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 .
Status of the Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the reply dated 6/20/2025 are as follows:
Claim 1 is amended,
Claims 3, 6, and 10-15 are canceled,
Claims 1, 2, 4-5, and 7-9 are currently pending.
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, 2, 4 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabinkin et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0077474, “Rabinkin, previously cited) in view of Reinders et al. (Brazilian Patent Publication BR0309567A, “Reinders”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Rabinkin discloses a heat exchanger (5) comprising:
a plurality of structures (of fins 2, see annotated fig 2a below) extending from a base plate where adjacent structures are separated by at least a first distance (see annotated fig 2a below); and
at least one cover plate (1) positioned over ends of the plurality of structures so that the at least one cover plate is spaced from the ends of the plurality of structures by a second distance (see annotated fig 2a below) where the second distance is smaller than the first distance (fig 2a);
wherein the at least one cover plate is brazed to the plurality of structures by brazing material (4) provided between the ends of the plurality of structures and the at least e cover plate; and
wherein the brazing material is provided in a discontinuous configuration so that gaps (see annotated fig 2a below) are provided between portions of brazing material so that a brazing join is formed from brazing materials that has flowed into spacing between the at least one cover plate and the ends of the plurality of structures.
However, Rabinkin does not explicitly disclose a stiffener structure comprising a plurality projecting portions configured to extend between the plurality of structures so as to restrict bending of the plurality of structures. Reinders, however, discloses a heat exchanger having a stiffener structure comprising a plurality projecting portions (43, fig 10a-10c) configured to extend between the plurality of structures so as to restrict bending of the plurality of structures (as the extra thick portion would inhibit bending). Reinders teaches that this configuration allows for the fins to be in direct contact with one another and thus provides greater thermal communication. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed for Rabinkin to provide to provide the fin and plate configuration of Reinders in order to provide greater heat exchange.
the limitation of “wherein the first distance and the second distance are selected so that Laplace pressure causes the brazing material to flow into gaps between the ends of the plurality of structures and the at least one cover plate” is considered a product-by-process limitation. In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
PNG
media_image1.png
631
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Rabinkin and Reinders discloses all previous claim limitations. Rabinkin further discloses wherein the brazing material is provided in a thickness that is smaller than the first distance (as evident in fig 2a).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Rabinkin and Reinders discloses all previous claim limitations Rabinkin further discloses wherein the plurality of structures extend substantially perpendicularly out of the base plate (see annotated fig 2a above).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Rabinkin and Reinders discloses all previous claim limitations. However, Rabinkin does not explicitly disclose wherein at least some of the plurality of structures extend through the at least one cover plate and further coupling devices provided on the ends of the plurality of structures that extend through the at least one cover plate. Reinders, however, discloses a heat exchanger wherein at least some of the plurality of structures (31, fig 10a-10c) extend through the at least one cover plate (40) and further coupling devices (43) provided on the ends of the plurality of structures that extend through the at least one cover plate. Reinders teaches that this configuration allows for the fins to be in direct contact with one another and thus provides greater thermal communication. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed for Rabinkin to provide to provide the fin and plate configuration of Reinders in order to provide greater heat exchange.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Rabinkin and Reinders discloses all previous claim limitations Rabinkin further discloses wherein the plurality of structures comprises fins (¶0027).
Regarding claim 9, the limitation of wherein the heat exchanger comprises an evaporator or a condenser is considered intended which Rabinkin is capable of meeting. 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 satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabinkin as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Neumann et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0131432, “Neuman”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Rabinkin and Reinders discloses all previous claim limitations. However, Rabinkin does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of structures are spaced closer together at edges of the base plate than in a center of the base plate. Neuman, however, discloses a heat exchanger (fig 2) wherein a plurality of structures (226, 232) are spaced closer together at edges (206) of a base plate than in a center (204) of the base plate. Rabinkin teaches that this allows for optimal heat transfer between two different fluids flowing through the channels created by the structures (¶0019). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed for Rabinkin to provide the spacing of Neuman in order to optimal heat transfer between two different fluids flowing through the channels created by the structures.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/20/025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 4) that Rabinkin does not teach the stiffener structure as now required by claim 1. However, Reinders is relied upon to teach this limitation.
Applicant argues (pages 5-6) that providing the stiffening structure of Reinders would destroy the manufacturing process of the heat exchanger of Rabinkin as it would not allow brazing material to move freely during the brazing process. The Examiner respectfully disagrees; as can be seen in figure 10b of Reinders there is space between the projecting structures and plates.
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 HARRY E ARANT whose telephone number is (571)272-1105. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at (571)270-7740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HARRY E ARANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763