DETAILED ACTION
Amended filed on 1/21/2026 have been entered.
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 .
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, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giannatto (5,835,349), in view of Hoffman (US 2009/0145581 A1).
Claim 1: Giannatto discloses an electronics enclosure (FIG.1) comprising:
a housing (housing structure comprised chassis 10) configured to removably retain a plurality of electronic circuit cards (40);
a liquid cooled heat exchanger (50) having an inlet and an outlet (cooling fluid inlet and exhaust ports 81 and 83) for the transmission of a cooling liquid (column 2 lines 23-33) from said inlet to said outlet (81/83), said liquid cooled heat exchanger (heat exchanger 50 is adjacent or next to sidewalls of chassis 10) disposed adjacent
and external to said housing (10);
at least one wall (front wall 80) disposed in a chamber (to clarify, side walls 11/15/13/17 forming a chamber which contain the heat exchanger 50 and wall 80) of said liquid cooled heat exchanger (50) said cooling liquid (column 2 lines 23-33) as it travels from said inlet to said outlet (81/83); and,
a plurality of heat transfer fins (91/93) configured to facilitate a flow of the cooling liquid in the chamber (side walls 11/15/13/17 forming a chamber) of said liquid cooled heat exchanger (50), and being positioned relative to each other so that the centers of the heat transfer fins (91/93),
Giannatto discloses the claimed limitations in claim 1, but fails to disclose a plurality of heat transfer fins configured to facilitate a change in flow direction of the cooling liquid, at least one wall to create a multipass flow pattern of said cooling fluid as it travels from said inlet to said outlet; said plurality of heat transfer fins arranged in a radial pattern around each corner of the multipass flow pattern and fins at least partially define spirals of a phyllotaxis or Fibonacci pattern, wherein at least one of the heat transfer fins is angled relative to another one of the heat transfer fins.
However, Hoffman teaches a plurality of heat transfer fins (paragraph [152]: fins) configured to facilitate a change in flow direction of the cooling liquid (paragraph [152]: fluid moves through region of elliptical fins that are at slight angle to the flow and angled elliptical fins have higher angles relative to the flow; to clarify, fluid flows through different configurations of fins causes change in flow directions since fins are angled differently), at least one wall (wall of manifold 147) configured to create a multipass flow pattern (fluid passages 149) of said cooling fluid (paragraph [137]) as it travels from said inlet to said outlet (fluid entrance 146 and exit location 153); said plurality of heat transfer fins (145/148) arranged in a radial pattern (see FIG.25 radial pattern fin arrays 165) around each corner of the multipass flow pattern (around all corners of manifold 147 in fluid passages 149) and fins at least partially define spirals of a phyllotaxis (to clarify, as shown in FIG.25 the fins pattern as spiral mainly the center fin region) or Fibonacci pattern, wherein at least one of the heat transfer fins is angled relative to another one of the heat transfer fins (paragraph [152]) for the purpose of maximizing heat transfer and minimizing flow resistance (paragraph [137]).
The court held that the configuration of the claimed was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that particular configuration of the claimed was significant (Change of Shape: MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Giannatto to include a plurality of heat transfer fins configured to facilitate a change in flow direction of the cooling liquid, at least one wall configured to create a multipass flow pattern of said cooling fluid as it travels from said inlet to said outlet; said plurality of heat transfer fins arranged in a radial pattern around each corner of the multipass flow pattern and fins at least partially define spirals of a phyllotaxis or Fibonacci pattern, wherein at least one of the heat transfer fins is angled relative to another one of the heat transfer fins as taught by Hoffman in order to maximize heat transfer and minimize flow resistance.
PNG
media_image1.png
539
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
621
763
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: Giannatto as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein said plurality of heat transfer fins (Hoffman 145) are comprised of a lanced and offset fin geometry (Hoffman see FIG.22).
Claim 3: Giannatto as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, except for said plurality of heat transfer fins are fabricated using an additive manufacturing process (in product-by-process claim, “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 "even 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). The combination of previous references meets the structural limitations put forth in Claim 3, wherein the final product existing after fabrication is compared to prior art for the purposes of patentability. The limitations regarding “additive manufacturing process” are drawn to method of production and not the structural aspects of the instant invention.
Claim 5: Giannatto as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein said electronics enclosure (FIG.1) is disposed in an aircraft (intended used).
Claim 6: Giannatto discloses a heat exchanger (FIG.1), comprising:
a fluid inlet (cooling fluid inlet port 81) in fluid communication with a fluid outlet (cooling fluid exhaust port 83);
a chamber (to clarify, side walls 11/15/13/17 forming a chamber which contain the heat exchanger 50 and wall 80) having at least one wall (see FIG.1) disposed therein that creates a multipass flow pattern (to clarify, as shown in FIG.1 multi passes) of a cooling fluid (column 2 lines 23-33) as the cooling fluid travels (column 2 lines 23-27: cooling fluid flow path to and from cooling fluid supply/exhaust mounted to housing chassis) from said fluid inlet to said fluid outlet (81/83);
a plurality of heat transfer fins (91/93) configured to facilitate a flow of the cooling liquid in the chamber (side walls 11/15/13/17 forming a chamber);
Giannatto discloses the claimed limitations in claim 6, but fails to disclose a plurality of heat transfer fins configured to facilitate a change in flow direction of the cooling liquid, wherein said plurality of heat transfer fins are arranged in a radial pattern around each corner of the multipass flow pattern, and are positioned relative to each other so that the centers of the heat transfer fins at least partially define spirals of a phyllotaxis or Fibonacci pattern, at least one of the heat transfer fins being angled relative to another one of the heat transfer fins.
However, Hoffman teaches a plurality of heat transfer fins (paragraph [152]: fins) configured to facilitate a change in flow direction of the cooling liquid (paragraph [152]: fluid moves through region of elliptical fins that are at slight angle to the flow and angled elliptical fins have higher angles relative to the flow; to clarify, fluid flows through different configurations of fins causes change in flow directions since fins are angled differently), said plurality of heat transfer fins (145/148) are arranged in a radial pattern (see FIG.25 radial pattern fin arrays 165) around each corner of the multipass flow pattern (around all corners of manifold 147 in fluid passages 149), and are positioned relative to each other so that the centers of the heat transfer fins at least partially define spirals of a phyllotaxis (to clarify, as shown in FIG.25 the fins pattern as spiral mainly the center fin region) or Fibonacci pattern, at least one of the heat transfer fins being angled relative to another one of the heat transfer fins (paragraph [137]: fins 148 simultaneously route fluid through 180 degrees turn of manifold 147 to enter second fin array 150 at optimum angle and change in direction of flow path as fluid enters at 146 and exit at 153; see FIG.22) (paragraph [137]: fins 148 simultaneously route fluid through 180 degrees turn of manifold 147 to enter second fin array 150 at optimum angle and change in direction of flow path as fluid enters at 146 and exit at 153; see FIG.22) for the purpose of maximizing heat transfer and minimizing flow resistance (paragraph [137]).
The court held that the configuration of the claimed was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that particular configuration of the claimed was significant (Change of Shape: MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Giannatto to include a plurality of heat transfer fins configured to facilitate a change in flow direction of the cooling liquid, wherein said plurality of heat transfer fins are arranged in a radial pattern around each corner of the multipass flow pattern, and are positioned relative to each other so that the centers of the heat transfer fins at least partially define spirals of a phyllotaxis or Fibonacci pattern, at least one of the heat transfer fins being angled relative to another one of the heat transfer fins as taught by Hoffman in order to maximize heat transfer and minimize flow resistance.
Claim 7: Giannatto as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 6, wherein said plurality of heat transfer fins (Hoffman 145) are comprised of a lanced and offset fin geometry (Hoffman see FIG.22).
Claim 8: Giannatto as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 7, except for said plurality of heat transfer fins are fabricated using an additive manufacturing process (in product-by-process claim, “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 "even 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). The combination of previous references meets the structural limitations put forth in Claim 3, wherein the final product existing after fabrication is compared to prior art for the purposes of patentability. The limitations regarding “additive manufacturing process” are drawn to method of production and not the structural aspects of the instant invention.
Claim 11: Giannatto as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein said plurality of heat transfer fins comprise a first set of fins (Hoffman; cylindrical fins 165 first layer about the center) arranged in a radial pattern (Hoffman; see FIG.25 radial pattern fin arrays 165) around the corner of the multipass flow pattern (Hoffman; fluid passages among the fins) and having centers defining portions of spirals (to clarify, as shown in FIG.25 the fins pattern as spiral mainly the center fin region),
a second set of fins (Hoffman; cylindrical fins 167 second layer relative to the first layer) arranged in a second radial pattern around the corner and having centers defining portions of centric circles, and
a third set of fins (Hoffman; cylindrical fins 168 third layer about the center) positioned around the first (Hoffman; cylindrical fins 165 first layer about the center) and second set (Hoffman; cylindrical fins 167 second layer relative to the first layer) of fins and having centers that further define the portions of the spirals or portions of other spirals (Hoffman; see FIG.25).
Claims 4, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giannatto (5,835,349), in view of Hoffman (US 2009/0145581 A1), and in view of Koontz (US 2013/0255925 A1).
Claim 4: Giannatto as modified further fails to disclose wherein said cooling liquid is comprised of a liquid Polyalphaolefin.
However, Koontz teaches said cooling fluid is comprised of a liquid Polyalphaolefin (paragraph [29]) for the purpose of increasing the heat transfer (paragraph [14]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Giannatto to include a liquid Polyalphaolefin as taught by Koontz in order to increase the heat transfer.
Claim 9: Giannatto as modified further fails to disclose wherein said cooling fluid is comprised of a liquid Polyalphaolefin.
However, Koontz teaches said cooling fluid is comprised of a liquid Polyalphaolefin (paragraph [29]) for the purpose of increasing the heat transfer (paragraph [14]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Giannatto to include a liquid Polyalphaolefin as taught by Koontz in order to increase the heat transfer.
Claim 10: Giannatto as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 9, wherein said electronics enclosure (FIG.1) is disposed in an aircraft (intended used).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 1/21/2026, with respect to all the claims under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and they are moot. Applicant’s arguments to the amendments are addressed in this office action. Therefore, a new ground(s) of rejections have been made in response to the amendments.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMRAN TAVAKOLDAVANI whose telephone number is (313)446-6612. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAMRAN TAVAKOLDAVANI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights