelling from the inlet to the outlet and wherein the flow guide vanes extend the full height of the heat exchanger.
Semmes, also drawn to a heat exchanger having multiple cores within a flow channel, teaches heat exchanger cores (2) are arranged to fill substantially the entire cross-section of the housing (shown in figure 10) such that the first fluid must flow through at least one of the heat exchanger cores when travelling from the inlet to the outlet (shown in figure 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Snyder with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Semmes, the motivation being to utilize previously under-utilized space to provide “advantages of increased heat transfer surface” and “ results in a higher overall efficiency”, col. 5 ll. 11-13).
Bei, also drawn to a heat exchanger having guide plates, teaches the flow guide vanes (501) extend the full height of the heat exchanger (shown in figures 7-8).
Regarding Claim 24, although Snyder discloses guide vanes extending to a degree in the height direction for regulating airflow to the heat exchanger (“a more uniform pressure on the backside of the heat exchangers. This will help to provide better flow distribution through the heat exchangers”, (col. 5 ll. 56-60)), Snyder fails to disclose guide vanes extending the full height of the heat exchanger. Bei does, however, teach guide vanes extending the full height of the heat exchanger. Therefore, the extension length of the guide vanes 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 extension length of the guide vanes, the greater the uniformity of pressure applied to the heat exchanger and better flow distribution through said heat exchanger, other parameters remaining consistent. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the heat exchanger has a guide vane extending along the height direction, was disclosed in the prior art by Snyder and Bei, 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 guide vanes of Snyder extending the full height of the heat exchanger. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder et al. (USP 9587561B2) in view of Wang et al. (Translation of CN102252558A) as applied in Claim 23 above in view of Semmes et al. (USP 7540320A) and in further view of Kim (Translation of 1782601A), hereinafter referred to as Semmes and Kim.
Regarding Claim 24, Snyder fails to explicitly disclose the heat exchanger cores are arranged to fill substantially the entire cross-section of the housing such that the first fluid must flow through at least one of the heat exchanger cores when travelling from the inlet to the outlet and wherein the flow guide vanes extend the full height of the heat exchanger.
Semmes, also drawn to a heat exchanger having multiple cores within a flow channel, teaches heat exchanger cores (2) are arranged to fill substantially the entire cross-section of the housing (shown in figure 10) such that the first fluid must flow through at least one of the heat exchanger cores when travelling from the inlet to the outlet (shown in figure 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Snyder with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Semmes, the motivation being to utilize previously under-utilized space to provide “advantages of increased heat transfer surface” and “ results in a higher overall efficiency”, col. 5 ll. 11-13).
Kim, also drawn to a heat exchanger having guide plates, teaches the flow guide vanes (76) extend the full height of the heat exchanger (“shown in FIGS. 3 and 4, the degree of the groove (72) is equal to the width of said heat exchanger (60)”).
Regarding Claim 24, although Snyder discloses guide vanes extending to a degree in the height direction for regulating airflow to the heat exchanger (“a more uniform pressure on the backside of the heat exchangers. This will help to provide better flow distribution through the heat exchangers”, (col. 5 ll. 56-60)), Snyder fails to disclose guide vanes extending the full height of the heat exchanger. Kim does, however, teach guide vanes extending the full height of the heat exchanger. Therefore, the extension length of the guide vanes 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 extension length of the guide vanes, the greater the uniformity of pressure applied to the heat exchanger and better flow distribution through said heat exchanger, other parameters remaining consistent. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the heat exchanger has a guide vane extending along the height direction, was disclosed in the prior art by Snyder and Kim, 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 guide vanes of Snyder extending the full height of the heat exchanger. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 23 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
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 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