DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 8-12 of the response, filed October 29, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 9, 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Roberge (US 2020/0386119 A1).
Claim 1 now requires protrusions on the exterior surface of both first and second inlet conduits. Thus, the previous interpretation of Maalouf no longer applies.
Claim 9 now requires fluid communication of the first inlet conduit, inlet manifold, outlet manifold, and first outlet conduit. Thus, the previous interpretation of Cowan-Maalouf no longer applies. The manifold interpretation previously taken does not appear to allow for such fluid communication.
Maalouf is no longer applied to Claim 15. Arguments are considered moot, since they are directed towards Maalouf.
Claim 16 now requires protrusions on the interior surface of the inlet/outlet manifold, exterior surface of the inlet conduit, exterior surface of the outlet conduit. Thus, the previous interpretation of Cowan-Maalouf no longer applies.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 16, 2025 and October 16, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-6, 9-13, and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, Lines 16-17 recite “the heat exchanger, the first inlet conduit, and the second inlet conduit are configured to be exposed to an airflow over the housing”. It is unclear if there is sufficient written description for such a limitation in the claim. This is not described in the original disclosure. The figures do not appear to clearly illustrate all three being exposed to an airflow over the housing. If applicant believes this rejection to be in error, applicant may point to specifically where written description is provided for this limitation.
Claim 9, Lines 5-7 recite “a first inlet conduit and a first outlet conduit, the first inlet conduit in fluid communication with the first outlet conduit through the inlet manifold, the outlet manifold, and the heat transfer region”. It is unclear if there is sufficient written description for such a limitation in the claim. Lines 2-4 of the claim describes structure of inner and outer walls coupling with the inlet manifold and the outlet manifold. The embodiment of Figure 4B shows manifolds having the quoted fluid communication with the fluid conduit and heat transfer region. However, the schematic nature makes it unclear if it also has the wall coupling as required in Lines 2-4. Figure 2 describes 124, 126 as the respective manifolds, but does not show the claimed fluid communication in Lines 5-7. The original disclosure does not describe the combination of the limitations of Lines 2-4 with 5-7. If applicant believes this rejection to be in error, applicant may point to specifically where written description is provided for this limitation.
Claims 2-6, 10-13, 15 subsequently depend upon Claims 1, 9, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 2-6, 10-13, 17-18, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2, Lines 1-4 recite “wherein at least one of the first protrusion configuration or the second protrusion configuration comprises a plurality of protrusions spaced apart axially along an interior surface of at least one of the first inlet conduit or the first outlet conduit”. However, claim 1 requires the first protrusion configuration and second protrusion configuration to be on exterior surfaces of their respective conduits. Also, neither are on the first outlet conduit. It is unclear where the protrusion configurations are intended to be because of the conflicting locations.
Claims 3-6 subsequently depend upon claim 2. Note amendments adjusting locations in claim 2 may also require amendments to the dependent claims.
Claim 10, Lines 1-3 recite “wherein at least one of the first protrusion configuration or the second protrusion configuration comprises a plurality of protrusions spaced apart axially along the exterior surface”. However, claim 9 requires an interior surface for the second protrusion configuration. It is unclear where the protrusion configuration is intended to be because of the conflicting locations.
Claims 11-13 subsequently depend upon claim 10. Note amendments adjusting locations in claim 10 may also require amendments to the dependent claims.
Claim 17, Lines 1-3 recite “wherein at least one of the first protrusion configuration, the second protrusion configuration, or the third protrusion configuration comprises a plurality of protrusions spaced apart axially along the exterior surface”. However, claim 16 requires an interior surface for the first protrusion configuration. It is unclear where the protrusion configuration is intended to be because of the conflicting locations.
Claim 18 subsequently depends upon claim 17. Note amendments adjusting locations in claim 17 may also require amendments to the dependent claims.
Regarding Claim 22, Lines 1-2 recite “wherein an exterior surface of the return conduit comprises a second protrusion configuration”. However, claim 16 already recites a second protrusion configuration. It is unclear if this intends to introduce a different protrusion configuration or is in reference to the same protrusion configuration.
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, 9, 10-11, 13, 15-17, and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowan et al. US 2021/0207564 in view of Roberge US 2020/0386119.
Regarding claim 1, Cowan discloses:
A heat exchanger system, comprising:
a heat exchanger 104 having a housing including an inlet manifold 126 (also interpretable as 114), an outlet manifold 129 (also interpretable as 116), an outer wall (radial outer wall) coupled to the inlet manifold and the outlet manifold, an inner wall (radial inner wall) coupled to the inlet manifold and the outlet manifold, and a heat transfer region 104, the heat transfer region disposed in the housing;
a first inlet conduit 115 coupled to the outer wall of the heat exchanger and in fluid communication with the heat transfer region;
a first outlet conduit 117 coupled to the outer wall of the heat exchanger and in fluid communication with the heat transfer region,
a second inlet conduit 112 coupled to the heat exchanger and in fluid communication with the heat transfer region; and
a second outlet conduit 118 coupled to the heat exchanger and in fluid communication with the heat transfer region, wherein:
the heat exchanger 104, the first inlet conduit 115, and the second inlet conduit 112 configured to be exposed to an airflow 124 (or generally facing open regions) over the housing,
the first inlet conduit 115 is configured to receive a first fluid having a first temperature (hot air to be cooled [0029]),
the airflow 124 is configured to be at a second temperature (cooling airflow 124), and wherein the first temperature is greater than the second temperature during operation of the heat exchanger system [0032], and
the first inlet conduit 115, the second inlet conduit 112, the first outlet conduit 117 and the second outlet conduit 118 each comprise a tube with a circular-cross sectional shape extending from a first end to a second end along a central longitudinal axis (Fig. 1-5).
Cowan is silent regarding:
an exterior surface of the first inlet conduit including a first protrusion configuration;
an exterior surface of the second inlet conduit including a second protrusion configuration;
Roberge teaches:
an exterior surface of the inlet conduit 70, 80 including a protrusion configuration 76, 97;
Providing protrusion configurations allows for the respective conduits to be aided in the transfer of thermal energy, augmenting the transfer of air that is communicated to and from the heat exchangers 64, 78 (see Fig. 2, 4-5, [0050-0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Cowan with that of Roberge to provide an exterior surface of the first inlet conduit including a first protrusion configuration, an exterior surface of the second inlet conduit including a second protrusion configuration for the advantage augmenting the transfer of thermal energy of air communicated to and from the heat exchanger (Roberge [0050-0052]).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Cowan and Roberge teaches:
wherein the inlet manifold 114 is disposed between the first inlet conduit 115 and the heat transfer region 104, and wherein an interior surface of the inlet manifold 114 has a third protrusion configuration 214 (Cowan, Fig. 4, [0035]).
This follows one of the interpretations of the broadest reasonable interpretation of manifold noted in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Cowan discloses:
A heat exchanger system, comprising:
a heat exchanger 104 having a housing including an inlet manifold 114, an outlet manifold 116, an outer wall (radial outer wall) coupled to the inlet manifold and the outlet manifold, an inner wall (radial inner wall) coupled to the inlet manifold and the outlet manifold and a heat transfer region 104, the heat transfer region disposed in the housing;
a first inlet conduit 115 and a first outlet conduit 117, the first inlet conduit in fluid communication with the first outlet conduit through the inlet manifold, the outlet manifold, and the heat transfer region; and
a second inlet conduit 112 and a second outlet conduit 118, the second inlet conduit in fluid communication with the second outlet conduit through the heat transfer region,
wherein an internal surface of at least one of the inlet manifold 114 and the outlet manifold 116 includes a second protrusion configuration 214, 216, wherein the first inlet conduit 115, the second inlet conduit 112, the first outlet conduit 117, and the second outlet conduit 118 each comprise a tube with a circular-cross sectional shape extending from a first end to a second end along a central longitudinal axis, and wherein at least one of the first inlet conduit 115 and the second inlet conduit and at least one of the first outlet conduit 117 and the second outlet conduit are each coupled to the outer wall of the heat exchanger (Fig. 1-5, [0035]).
Cowan is silent regarding:
wherein an exterior surface of at least one of the first inlet conduit, the first outlet conduit, the second inlet conduit and the second outlet conduit includes a first protrusion configuration.
Roberge teaches:
an exterior surface of the inlet conduit 70, 80 / outlet conduit 72, 82 includes a protrusion configuration 76, 97;
Providing protrusion configurations allows for the respective conduits to be aided in the transfer of thermal energy, augmenting the transfer of air that is communicated to and from the heat exchangers 64, 78 (see Fig. 2, 4-5, [0050-0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Cowan with that of Roberge to provide an exterior surface of at least one of the first inlet conduit, the first outlet conduit, the second inlet conduit and the second outlet conduit includes a first protrusion configuration for the advantage augmenting the transfer of thermal energy of air communicated to and from the heat exchanger (Roberge [0050-0052]).
Regarding claims 10-11, the combination of Cowan and Roberge teaches:
wherein at least one of the first protrusion configuration or the second protrusion configuration comprises a plurality of protrusions (76, 96) spaced axially (Roberge, Fig. 2) / apart circumferentially (Roberge, Fig. 4-5) along the exterior surface. (See axial and radial variations along the conduit, with the ribs having a consistent orientation even though the conduit turns).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Cowan and Roberge teaches:
wherein each protrusion in the plurality of protrusions 76, 96 includes a continuous rib (Roberge, Fig. 2 embodiment).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Cowan and Roberge teaches:
wherein the first protrusion configuration 76, 96 is configured to reduce a temperature gradient (Roberge [0050-0052]) and increase a pressure loss of the at least one of the first inlet conduit, the first outlet conduit, the second inlet conduit and the second outlet conduit (capable of function by virtue of presence in fluid flow, increasing flow resistance and thus pressure loss) (Moreover, it has been held that “when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent” MPEP 2112.01 I).
Regarding claim 16, Cowan discloses:
A gas turbine engine 20, comprising:
an outer engine case structure 106 disposed radially outward from an inner engine case structure 108 such that the outer engine case structure and the inner engine case structure define an annular bypass duct 102 therebetween;
a heat exchanger 104 disposed in the annular bypass duct 102 comprising a housing (external structure of 104) with a heat transfer region 104, an inlet manifold 126 (also interpretable as 114), and an outlet manifold 129 (also interpretable as 116), the inlet manifold 126 in fluid communication with the outlet manifold 129 through the heat transfer region 104, wherein a first protrusion configuration 214, 216 is disposed on an interior surface of at least one of the inlet manifold 114 or the outlet manifold 116;
a supply conduit 112 disposed radially outward from the annular bypass duct 102;
an inlet conduit 115 coupled between the supply conduit 112 and the housing;
a return conduit 118 disposed radially outward from the annular bypass duct 102 and in fluid communication with the supply conduit 112 through the heat transfer region of the heat exchanger 104; and an outlet conduit 117 coupled between the return conduit 118 and the housing,
the heat exchanger 104 is configured to be exposed to an airflow 124 that travels through the inlet manifold 126 into the heat transfer region 104 and out the outlet manifold 129,
the supply conduit 112 is configured to receive a first fluid having a first temperature (hot air to be cooled [0029]),
the airflow 124 is configured to be at a second temperature (cooling airflow 124), and the first temperature is greater than the second temperature during operation of the heat exchanger [0032], and
the inlet conduit 115 and the outlet conduit 117 each comprise a tube with a circular-cross sectional shape extending from a first end to a second end along a central longitudinal axis (Fig. 1-5, [0035]).
Cowan is silent regarding:
an exterior surface of the inlet conduit including a second protrusion configuration;
an exterior surface of the outlet conduit including a third protrusion configuration.
Roberge teaches:
an exterior surface of the inlet conduit 70, 80 / outlet conduit 72, 82 includes a protrusion configuration 76, 97;
Providing protrusion configurations allows for the respective conduits to be aided in the transfer of thermal energy, augmenting the transfer of air that is communicated to and from the heat exchangers 64, 78 (see Fig. 2, 4-5, [0050-0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Cowan with that of Roberge to provide an exterior surface of the inlet conduit including a second protrusion configuration, an exterior surface of the outlet conduit including a third protrusion configuration for the advantage augmenting the transfer of thermal energy of air communicated to and from the heat exchanger (Roberge [0050-0052]).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Cowan and Roberge teaches:
wherein at least one of the second protrusion configuration or the third protrusion configuration comprises a plurality of protrusions (76, 96) spaced axially (Roberge, Fig. 2 embodiment) along the exterior surface (See axial variations along the conduit).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the combination of Cowan and Roberge teaches:
wherein the heat exchanger 104 is configured to receive the first fluid from the supply conduit 112, and the first fluid (hot air to be cooled [0029]) is different from the airflow 124 (cooling airflow 124 [0032]) (Cowan).
wherein heat is transferred from the fluid (hot air) to the airflow 124 in the heat transfer region 104 (Cowan [0031-0032]).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Cowan and Roberge also teaches:
wherein an exterior surface of the return conduit comprises a second protrusion configuration.
Providing protrusion configurations 76, 96 allows for the respective conduits 70, 80, 72, 82 to be aided in the transfer of thermal energy, augmenting the transfer of air that is communicated to and from the heat exchangers 64, 78 (Roberge Fig. 2, 4-5, [0050-0052]).
Claim(s) 2, 3, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowan et al. US 2021/0207564 in view of Roberge US 2020/0386119 as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Sennoun et al. US 2018/0244127.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Cowan and Roberge is silent regarding:
wherein at least one of the first protrusion configuration or the second protrusion configuration that comprises a plurality of protrusions spaced apart axially along an interior surface of at least one of the first inlet conduit or the first outlet conduit.
Sennoun teaches (see Figs. 1-5):
a first or second protrusion configuration 160 comprises a plurality of protrusions 160 spaced apart axially along an interior surface of at least one of the first inlet conduit 120, 140 or the first outlet conduit 122, 142 (see Fig. 5 and [0027] [0074] “The heat exchanger feature [fins 160] density may be lower in the first inlet region than in the first outlet region”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Cowan and Roberge with that of Sennoun for the advantage of increasing surface area to enhance the transfer of thermal energy (Sennoun [0027]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Cowan, Roberge, and Sennoun teaches:
wherein the second protrusion configuration comprises rows of the plurality of protrusions 160 spaced apart laterally along the interior surface (Sennoun Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Cowan, Roberge, and Sennoun teaches:
wherein: each protrusion in the plurality of protrusions 160 includes a broken rib, and the broken rib forms one of a V-shape, an angled circumferential and longitudinal line 162, and a circumferential line on the interior surface (Sennoun Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowan et al. US 2021/0207564 in view of Roberge US 2020/0386119 and Sennoun et al. US 2018/0244127 as applied to claims 2 above, and further in view of Kenworth et al. US 2018/0058473.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Cowan, Roberge, and Sennoun is silent regarding:
wherein: each protrusion in the plurality of protrusions comprises an elliptical shape with a first diameter in a X-direction, a second diameter in a Y-direction, and a height of protrusion, the height of protrusion measured from the interior surface to a maximum height of the protrusion
Kenworthy teaches:
wherein: each protrusion in the plurality of protrusions comprises an elliptical shape with a first diameter in a X-direction, a second diameter in a Y-direction, and a height of protrusion, the height of protrusion measured from the interior surface to a maximum height of the protrusion
Figure 5 shows a plurality of protrusions. The protrusions may be of any variety of shape, including elliptical, so as to affect the performance of the heat transfer augmentation [0040-0041].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Cowan, Roberge, Sennoun with that of Kenworth so that each protrusion comprises an elliptical shape, to provide the benefit of using a known shape to attain a particular level of performance.
The combination of Cowan, Roberge, Sennoun, Kenworthy is silent regarding:
the first diameter in the X-direction and the second diameter in the Y-direction are each between 0.007 inches (0.018 cm) and 2.9 inches (7.4 cm), and the height of protrusion is between 0.001 inches (0.0025 cm) and 1.5 inches (3.81 cm).
Kenworthy teaches:
the orientation and dimensions of the protrusions affects performance of the heat transfer augmentation structures [0053]. Thus, the dimensions are considered results-effective variables. One of ordinary skill would routinely optimize said dimensions such that a desired level of performance is obtained (see MPEP 2144.05, II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Cowan, Roberge, Sennoun, Kenworthy with that of Kenworthy-routine optimization to provide protrusions having the first diameter in the X-direction and the second diameter in the Y-direction are each between 0.007 inches (0.018 cm) and 2.9 inches (7.4 cm), and the height of protrusion is between 0.001 inches (0.0025 cm) and 1.5 inches (3.81 cm), since one of ordinary skill would routinely optimize the dimensions to obtain a desired level of performance.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowan et al. US 2021/0207564 in view of Roberge US 2020/0386119 and Sennoun et al. US 2018/0244127 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ludwig et al. DE 102018001700.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Cowan, Roberge, and Sennoun teaches:
wherein: each protrusion 160 in the plurality of protrusions includes a rib, and the rib extends in one of a circumferential direction around the interior surface or an angled direction 162 relative to the circumferential direction (Sennoun Fig. 5).
The combination of Cowan, Roberge, and Sennoun is silent regarding:
each protrusion in the plurality of protrusions includes a continuous rib.
Ludwig teaches:
wherein: each protrusion 14 in the plurality of protrusions 12 includes a continuous rib (Ludwig Fig. 1, [0025] “it may also be advantageous to form the cooling fins 14 around the entire circumference”), and the continuous rib extends in one of a circumferential direction (Ludwig Fig. 1) or an angled direction relative to the circumferential direction (Ludwig [0014] “the at least one cooling fin can run along the circumferential direction of the product collecting pipe and/or along the longitudinal axis of the product collecting pipe. Linear combinations are also possible, i.e. at least one cooling fin can extend obliquely, i.e. neither exactly perpendicular nor exactly parallel, to the longitudinal axis of the product collecting pipe”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Cowan, Roberge, and Sennoun with that of Ludwig to provide continuous ribs for the advantage of further increasing the heat transfer surface area and thus further enhancing the heat transfer.
Claim(s) 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowan et al. US 2021/0207564 in view of Roberge US 2020/0386119 as applied to claims 10, 17 above, and further in view of Kenworth et al. US 2018/0058473.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Cowan and Roberge is silent regarding:
wherein: each protrusion in the plurality of protrusions comprises an elliptical shape with a first diameter in a X-direction, a second diameter in a Y-direction, and a height of protrusion, the height of protrusion measured from the exterior surface to a maximum height of the protrusion
Kenworthy teaches:
wherein: each protrusion in the plurality of protrusions comprises an elliptical shape with a first diameter in a X-direction, a second diameter in a Y-direction, and a height of protrusion, the height of protrusion measured from the interior surface to a maximum height of the protrusion
Figure 5 shows a plurality of protrusions. The protrusions may be of any variety of shape, including elliptical, so as to affect the performance of the heat transfer augmentation [0040-0041].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Cowan, Roberge with that of Kenworth so that each protrusion comprises an elliptical shape, to provide the benefit of using a known shape to attain a particular level of performance.
The combination of Cowan, Roberge, Kenworthy is silent regarding:
the first diameter in the X-direction and the second diameter in the Y-direction are each between 0.007 inches (0.018 cm) and 2.9 inches (7.4 cm), and the height of protrusion is between 0.001 inches (0.0025 cm) and 1.5 inches (3.81 cm).
Kenworthy teaches:
the orientation and dimensions of the protrusions affects performance of the heat transfer augmentation structures [0053]. Thus, the dimensions are considered results-effective variables. One of ordinary skill would routinely optimize said dimensions such that a desired level of performance is obtained (see MPEP 2144.05, II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Cowan, Roberge, Kenworthy with that of Kenworthy-routine optimization to provide protrusions having the first diameter in the X-direction and the second diameter in the Y-direction are each between 0.007 inches (0.018 cm) and 2.9 inches (7.4 cm), and the height of protrusion is between 0.001 inches (0.0025 cm) and 1.5 inches (3.81 cm), since one of ordinary skill would routinely optimize the dimensions to obtain a desired level of performance.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Cowan and Roberge teaches:
wherein: each protrusion in the plurality of protrusions comprises a first diameter in a X-direction, a second diameter in a Y-direction, and a height of protrusion, the height of protrusion measured from the exterior surface to a maximum height of the protrusion (these are three-dimensional dimensions of any object, such as 76, 96 in Figures 2, 4-5 of Roberge).
The combination of Cowan and Roberge is silent regarding:
the first diameter in the X-direction and the second diameter in the Y-direction are each between 0.007 inches (0.018 cm) and 2.9 inches (7.4 cm), and the height of protrusion is between 0.001 inches (0.0025 cm) and 1.5 inches (3.81 cm).
Kenworthy teaches:
the orientation and dimensions of the protrusions affects performance of the heat transfer augmentation structures [0053]. Thus, the dimensions are considered results-effective variables. One of ordinary skill would routinely optimize said dimensions such that a desired level of performance is obtained (see MPEP 2144.05, II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Cowan, Roberge with that of Kenworthy-routine optimization to provide protrusions having the first diameter in the X-direction and the second diameter in the Y-direction are each between 0.007 inches (0.018 cm) and 2.9 inches (7.4 cm), and the height of protrusion is between 0.001 inches (0.0025 cm) and 1.5 inches (3.81 cm), since one of ordinary skill would routinely optimize the dimensions to obtain a desired level of performance.
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 COURTNEY D HEINLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3508. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00am-5:00pm).
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, Alford Kindred can be reached at (571) 272-4037. 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.
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights