DETAILED ACTION
Amendments filed on 4/28/2026 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/14/2019 has been entered.
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.
Claim 1 and including depending claims 2-5, 11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “fins at least partially define intersecting spiral of a Fibonacci pattern”. The specification does not define intersecting spiral of a Fibonacci pattern of the fins. It is unclear how the fins are intersecting meaning to divide by passing through or across each other. Based on figure 4 fins are continuous radius as a whole and as all the fins together forming a pattern in which each fin is followed by another fin back to back partially in straight pattern and partially in circular pattern. However, The fins are not intersecting one another. More clarification is required.
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) in a parallel arrangement with each other (as shown in FIG.1 cards 40 are in parallel with each other) and with first and second sidewalls (two lengths of housing 10 are sidewalls that are parallel to cards 40) of the housing (10);
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 disposed adjacent an external surface (to clarify, heat exchanger 50 is adjacent or next to external surface of the wall of housing 10) of said housing (10) wherein the liquid cooled heat exchanger (50) is able to facilitate concurrent cooling (functional language) of two or more of the plurality of electronic circuit cards (40);
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 intersecting spirals of a 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.24, 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 intersecting spirals pattern (as shown in FIG.25 the fins pattern as spiral mainly the center fin region, further shown in FIG.24 by drawing an arbitrary lines connecting 4-corners to show fins are cross intersecting; see annotated FIG.24), 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]).
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
631
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, Giannatto discloses an elongate length (the length of heat exchanger) of the liquid cooled heat exchanger (50) and the first and second sidewalls of the housing (sidewalls are the length of housing 10), except for an elongate length of said liquid cooled heat exchanger extends perpendicular to the first and second sidewalls of the housing. 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 further modify the apparatus of Giannatto to rearrange parts such that an elongate length of said liquid cooled heat exchanger extends perpendicular to the first and second sidewalls of the housing as matter of choice and design requirement, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not claimed any criticality and special significance for the claimed limitations - Location of parts: MPEP 2144.04 VI-C).
Further, concerning fins at least partially define intersecting spirals of a Fibonacci pattern. 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 or particular pattern 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 further modify the invention of Hoffman to include fins at least partially define a Fibonacci pattern as taught by Hoffman in order to enhance the fluid flow.
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]).
Further, concerning fins at least partially define spirals of a phyllotaxis or a Fibonacci pattern. 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 or particular pattern 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 further modify the invention of Hoffman to include fins at least partially define a Fibonacci pattern as taught by Hoffman in order to enhance the fluid flow.
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 4/28/2026, with respect to all the claims under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and they are moot. Applicant’s arguments to new features and amendments are addressed in this office action. Therefore, a new ground(s) of rejections have been made in response to the amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure which is relevant to liquid cooled heat exchanger:
Kang (US 2023/0284414 A1).
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
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights