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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-10, 13-16 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “plate” in ll. 3, 6, 10 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned what the structural configuration of the plate comprises. From the instant disclosure, the elected embodiment of Figure 7 does not appear to contain stacked plates (see figure 7D), only an additively manufactured monolithic body. Further, the specification explicitly discloses that the heat exchanger is additively manufactured in place of being separately constructed and attached (“In some embodiments, the heat exchanger may be constructed monolithically via additive manufacturing, using powdered metal and/or metal superalloys” (¶9) “They are modular in that the hot agent and the cold agent flow through separate modules (e.g., headers, plates), and they are integrated in that the core and headers can be additively manufactured as a monolithic entity” (¶36) and “By additively manufacturing heat exchanger 300, headers 322 and 324 can be integrated into the heat exchanger instead of being separately constructed and attached. Additive manufacturing (AM) also enables independent variations in the aspect ratio and/or pitch ratio of pins on the cold side, and for any desired variations between the cold-side and hot-side passages” (¶61). Therefore it is unclear as to what physical structure constitutes the “plate” or rather what separates one plate from another if they are integrally assembled through additive manufacturing. Is there a distinct separating structure placed between the plates or are the plates merely separated by wall thickness of the monolithic body. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “plate” will be interpreted as –plate-like portion formed in the heat exchanger--.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitation “the first plurality of plates and the second plurality of plates are radially aligned between (a) the first inlet header and the second outlet header and (b) the second inlet header and the first outlet header” in ll. 1 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned how the first plurality of plates and the second plurality of plates are radially aligned or rather how they emanate from a common central point. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “the first plurality of plates and the second plurality of plates are radially aligned between (a) the first inlet header and the second outlet header and (b) the second inlet header and the first outlet header” will be interpreted as – the first plurality of plates and the second plurality of plates extend in a parallel direction between (a) the first inlet header and the second outlet header and (b) the second inlet header and the first outlet header --.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 10, 15-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (Translation of CN103837025B), hereinafter referred to as Zhang.
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Zhang discloses a heat exchanger device, comprising:
a first pathway (passage for working fluid (61), shown in figure 5) for conveying a first substance (shown in figure 5), the first pathway comprising:
a first plurality of plates (40) defining a plurality of first flow passages (shown in figure 5), wherein
each plate encloses a respective first flow passage of the plurality of first flow passages (shown in figure 5) that includes a plurality of first structures (41, as shown in figure 3);
a first inlet header (shown in figure 5, containing the second cavity (32)) configured to receive the first substance and direct the first substance through the plurality of first flow passages in the first plurality of plates (shown in figure 5); and
a first outlet header (shown in figure 5, the first cavity (22)) configured to receive the first substance from the first plurality of first flow passages and expel the first substance from the device (shown in figure 5); and
a second pathway for conveying a second substance (71), the second pathway (shown in figure 5) comprising:
a plurality of second flow passages (flow passages contained within the flat tubes (50)) between adjacent plates in the first plurality of plates (shown in figure 5), wherein each second flow passage includes a plurality of second structures (51);
a second inlet header (shown in figure 5, containing the first chamber (23)) configured to receive the second substance and direct the second substance through the second flow passages (shown in figure 5); and
a second outlet header (shown in figure 5, containing the second chamber (33)) configured to receive the second substance from the second flow passages and expel the second substance from the device (shown in figure 5) and
at least one of (a) or (b):
(a) a plurality of third flow passages (shown in figure 5, being the flow passages extending through the second chamber (33)) coupled with the first inlet header (shown in figure 5, containing the second cavity (32)) and configured to convey the first substance through the second outlet header (shown in figure 5, containing the second chamber (33)) such that the first substance is thermally exposed to the second substance before the first substance flows through the plurality of first flow passages (shown in figure 5); or
(b) a plurality of fourth passages (shown in figure 5, being the flow passages extending through the first cavity (22)) coupled with the second inlet header (shown in figure 5, containing the second chamber (33)) and configured to convey the second substance through the first outlet header (shown in figure 5, the first cavity (22)) such that the second substance is thermally exposed to the first substance before the second substance flows through the plurality of second flow passages (shown in figure 5).
Regarding Claim 2, Zhang further discloses the plurality of first flow passages (shown in figure 5) convey the first substance and the plurality of second flow passages convey the second substance (shown in figure 5) in substantially opposite directions (shown in figure 5).
A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed, regarding “substantially opposite directions”, does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. Please see Section 2114 of the MPEP entitled Functional Language.
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang further discloses a pressure of the first substance at the first inlet header is higher than a pressure of the second substance at the second inlet header, and wherein a temperature of the first substance at the first inlet header is lower than a temperature of the second substance at the second inlet header (see intended use analysis below).
A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed, regarding “a pressure of the first substance at the first inlet header is higher than a pressure of the second substance at the second inlet header, and wherein a temperature of the first substance at the first inlet header is lower than a temperature of the second substance at the second inlet header”, does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. Please see Section 2114 of the MPEP entitled Functional Language.
Regarding Claim 4, Zhang further discloses the first inlet header receives the first substance at a pressure up to approximately 250 bar; and the second inlet header receives the second substance at a temperature up to approximately 800°C (see intended use analysis below).
A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed, regarding “the first inlet header receives the first substance at a pressure up to approximately 250 bar; and the second inlet header receives the second substance at a temperature up to approximately 800°C”, does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. Please see Section 2114 of the MPEP entitled Functional Language.
Regarding Claim 10, as best understood, Zhang further discloses the device further comprises a second plurality of plates (50) enclosing the plurality of second flow passages (shown in figures 3 and 5); and
the first plurality of plates (40) and the second plurality of plates (50) are radially aligned between (a) the first inlet header and the second outlet header and (b) the second inlet header and the first outlet header (shown in figures 2 and 3).
Regarding Claim 15, Zhang further discloses the first substance comprises one or more of: supercritical carbon dioxide; and molten salt (see intended use analysis below).
A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed, regarding “the first substance comprises one or more of: supercritical carbon dioxide; and molten salt”, does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. Please see Section 2114 of the MPEP entitled Functional Language.
Regarding Claim 16, Zhang further discloses the second substance comprises one or more of: molten salt; fluidized metallic particles; fluidized ceramic particles; liquid sodium; and a supercritical gas (see intended use analysis below).
A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed, regarding “the second substance comprises one or more of: molten salt;fluidized metallic particles; fluidized ceramic particles; liquid sodium; and a supercritical gas”, does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. Please see Section 2114 of the MPEP entitled Functional Language.
Regarding Claim 17, as best understood, Zhang discloses a heat exchanger apparatus, comprising:
a first inlet header (shown in figure 5, containing the second cavity (32)) for inletting a first fluidiform substance (shown in figure 5);
a second inlet header (shown in figure 5, containing the first chamber (23)) for inletting a second fluidiform substance (shown in figure 5);
a first outlet header (shown in figure 5, the first cavity (22)) for outputting the first fluidiform substance (shown in figure 5);
a second outlet header (shown in figure 5, containing the second chamber (33)) for outputting the second fluidiform substance (shown in figure 5);
a plurality of first passages (shown in figures 3 and 5) through which the first fluidform substance flows between the first inlet header and the second inlet header (shown in figure 5); and
a plurality of second passages (shown in figures 3 and 5) through which the second fluidform substance flows between the second inlet header and the second outlet header (shown in figure 5); wherein
the plurality of first passages and the plurality of second passages are parallel to and interleaved with each other (shown in figures 3 and 5), and
at least one of (a) or (b):
(a) a plurality of third passages (shown in figure 5, being the flow passages extending through the second chamber (33)) coupled with the first inlet header (shown in figure 5, containing the second cavity (32)) and configured to convey the first fluidiform substance through the second outlet header (shown in figure 5, containing the second chamber (33)) such that the first fluidiform substance is thermally exposed to the second fluidiform substance before the first fluidiform substance flows through the plurality of first passages (shown in figure 5); or
(b) a plurality of fourth passages (shown in figure 5, being the flow passages extending through the first cavity (22)) coupled with the second inlet header (shown in figure 5, containing the second chamber (33)) and configured to convey the second fluidiform substance through the first outlet header (shown in figure 5, the first cavity (22)) such that the second fluidiform substance is thermally exposed to the first fluidiform substance before the second fluidiform substance flows through the plurality of second passages (shown in figure 5).
Regarding Claim 18, as best understood, Zhang further discloses a plurality of first plates (40), wherein each first plate encloses one of the first passages (being the flow passages within the first flat pipe (40)).
Regarding Claim 21, Zhang further discloses a plurality of second plates (50), wherein each second plate encloses one of the second passages (being the flow passages within the second flat tube (50)).
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 5-7 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (Translation of CN103837025B) as applied in Claims 1-4, 10, 15-18 and 21 above and in further view of Pollard et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0141656A1), hereinafter referred to as Pollard.
Regarding Claim 5, Zhang fails to disclose the plurality of first structures comprises microscale pins.
Pollard, also drawn to a heat exchanger having fluid flow paths with structures, teaches plurality of first structures comprises microscale pins (66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Zhang with the plurality of first structures comprising microscale pins, as taught by Pollard, the motivation being that microscale pins provide increased flow mixing and increased turbulent flow within the flow path for increased heat transfer.
Regarding Claim 6, a modified Zhang further teaches the microscale pins (66, as previously taught by Pollard in the rejection of Claim 5) have predetermined aspect ratios and spacing (shown in figure 8A, wherein aspect ratios and spacing are predetermined).
Regarding Claim 7, a modified Zhang further teaches the microscale pins (as previously taught by Pollard in the rejection of Claim 5) connect opposing walls of the plate (the structures being situated between the opposing walls of the flow path area is taught by Pollard in figure 8A).
Regarding Claim 19, Zhang fails to disclose each first passage comprises microscale structures that connect opposing walls of the plate.
Pollard, also drawn to a heat exchanger having fluid flow paths with structures, teaches each first passage comprises microscale structures (66) that connect opposing walls of the plate (shown in figure 8A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Zhang with the plurality of first structures comprising microscale pins, as taught by Pollard, the motivation being that microscale pins provide increased flow mixing and increase turbulent flow within the flow path for increased heat transfer.
Regarding Claim 20, a modified Zhang further teaches the microscale structures include an array of pins (66, as previously taught by Pollard in the rejection of Claim 19) having predetermined aspect ratios and spacing (shown in figure 8A).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (Translation of CN103837025B) as applied in Claims 1-4, 10, 15-18, 21 and 24 above and in further view of Fujita et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0116182A1), hereinafter referred to as Fujita.
Regarding Claim 8, Zhang fails to disclose the plurality of second structures comprises two or more parallel ridges.
Fujita, also drawn to a heat exchanger having fluid flow paths with structures, teaches a plurality of second structures comprises two or more parallel ridges (12, shown in figure 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 Zhang with the plurality of second structures comprising two or more parallel ridges, as taught by Fujita, the motivation being to connect the flow channels thereby allowing for the passing fluid flow to achieve a uniform pressure drop and uniform heat transfer rate.
Claims 9 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (Translation of CN103837025B) as applied in Claims 1-4, 10, 15-18, 21 and 24 above and in further view of Schmidt (US PG Pub. 2006/0245987A1), hereinafter referred to as Schmidt.
Regarding Claim 9, Zhang fails to disclose the plurality of second structures comprises pins that form a lattice structure.
Schmidt, also drawn to a heat exchanger having fluid flow paths with structures, teaches the plurality of second structures comprises pins that form a lattice structure (“a thermally conductive porous network 16d such as an engineered metal lattices, such as Jonathan Aerospace Materials of Wilmington, Mass. microperf or lattice block material (LBM)”, ¶31, wherein figure 5 displays a plurality of connected components forming the lattice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Zhang with the plurality of second structures comprises pins forming a lattice structure, as taught by Schmidt, the motivation being that a lattice structure provides “a micro heat exchanger with multitudes of micro flow channels which are conducive to efficient and inexpensive manufacture”, ¶9.
Regarding Claim 22, Zhang fails to disclose each second passage comprises microscale structures that connect opposing walls of the plate.
Schmidt, also drawn to a heat exchanger having fluid flow paths with structures, teaches each second passage comprises microscale structures that connect opposing walls of the plate (“a thermally conductive porous network 16d such as an engineered metal lattices, such as Jonathan Aerospace Materials of Wilmington, Mass. microperf or lattice block material (LBM)”, ¶31, wherein figure 5 displays a plurality of connected components forming the lattice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Zhang with each second passage comprising microscale structures that connect opposing walls of the plate, as taught by Schmidt, the motivation being that a lattice structure provides “a micro heat exchanger with multitudes of micro flow channels which are conducive to efficient and inexpensive manufacture”, ¶9.
Regarding Claim 23, a modified Zhang further teaches the microscale structures include a lattice of interconnecting pins (“a thermally conductive porous network 16d such as an engineered metal lattices, such as Jonathan Aerospace Materials of Wilmington, Mass. microperf or lattice block material (LBM)”, ¶31, wherein figure 5 displays a plurality of connected components forming the lattice).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (Translation of CN103837025B) as applied in Claims 1-4, 10, 15-18, 21 and 24 above and in further view of Flin et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/00378696A1), hereinafter referred to as Flin.
Regarding Claim 13, Zhang fails to disclose the device is devoid of braze joints and weld joints.
Flin, also drawn to a heat exchanger, teaches the device is devoid of braze joints and weld joints (“Additive manufacturing techniques make it possible ultimately to produce parts that are said to be ‘solid’ and which, in contrast to construction techniques such as diffusion brazing or diffusion welding, have no assembly interfaces between each engraved plate. This property increases the mechanical strength of the device, since the way in which the device is built eliminates weakening lines and thus eliminates a source of potential defects” (¶34)).
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 heat exchanger of Zhang being devoid of braze joints and weld joints, as taught by Flin, the motivation being to eliminate weaknesses from the assembly and a source of potential defects.
Regarding Claim 14, Zhang fails to disclose the device is fabricated monolithically via a metal laser powder-based fusion additive manufacturing process.
Flin, also drawn to a heat exchanger, teaches the device is fabricated monolithically via a metal laser powder-based fusion additive manufacturing process (“The additive manufacturing process can use micrometer-scale metal powders which are melted by one or more lasers so as to manufacture finished parts having complex three-dimensional shape…Additive manufacturing techniques make it possible ultimately to produce parts that are said to be ‘solid’ and which, in contrast to construction techniques such as diffusion brazing or diffusion welding, have no assembly interfaces between each engraved plate. This property increases the mechanical strength of the device, since the way in which the device is built eliminates weakening lines and thus eliminates a source of potential defects” (¶34)).
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 heat exchanger of Zhang being fabricated monolithically via a metal laser powder-based fusion additive manufacturing process, as taught by Flin, the motivation being to eliminate weaknesses from the assembly and a source of potential defects.
In product-by-process claims, as in Claim 14, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Nakahari meets the structural limitations put forth in Claim 14, wherein the final product existing after fabrication is compared to prior art for the purposes of patentability. The limitations regarding “laser powder-based fusion” are drawn to methods of production and not the structural aspects of the instant invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 is allowed.
Claim 25 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
On page 7 of the Arguments the Applicant states, “However, claim 11 finds support at least in the bottom-right portion of Fig. 7B, which illustrates a non-limiting example of flow passages defined by hot-side plates 728 converging in a direction of the flow of a hot agent from the hot-side inlet header 706 toward the hot-side outlet header 708”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The converging structures are clearly shown in figure 5B, non-elected by the Applicant, wherein figure 7B does not show the converging structures.
On page 8 of the Arguments the Applicant states, “Applicant respectfully submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to ascertain the scope of the term ‘plate’ with reasonable certainty. Even without consulting the specification or drawings, the term ‘plate’ has a plain and ordinary meaning that is well understood”. The Examiner disagrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the plurality of plates as being stacked separate components, wherein the elected embodiment is drawn to a monolithic additively manufactured heat exchanger. In additive manufacturing, no joints or welds would exist between adjacent plates thereby creating indefiniteness as to what structure constitutes a “plate” or rather where does one plate start and another start within the stack of plates.
On page 9 of the Arguments the Applicant states, “Accordingly, when claim 10 is read in light of Figs. 7A and 7B and the corresponding description of the cold-side plates 726 and hot-side plates 728, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand what is meant by the plates being ‘radially aligned’ between the recited inlet and outlet headers and would be able to determine the metes and bounds of the claim with reasonable certainty. Under Nautilus, claim 10 therefore satisfies the definiteness requirement of 35 USC § 112(b), and Applicant respectfully submits that the indefiniteness rejection of claim 10 should be withdrawn.”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Radial alignment is concerned with the components emanating from a common center (spokes on a wheel, starfish, etc..), whereas as the “plates” of the instant application do not appear to be so aligned.
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
Prosecution Insights