DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s submission of Information Disclosure Statements on 9/12/2023 and 9/4/2025 have been received and considered.
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 1-20 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.
With regard to claim 1, the scope of “a thickness of the additive manufacturing model is thinner than a thickness of the non-additive model at the contact portion” is unclear because the contact portion of the additive manufacturing model varies in thickness at the contact portion. Likewise, the contact portion of the non-additive model varies in thickness at the contact portion. In the current disclosure, the minimum thickness, t1, at an outer region of the contact portion of the additive manufacturing model is thinner than any contact portion of the non-additive model, t2. However, it also appears from Figure 10, that the inner-most contact portion of the additive manufacturing model is thicker (i.e., including the thickness of case tube 13c). Paragraph 66 of the current specification defines “thickness” as a minimum thickness in a direction orthogonal to the contact portion. Clarification is required that Applicant intends to define “thickness” in claim 1 by this definition and not a broader scope. Claims 2-20 depend from claim 1 and suffer the same issues based on dependency.
With regard to claim 2, the scope of “a volume of the additive manufacturing mode is smaller than a volume of the non-additive manufacturing model” is unclear because the volume of the additive manufacturing model and the non-additive model could be determined in different ways. For example, the volume could represent the entire volume of each model including the solid porition and voids. Alternatively, the volume could only be determined by the solid portions or the voids. Paragraph 37 of the current specification defines volume as follows “here, the volume refers to a solid portion of each pipeline, and does not include a flow path portion”. Clarification is required that Applicant intends to define “volume” in claim 2 by this definition and not a broader scope. Claims 11 and 20 depend from claim 2 and suffer the same issues based on dependency.
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 1-4, 8-13, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0116188 to Roper (Figs. 1 and 2 are shown below for convenience.
PNG
media_image1.png
1276
849
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 1 (as best understood in light of the 112 rejection), Roper discloses additive manufacturing model assembly (e.g., see at least paragraph 46 that states “heat exchanger 100 may be manufactured by a suitable additive manufacturing process”) comprising: an additive manufacturing model (e.g., see at least Figs 1 and 2, wherein element 110 is formed by additive manufacturing; see at least paragraph 46) formed by additive manufacturing (e.g., see at least paragraph 46 that states that one or more elements of heat exchanger 100 including “manifolds110/120 may be manufactured by utilizing an additive manufacturing process”) in which laminated metal powder is melted (e.g., see at least paragraph 47 that discusses examples of the additive manufacturing process, including “powder bed fusion…selective laser melting”); and a metal non-additive manufacturing model formed by a method different from the additive manufacturing (e.g., see at least paragraph 46 that states “core 130 is manufacturing by using other conventional manufacturing processes”; see also paragraph 47 that states “hybrids of additive and subtractive manufacturing methods” may be used implemented, wherein “Subtractive manufacturing may refer to, as some examples, machining or computer numerical control (CNC) machining”), wherein the additive manufacturing model assembly is configured by assembling the additive manufacturing model and the non-additive manufacturing model (e.g., see Figs. 1 and 2, wherein Fig. 1 shows elements 110 and 120 assembled to element 130, wherein elements 110 and 120 are formed by additive manufacturing and element 30 is formed by other manufacturing processes; see paragraph 46), the additive manufacturing model assembly has: a contact portion at which the additive manufacturing model and the non-additive manufacturing model are in contact with each other (e.g., see at least Fig. 2, exploded view, that shows contact portions for elements 110 and 130); and a fixing portion by which the additive manufacturing model and the non-additive manufacturing model are fixed to each other (e.g., see at least paragraph 46 that discusses that “the manifolds and core may be connected to each other by brazing, soldering, welding, adhesive bonding, compressed gasket, etc.”), the fixing portion being located at a same position as the contact portion or a position different from the contact portion (e.g., see Fig. 2 that shows how elements 110 and 130 are connected), and a thickness of the additive manufacturing model is thinner than a thickness of the non- additive manufacturing model at the contact portion (e.g., see Figs. 1 and 2 that show element 110 is thinner than element 130, wherein element 110 represents additive manufacturing model and element 130 represents the non-additive model; see at least paragraph 46);
[claim 2](as best understood in light of the 112 rejection) wherein a volume of the additive manufacturing model is smaller than a volume of the non-additive manufacturing model (e.g., see Figs 1 and 2, which appears to show that element 110 has a smaller volume than element 130 because element 110 is smaller in general, which would lead to less volume overall);
[claim 3] wherein the contact portion and the fixing portion are provided at the same position, and the contact portion at which the additive manufacturing model and the non-additive manufacturing model are in contact with each other serves as the fixing portion (e.g., see at least paragraph 46 that discusses that “the manifolds and core may be connected to each other by brazing, soldering, welding, adhesive bonding, compressed gasket, etc.”);
[claim 4] wherein the contact portion and the fixing portion are provided at different positions, and the fixing portion is provided at a peripheral portion of the contact portion at which the additive manufacturing model and the non-additive manufacturing model are in contact with each other (e.g., see at least paragraph 46 that discusses that “the manifolds and core may be connected to each other by brazing, soldering, welding, adhesive bonding, compressed gasket, etc.”; at least a portion of the contact portion/surface is at different position than a portion of a compressed gasket);
[claim 8] wherein the fixing portion is formed by a joining material, or is a welded portion between the additive manufacturing model and the non-additive manufacturing model (e.g., see at least paragraph 46 that discusses that “the manifolds and core may be connected to each other by brazing, soldering, welding, adhesive bonding, compressed gasket, etc.”);
[claim 9] wherein the fixing portion is formed by a brazing material (e.g., see at least paragraph 46 that discusses that “the manifolds and core may be connected to each other by brazing, soldering, welding, adhesive bonding, compressed gasket, etc.”);
[claims 10-13, 17, and 18](all with similar claim scope) wherein the non-additive manufacturing model comprises a first member configured to introduce a first fluid into the additive manufacturing model (e.g., see at least paragraph 42 that discusses a first fluid inlet 111 for warm fluid; see also Figs. 1 and for first fluid inlet 111), and a second member configured to introduce a second fluid different from the first fluid into the additive manufacturing model (e.g., see at least paragraph 42 that discusses a second fluid inlet 112 for cool fluid; see also Figs. 1 and for second fluid inlet 111), and the additive manufacturing model comprises a heat exchange portion that exchanges heat between the first fluid and the second fluid (e.g., see at least paragraph 41 that discusses a heat exchanger 100 including elements 110, 120, and 130).
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 5-7 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roper in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0333056 to Butcka.
With regard to claim 5-7, Roper discloses all of the recited features but is silent regarding the use of a positioning protrusion that regulates a relative position. Claims 14-16 are disclosed by Roper as discussed in detail for claim 10, which is similar in claim scope.
In the same field of endeavor, Butcka teaches a heat exchanger includes a cylinder (e.g., see Figs. 1-3, pipe 20, Fig. 1 and 3 are shown below for convenience) that includes a flange and positioning protrusion that regulates a relative position (e.g., see Fig. 3, positioning protrusion is element 30).
PNG
media_image2.png
753
847
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
735
806
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Roper with a positioning protrusion as taught by Butcka in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, a positioning protrusion helps secure the connection by limiting movement in at least one direction.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roper in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0003349 to Horoszczak.
With regard to claim 19 and 20, Roper discloses all of the recited features but is silent regarding the use first and second members (i.e., fluid inlets/outlets) that are orthogonal. As shown in Figs. 1 and 2, Ropers discloses a first member to introduce fluid flow (111/121) and second member to introduce fluid flow (112/122) appear to be substantially parallel.
In the same field of endeavor, Horoszczak teaches the use first and second members (i.e., fluid inlets) that are orthogonal (e.g., Fig. 3 that shows a first member 12/16 that generates a fluid flow direction 20 that is orthogonal to a second member 14/18 that generates a second fluid flow direction 22).
PNG
media_image4.png
646
885
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Roper with first/second members (fluid inlets) that are orthogonal as taught by Horoszczak in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, a providing orthogonal fluid inlets allows for the two different fluids to enter the same heat exchanging core on different sides represents a design choice, which could be optimized in this orientation/configuration depending on the source locations of the fluid and the available space around the heat exchanger.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0043335 to Dorfner discusses a 3-D printed assembly that includes a cylinder penetrating a hole in another element (e.g., see at least Figs. 4 and 5)
U.S. Patent No. 11,717,892 to Carlson discusses a heat exchanger with plates made from additive manufacturing (e.g., see Figs. 1 and 2A)
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0076321 to Saviers discusses a heat exchanger that brazes non-additive and additive manufactured elements (e.g., see at least paragraph 37)
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0309459 to Streeter discusses a heat exchanger additively manufactured (e.g., see Fig. 1, prior art with orthogonal fluid inlets)
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0245853 to Sennoun discusses an additively manufactured heat exchanger (e.g., see Fig. 1)
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0089643 to Arafat discusses an additively manufactured heat exchanger (e.g., see Fig. 2)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES S MCCLELLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:30AM-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, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/James S. McClellan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights