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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 16-17, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 1418809 (‘809) in view of GB 1422573 (‘573).
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 and 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 that the height direction extends as a z-axis and each of the core elements are positioned a different distance from the z-axis (see annotated Figure below) but does not teach elements offset from each other in the depth direction, identical to an x direction, with each element a different distance from the x-axis.
PNG
media_image1.png
303
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
‘573 teaches that core elements may be offset (Figs. 5) or not offset (Fig. 4; identical layout to ‘809) as a matter of design choice in a linear manner in the depth (x-axis) direction forming a linear offset profile.
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.
PNG
media_image2.png
608
635
media_image2.png
Greyscale
‘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; 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) and the depth and x-axis directions are the same, per claim 5; 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; the core elements comprise at least three elements in a stack (Fig. 1); core inflow and outflow planes for each core (the face surfaces of the cores) are inclined relative to a heat exchanger inflow and outflow plane (2, 3; Fig. 1); the angles of inclination are identical between each of the inflow and outflow planes (i.e. the two faces of each core are parallel) and form a linear offset profile (same as the line II in Fig. 1); the height direction extends as a z-axis and each of the core elements are positioned a different distance from the z-axis (see annotated Figure below) but does not teach elements offset from each other in the depth direction, identical to an x direction, with each element a different distance from the x-axis.
PNG
media_image1.png
303
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
‘573 teaches that core elements may be offset (Figs. 5) or not offset (Fig. 4; identical layout to ‘809) as a matter of design choice in a linear manner in the depth (x-axis) direction forming a linear offset profile.
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.
PNG
media_image3.png
608
635
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, the core element is angled (Fig. 1) relative to the second direction of ambient air flow entering the heat exchanger (Fig. 1).
‘809 further teaches that: each of the core elements is extends parallel (into the page in Fig. 1 of ‘809) relative to a width direction (into the page in Fig. 1) of the stack which is perpendicular to the height and depth directions (identical to z and x axes), per claim 21; the height and depth (equivalent to z and x axes) directions are perpendicular (see annotated figures above), per claim 22; the face of each of the core elements facing towards the x axis is angled relative to the x axis (see annotated figures above), per claim 23.
Claim 4, 12, and 14-15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘809 in view of ‘573 and 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.
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 further teaches that the height direction extends as a z-axis and each of the core elements are positioned a different distance from the z-axis (see annotated Figure below) but does not teach elements offset from each other in the depth direction, identical to an x direction, with each element a different distance from the x-axis.
PNG
media_image1.png
303
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
‘573 teaches that core elements may be offset (Figs. 5) or not offset (Fig. 4; identical layout to ‘809) as a matter of design choice in a linear manner in the depth (x-axis) direction forming a linear offset profile.
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.
PNG
media_image2.png
608
635
media_image2.png
Greyscale
‘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;
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘809 in view of ‘573, MacLeod, and WO 2014/112217 (‘217).
Regarding claim 13, ‘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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘809 in view of ‘573 and 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 7/6/26have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The newly entered limitations are addressed thoroughly above.
Applicant’s attempt to provide criticality to a linear offset profile cites a portion of their specification which clarifies that linear or parabolic offset profiles are interchangeable and only chosen relative to available installation space. This does not establish criticality.
It is noted that the “offset” as defined in claim 16 is not the same as the offset defined by the specification.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights