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 9/16/2025 are as follows:
Claims 1 and 16 are amended,
Claims 14 and 18 are canceled,
Claims 1-13, 15-17, and 19-20 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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0087209, “Holt”, previously cited) in view of Sole et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,897,892, “Sole”, previously cited) in further view of Jensen (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0236071, previously cited).
Regarding claim 10, Holt discloses a heat exchanger for a rocket, the heat exchanger comprising:
a heat exchange component (214A) configured to carry a working fluid (in the case of a chilled liquid loop, ¶0032); and
a phase change material (PCM) component (210A) comprising PCM, wherein the PCM component is in thermal contact with the heat exchange component (¶0032).
However, they do not explicitly disclose wherein the PCM component comprises a lanced offset fin structure having a network of cavities at least partially filled with the PCM. Sole, however, discloses a PCM component (Fig 8) which comprises a lanced offset fin structure (formed by fins 807b) having a network of cavities at least partially filled with the PCM (fig 8). Sole teaches that the lanced offset fin structure improves the cooling rate of the PCM (col 6, line 64-col 7, line 19). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Holt, as modified, to provide the lanced offset fin structure of Sole in order to improve the cooling rate of the PCM.
However, Holt does not explicitly disclose wherein the PCM component is a first PCM component and the heat exchanger further comprises a second PCM component. Jensen, however, discloses a heat exchanger (fig 2) wherein the PCM component (50) is a first PCM component (see annotated fig 2 below) and the heat exchanger further comprises a second PCM component, wherein the first PCM component (see annotated fig 2 below), the heat exchanger component, and the second PCM component are mutually assembled by double brazing (as fins 20 are brazed at multiple locations to 12). It would have been obvious to multiple PCM components such as taught by Jensen in order to increase heat storage capacity of the system.
The limitation of wherein the first PCM component, the heat exchanger component, and the second PCM component are mutually assembled by double brazing is considered a product-by-product 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
794
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt, Sole, and Jensen as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Tao et al. (Chinese Patent Publication CN116293530A, “Tao”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Holt, Sole, and Jensen discloses all previous claim limitations. Holt further discloses wherein a working-fluid supply system configured to provide the working fluid to the heat exchange component such that the working fluid ii) colder than the melting temperature of the PCM when the rocket is stationary on a launch pad for the rocket (¶0032). However, they do not explicitly disclose wherein the working fluid is hotter than the melting temperature of the PCM during flight of the rocket. Rather, Holt teaches providing the PCM component in direct contact with the heat source (202A). Tao, however, discloses a cooling system wherein the working fluid (“hydraulic oil”) is used for cooling multiple heat sources during flight (page 2, lines 10-21 of translation). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Holt, as modified, to have the working fluid be hotter than the melting temperature of the PCM during flight of the rocket in order to allow for cooling of multiple heat sources.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Holt, Sole, Tao, and Jensen disclose all previous claim limitations. Holt, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein the working fluid supply system comprises valves that operate to select either the working fluid that is hotter than the melting temperature of the PCM or the working fluid that is colder than the melting temperature of the PCM. Tao, however, teaches providing valves (5, 7, 9, 10, N+7, N+8) that operate to either heat or cool the working fluid (page 3, lines 7-13 of translation). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Holt, as modified, to provide the valves of Tao in order to allow for cooling and heating of the PCM.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Holt, Tao, and Sole disclose all previous claim limitations. Holt, as modified, further discloses wherein the selection by the valves (5, 7, 9, 10, N+7, N+8, Tao) is based, at least in part, on a determination of location of the rocket (as Holt teaches cooling of the PCM before launch and heating of the PCM during flight, see ¶0007-0008).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt, Sole, and Jensen as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Gruss et al. (French Patent Publication FR2975177A1, “Gruss”).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Holt, Sole, and Jensen discloses all previous claim limitations. However, they do not explicitly disclose lanced offset heat fins between the heat exchange component and the PCM component. Gruss, however, discloses a heat exchange system (fig 4) wherein lanced offset heat fins (6, page 4, lines 173-175) are between a heat exchange component (2) and a PCM component (4)(see annotated fig 2 below). Gruss teaches that this allows for an additional working fluid to exchange heat with the PCM (page 3, lines 117-128 of translation). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Holt, as modified, to provide the fins of Gruss in order to allow for an additional fluid to exchange heat with the PCM.
PNG
media_image2.png
486
688
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not teach the limitations of amended claims 1 and 16. Specifically, the cooling and heating of the two PCM components alternately. Holt, considered the closest prior art teaches cooling and heating of a PCM component, however, fails to teach doing so alternately.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (7-8) that prior art fails to teach the components being assembled by double brazing. However, as explained this limitation 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).
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