DETAILED ACTION
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-15 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.
Regarding claim 12, the metes and bounds of the newly added limitation “such that a flow path for the first fluid is smoothed and approaches a linear course”. The specification does not provide clear guidance as to what “approaching a linear course” might mean, nor does it provide guidance as to what constitutes “smoothed” flow or what is smooth or rough compared to.
Additionally, the only mention of the concept of a “linear course” is found related to features which are not recited anywhere in the claim. In particular, the features of claim 13 are located in the portion of the specification which mentions the phrase “linear course”. As such, the metes and bounds of these new recitations are indeterminate. Additionally, it is not clear that they could provide any further limitation to the claims as the specification presents these vague descriptions as direct results of the structures of the device claimed elsewhere.
Claims 13-15 depend from claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 7-11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 1418809 (‘809).
Regarding claim 1, ‘809 teaches a heat exchanger comprising: a housing (e.g. 9, 11) comprising a heat exchanger inflow plane (2) opposite to a heat exchanger outflow plane (3) with a flow path for a first fluid (air) normal to the inflow an outflow planes (see flow arrows A in Figs. 1 and 3); at least two core elements (1) arranged in a stack along a common axis normal to the flow path of the first fluid (common axis left-right in Figs. 1 and 3) each having a core inflow and opposite core outflow plane (see Figs. 1 and 3; inlet and outlet surface faces of each core), wherein a second fluid (“liquid coolant”) flows through an interior volume of a tubular conduit portion (4) of the core elements, the interior volume defined by the surfaces of the core elements with the first fluid in contact with the surfaces of the core elements (exterior surface of tubes 4) and does not enter the interior volume of the tubes; a plurality of separation elements (fins 7) extend between adjacent tubular conduit portions; wherein the core inflow and outflow planes are inclined relative to the heat exchanger inflow and outflow planes (see Figs. 1 and 3) and the angle of inclination of the adjacent core elements of the stack is identical (see Figs. 1 and 3); the first fluid is air, the second fluid is a liquid (“liquid coolant”) and the second fluid flows (the direction of the tubes) in a direction normal to the flow path for the first fluid (see Figs. 1 and 3; into the page which is at right angles to “A”); the stack of core elements forms an offset profile along a height direction of the stack (left-right in Figs. 1 and 3) which is linear.
‘809 further teaches: the angle of inclination is measured along the common axis and an angle at which the core elements are arranged (see Figs. 1 and 3), per claim 2; the angle of inclination may be between 0 and 90 degrees (see Fig. 1), per claim 3; a flow guide element (8) extends along the core inflow plant of at least one core element of the stack, at least in portions, and guides the first fluid from the heat exchanger inflow plane to the heat exchanger outflow plane (see Figs. 1 and 3), per claim 7; the flow guide element is provided between adjacent core elements and prevents the first fluid from flowing from the core outflow plane of one element to the core inflow plane of the adjacent element (see Figs. 1 and 3), per claim 8; the flow guide extends from the core outflow of one adjacent core element to the core inflow of another adjacent element (Figs. 1 and 3), per claim 9; the flow guide element is straight, curved, or zig-zagged at least in portions (see Figs. 1 and 3), per claim 10; the core elements are cuboidal (see Figs. 1 and 2) and the separation elements (fins 7) extend from the core inflow plane to the core outflow plane (the extent of the fins in each direction defines these planes), per claim 11.
Regarding claim 16, ‘809 teaches a heat exchanger comprising a plurality of core elements (1) through which coolant flows in a first direction (into the page in Fig. 1); and separator elements (fins 7) physically coupled to neighboring tubular conduit portions (tubes 4) of core elements of the plurality of core elements, wherein ambient air flows around the tubular conduit portions in a second direction normal to the first (direction A in Fig. 1), wherein the coolant flows in a direction normal to a flow path of the ambient air (as just stated above) and the coolant is air.
Regarding claim 17, the core element is angled (90 degrees) relative to the second direction of ambient air flow entering the heat exchanger core (noted that the second direction has been defined above relative to the core, not to the heat exchanger and for consistency this definition continues to be applied here as opposed to the airflow direction into the overall heat exchanger).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘809 in view of MacLeod (US 1,818,144).
Regarding claim 4, ‘809 does not teach that the height of spacing between adjacent core elements in the height direction parallel to the common axis of the stack is smaller than a height of each of the core elements.
‘144 teaches that it is old and well-known to provide adjacent core elements of a heat exchanger (18) with a spacing height between them along the height direction (as indicated by arrow 24), parallel to the common axis, is smaller than a height of each of the core elements (which causes the partial overlap of the cores 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the device of ‘809 with the core spacing, as taught by ‘144, in order to optimize the amount of heat exchange space available. It is noted (see placement of elements 20) that the overlap of the cores does not block the portions of the cores which experience airflow.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘809 in view of GB 1422573 (‘573).
Regarding claim 5, ‘809 teaches that the second fluid (air) flows in a direction normal to each of the flow paths for the first fluid (tubes; see Figs. 1 and 3) but does not teach offset core elements in the depth direction.
‘573 teaches that core elements may be offset (Figs. 5 and 6) or not offset (Fig. 4) as a matter of design choice in a linear manner in the depth (up-down in these figures) direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of ‘809 with or without the depth direction offset, taught by ‘573, based on the available installation space.
Regarding claim 20, ‘809 further teaches that: the plurality of core elements includes at least three (Fig. 1) core elements (1), in a stack (stacked left-right in Fig. 1), wherein a core inflow plane and outflow plane (front and rear faces of each core) are inclined relative to a heat exchanger inflow and outflow plane (2, 3; see Fig. 1), the angle of inclination of the core planes of adjacent elements is identical (see Fig. 1) and forms an offset profile along a height direction of the stack (left-right in Fig. 1) which is linear (see Fig. 1), and each of the core elements are angled relative to a depth direction of the stack (depth direction is the heat exchanger inflow and outflow direction, i.e. the upper and lower arrows A in Fig. 1) which direction extends perpendicularly to the height direction.
‘809 does not specify that each of the core elements is spaced differently from an inlet and outlet of the heat exchanger.
‘573 teaches that core elements may be offset (Figs. 5 and 6) or not offset (Fig. 4) as a matter of design choice in a linear manner in the depth (up-down in these figures) direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of ‘809 with or without the depth direction offset, taught by ‘573, based on the available installation space.
Regarding claim 21, each of the core elements is perpendicular relative to a width direction (into the page in Fig. 1) of the stack which is perpendicular to the height and depth directions.
Claim 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘809 in view of MacLeod (US 1,818,144) and GB 1422573 (‘573).
Regarding claim 12, ‘809 teaches a heat exchanger comprising: a housing (e.g. 9, 11) comprising a heat exchanger inflow plane (2) opposite to a heat exchanger outflow plane (3) with a flow path for a first fluid (air) normal to the inflow an outflow planes (see flow arrows A in Figs. 1 and 3); at least three core elements (1) arranged in a stack along a common axis normal to the flow path of the first fluid (common axis left-right in Figs. 1 and 3) each having a core inflow and opposite core outflow plane (see Figs. 1 and 3; inlet and outlet surface faces of each core), wherein a second fluid (“liquid coolant”) flows through an interior volume of a tubular conduit portion (4) of the core elements, the interior volume defined by the surfaces of the core elements with the first fluid in contact with the surfaces of the core elements (exterior surface of tubes 4) and does not enter the interior volume of the tubes; a plurality of separation elements (fins 7) extend between adjacent tubular conduit portions normal to the direction of second fluid flow (see Fig. 2); wherein the core inflow and outflow planes are inclined relative to the heat exchanger inflow and outflow planes (see Figs. 1 and 3) and the angle of inclination of the adjacent core elements of the stack is identical (see Figs. 1 and 3).
‘809 does not teach a turbomachine (a fan) downstream.
MacLeod teaches that it is old and well-known to provide a fan downstream of such a heat exchanger (Fig. 1; 10).
It would have been obvious to provide ‘809 with a fan, as taught by MacLeod for use when the vehicle is idling.
‘809 teaches that the second fluid (air) flows in a direction normal to each of the flow paths for the first fluid (tubes; see Figs. 1 and 3) but does not teach offset core elements.
‘573 teaches that core elements may be offset (Figs. 5 and 6) or not offset (Fig. 4) as a matter of design choice, the offset profile may be linear (see Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of ‘809 with or without the offset, taught by ‘573, based on the available installation space.
‘809 further teaches that the heat exchanger is a radiator of a vehicle (Pg. 1, line 25), per claim 14; the first (air) and second (liquid coolant) fluids are different and the second fluid flows unperturbed through the tubular conduit portions (no obstructions are disclosed in the tubes), per claim 15;
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘809 in view of WO 2014/112217 (‘217).
‘809 does not teach flow passages inclined relative to the core plane.
‘217 teaches that it is old and well-known to provide heat exchangers with core passages (“A”) inclined relative to the core plane (“D”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of ‘809 with the inclined passages, as taught by ‘217, in order to reduce the back pressure or to lengthen the effective core depth of the device.
Regarding claim 18, ‘809 does not illustrate details of the separator elements (fins 7).
‘217 teaches that zig-zag fins are old and well-known in the art (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to form the fins of ‘809 as corrugated (zig-zag) fins, as taught by ‘217, as such decisions have been left to the ordinary practitioner by ‘809.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘809 in view of EP 3,926,280 (‘280).
Regarding claim 19, ‘809 teaches flow guide elements (8) extending from the inflow of one to the outflow of another of adjacent core planes (Fig. 1) but does not teach that they are curved.
‘280 teaches that flow guide elements (118) for air may be curved (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to smoothly curve the flow guide elements of ‘809, as taught by ‘280, in order to prevent eddy formation (e.g. at the sharply bend portion at the bottom of each 8 in Fig. 1 of ‘809).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/5/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The arguments regarding the linear offset of ‘809 are addressed in the art rejection above. In short, this feature was previously introduced in claim 5, which required the offset to include a depth dimension. As claim 1 does not require this, ‘809 meets the limitation as discussed above.
The applicant takes issue with the design choice motivation regarding available installation space. The fact that the applicant cites a different rationale for their arrangement does not negate the validity of common engineering logic to arrange devices in a known manner based on the space available.
For further discussion of the “smoothing” and “linear course” motivations that are cited in the arguments, please see the 112(b) rejection of these limitations as regards their inclusion in claim 12.
The applicants assertion that the second and first flow paths directions are not normal to each other in ‘809 is also not persuasive. As clearly illustrated in Fig. 1 of ‘809, the second fluid flows within the tubes 4 in the direction into the page in Fig. 1 which is normal to the direction of the first fluid, which is air, as indicated by arrows A.
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 Devon Lane whose telephone number is (571)270-1858. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9-4.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571.270.5054. 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.
/DEVON LANE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763