DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status:
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/20/2626 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claim 1, per the Applicant’s arguments submitted 08/03/2026, the limitation “plate” in ll. 3, 6, 10 is hereby interpreted as a structure that defines a flow passage, with "each plate" enclosing a respective flow passage that includes a plurality of structures.
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 1-4, 10, 15-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (Translation of CN103837025B) and in view of Kuczek et al. (US PG Pub. 2017/0146305A1), hereinafter referred to as Zhang and Kuczek, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, 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) each having a first geometry to facilitate heat transfer (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) each having a second geometry to facilitate heat transfer (shown in figure 3);
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). Zhang fails to disclose the second geometry differs from the first geometry.
Kuczek, also drawn to a heat exchanger for multiple working fluids, teaches a plurality of first structures (shown in figure 2H, being the partitions within the first layers (232)), a plurality of second structures (shown in figure 2H, being the partitions within the second layers (234)) and the second geometry differs from the first geometry (shown in figure 2H, wherein the flow channels comprise different sizes).
Zhang does however teach that multiple working fluids are passed through flow passages of the heat exchanger in order initiate heat transfer, wherein each respective fluid contacts a structure comprising a geometry. Further, Kuczek teaches that heat exchangers having first and second channels with different geometries is old and well known.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there is a need in the art to provide specific geometries to the structures for regulating heat transfer rate, pressure drop, turbulence, a required pump size or structural reinforcement between adjacent channels. Therefore, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e. the first and second structures have the same geometry or a different geometry, 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 multiple fluids travel through the heat exchanger with a predetermined pressure drop, turbulence threshold or amount of heat transfer, 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 Zhang, by having first and second structures with different geometries, as taught by Kuczek, the motivation being to regulate pressure drop, heat transfer, turbulence and mass flow rate of a respective fluid. Further, 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 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 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, 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) wherein each first passage of the plurality of first passages (shown in figures 3 and 5) comprises a plurality of first structures (41, as shown in figure 3) each having a first geometry (shown in figure 3); 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 each second passage of the plurality of second passages comprises a plurality of second structures (51, as shown in figure 3) each having a second geometry (shown in figure 3); 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).
Zhang fails to disclose the second geometry differs from the first geometry.
Kuczek, also drawn to a heat exchanger for multiple working fluids, teaches a plurality of first structures (shown in figure 2H, being the partitions within the first layers (232)), a plurality of second structures (shown in figure 2H, being the partitions within the second layers (234)) and the second geometry differs from the first geometry (shown in figure 2H, wherein the flow channels comprise different sizes).
Zhang does however teach that multiple working fluids are passed through flow passages of the heat exchanger in order initiate heat transfer, wherein each respective fluid contacts a structure comprising a geometry. Further, Kuczek teaches that heat exchangers having first and second channels with different geometries is old and well known.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there is a need in the art to provide specific geometries to the structures for regulating heat transfer rate, pressure drop, turbulence, a required pump size or structural reinforcement between adjacent channels. Therefore, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e. the first and second structures have the same geometry or a different geometry, 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 multiple fluids travel through the heat exchanger with a predetermined pressure drop, turbulence threshold or amount of heat transfer, 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 Zhang, by having first and second structures with different geometries, as taught by Kuczek, the motivation being to regulate pressure drop, heat transfer, turbulence and mass flow rate of a respective fluid. Further, 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 Claim 18, 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)).
Claims 5-7 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (Translation of CN103837025B) in view of Kuczek et al. (US PG Pub. 2017/0146305A1) 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 the plurality of first structures comprises microscale structures that connect opposing walls of the plate.
Pollard, also drawn to a heat exchanger having fluid flow paths with structures, teaches the plurality of first structures 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) in view of Kuczek et al. (US PG Pub. 2017/0146305A1) 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) in view of Kuczek et al. (US PG Pub. 2017/0146305A1) 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 the plurality of second structures comprises microscale structures that connect opposing walls of the plate.
Schmidt, also drawn to a heat exchanger having fluid flow paths with structures, teaches the plurality of second structures 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 the plurality of second structures 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) in view of Kuczek et al. (US PG Pub. 2017/0146305A1) 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.
Claims 10 and 25 are 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.
Conclusion
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