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 10-11, 15-21, 23-24 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.
In claims 15-16 and 20-21 “one layer” is defined followed by the recitation of “each layer” which does not make sense now that the device has been limited to a single layer. Correction is required.
Claims 16 and 21 further requires both two tubes and a single tube, which is contradictory.
In claim 10, the claim recites a second communication channel and that the end of the heat exchange core away from the air vent is in a sealed connection with the housing. However, it depends from claim 1 which requires the first communication channel. In the disclosure, the sealing of the heat exchanger core to the housing is the removal of the first communication channel (see embodiment 6, Para. [0217]-[0226], Figs. 23-26). As disclosed, the first and second communication channels may coexist (a la the Fourth Embodiment) but the first communication channel cannot exist when the heat exchanger core is in a sealed connection with the housing. Therefore, it is not clear what the first communication channel, as required by claim 1, could refer to.
Claims 11, 17-21, and 27-28 depend from claim 10.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-11, 17-21, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
As described above in detail, claim 10 requires a mixture of two different embodiments of the device which do not appear to be physically compatible. It is not clear how one of ordinary skill is intended to create such a device based on the disclosure provided. The breadth of the claims, nature of the invention, amount of direction provided by the inventor, and lack of examples are all Wands factors weighing against enablement.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, 12-14, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Greber (US 2020/0263930).
Regarding claim 1, Greber teaches a heat exchanger comprising a housing (5), and a heat exchanger core (3) inside the housing, wherein: a side of the housing is provided with an air vent (7, 9)), the heat exchanger is provided with a communication channel (45) in communication with the air vent; and the communication channel is located inside the housing and opposite to the air vent (in particular the channels 45 along the top side of Fig. 2); the communication channel comprises a first communication channel (45 immediately downstream of 7) and a gap is provided between an end of the heat exchange core away from the air vent and the housing (Fig. 2, gap between 3 and upper 24) and the gap forms the first communication channel.
It is noted that in Para. [0064] the number of passes (determined by 33) and thus the number of channels 45 is variable and may include only a single channel 45. While this is not relevant to all claims, the examiner would like to point it out early for later application.
Greber further teaches that: the heat exchanger further comprises a first heat exchange channel located inside the housing (a gap between adjacent 3) comprising at least one inlet and outlet channel (gaps between adjacent 3 located near inlet 7 and outlet 9, respectively) both inlet and outlet channels are in communication with the air vent (at 7 and 9) and the first communication channel is in communication with an outlet of the inlet channel and an inlet of the outlet channel (in an embodiment with only a single 33 as noted above), per claim 3; in the first heat exchange channel a channel wall of the inlet channel is isolated from a channel wall of the outlet channel adjacent it (by 33), per claim 4; in the first heat exchange channel, the inlet channel is isolated from the outlet channel adjacent it by a partition plate (33) which is in a sealed connection (via 47) with the housing an which extends from the air vent to the first communication channel (see Fig. 2), per claim 6; at least two inlet and outlet channels are provided and isolated from each other, respectively (there are multiple channels formed by the stack of tubes 3), per claim 7; the communication channel further comprises a second communication channel (e.g. 45 at the top side of Fig. 2 closest to 9) arranged int eh heat exchanger core and having the same communication direction (left to right in Fig. 2) as the first, per claim 9; the inlet (7) of the inlet channel and the outlet (9) of the outlet channel are arranged one after another along a length direction (left-right Fig. 1) of the air vent and the inlet and outlet channels are both straight (see Fig. 2), per claim 12; the heat exchanger further comprises a second heat exchange channel (interior of 3) configured to exchange heat with the first heat exchange channel and the housing is provided with an air inlet (19) and outlet (21) with the inlet, second channel, and outlet arranged in flow order (Figs. 1-2), per claim 13; the air inlet and outlet are located at opposite sides of the housing (Figs. 1-2) and the same side of the air vent (they are both located above the air vent in Fig. 2), per claim 14; after assembly, the housing is a unitary (i.e. one piece) structure, per claim 22.
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(s) 5, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greber in view of Yoon (US 2018/0313301).
Regarding claim 5, Greber does not teach the two inlet/outlet channels with second openings.
Yoon teaches it is old and well-known to divide channels for heat exchange fluids formed between adjacent tubes (see Fig. 3) into multiple (at least two) channels adjacent each other (320; Fig. 3) with second openings (see Fig. 4) for communication between the adjacent channels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to sub-divide the inlet and/or outlet channels of Greber, as taught by Yoon, to increase turbulence and disrupt boundary layer formation.
Regarding claims 15-16, Greber teaches that the heat exchange core comprises a layer of the heat exchange tube (3) with a first gap formed between the layer and the housing (see, e.g. 35 in Fig. 3); each layer comprises at least one tube, a tube cavity is the second heat exchange channel (see Fig. 1); wherein an end of the heat exchange tube extends into the air inlet (see Fig. 3) and another into the air outlet (again, Fig. 3) and the tubes are fixed to the housing (via 29).
Greber does not teach the heat exchange member arranged in the first gap forming the inlet and outlet channels.
Yoon teaches it is old and well-known to divide channels for heat exchange fluids formed between adjacent tubes (see Fig. 3) into multiple (at least two) channels adjacent each other (320; Fig. 3) with second openings (see Fig. 4) for communication between the adjacent channels via a heat exchange member (see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to sub-divide the inlet and/or outlet channels of Greber, as taught by Yoon, to increase turbulence and disrupt boundary layer formation.
Regarding claims 25-26, Greber teaches that the heat exchange core comprises at least two layers of the heat exchange tube (3) with gaps between adjacent layers (see Figs. 2-3); each layer may comprise at least two tubes, a tube cavity is the second heat exchange channel (see Fig. 1); wherein an end of the heat exchange tube extends into the air inlet (see Fig. 3) and another into the air outlet (again, Fig. 3) and the tubes are fixed to the housing (via 29).
Greber does not teach the heat exchange member arranged in the first gap forming the inlet and outlet channels.
Yoon teaches it is old and well-known to divide channels for heat exchange fluids formed between adjacent tubes (see Fig. 3) into multiple (at least two) channels adjacent each other (320; Fig. 3) with second openings (see Fig. 4) for communication between the adjacent channels via a heat exchange member (see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to sub-divide the inlet and/or outlet channels of Greber, as taught by Yoon, to increase turbulence and disrupt boundary layer formation.
Claim(s) 23-24 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greber in view of DeVilbiss (US 2002/0134544).
Regarding claims 23-24, Greber teaches that the first partition (33) is located at the air vent (at 47, Fig. 2) and separates the inlet and outlet portions of the air vent apart (Fig. 2) but does not teach the enclosures and heat generating device.
DeVilbiss teaches that it is old and well-known to provide a first sealed cavity (“enclosure”) and second cavity (Fig. 3; delineated by 350 and 360) wherein the first cavity contains a heat generating device (electronics) and the heat exchanger is arranged inside the second cavity with the air vent in communication with the first (see Fig. 3); first and second fans drive airflow into and out of the cavity (Para. [0024]); the second partition (360) divides the inner cavity into the first and second cavities.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize the device of Greber to cool a sealed environment, as taught by DeVilbiss, as such uses are known and common in the art.
Regarding claims 29, Greber does not teach the enclosures and heat generating device.
DeVilbiss teaches that it is old and well-known to provide a first sealed cavity (“enclosure”) with a first cavity (containing the electronics) and a second cavity (Fig. 3; delineated by 350 and 360) containing the heat exchanger (Fig. 3) with the air vents (370 and 380) communicate with the first cavity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize the device of Greber to cool a sealed environment, as taught by DeVilbiss, as such uses are known and common in the art.
Claim(s) 8, 10-11, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greber in view of Raskin (US 3,220,472).
Regarding claim 8, Greber does not teach subdivision of channels.
Raskin teaches it is old and well-known to divide channels (groupings of 4 with the same flow direction; see Fig. 1) into subchannels (4) with openings (6) between them away from the inlet and outlet (see Fig. 1) allowing communication between subchannels and forming a communication channel (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Greber with the subchannels and communication openings, as taught by Raskin, to allow for increase thermal transfer surface without increasing fouling or cleaning difficulty (see Col. 2:20-35 of Raskin).
Regarding claims 10-11, Greber teaches the first heat exchange channel (between adjacent 3) with an inlet and outlet (in communication with 7 and 9, respectively) communicating with the air vent but does not teach the second communication channel.
Raskin teaches that it is old and well-known to divide channels (groupings of 4 with the same flow direction; see Fig. 1) into subchannels (4) with openings (6) between them away from the inlet and outlet (see Fig. 1) allowing communication between subchannels and forming a communication channel (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Greber with the subchannels and communication openings, as taught by Raskin, to allow for increase thermal transfer surface without increasing fouling or cleaning difficulty (see Col. 2:20-35 of Raskin).
Greber further teaches that: the inlet (7) of the inlet channel and the outlet (9) of the outlet channel are arranged one after another along a length direction (left-right Fig. 1) of the air vent and the inlet and outlet channels are both straight (see Fig. 2), per claim 17; the heat exchanger further comprises a second heat exchange channel (interior of 3) configured to exchange heat with the first heat exchange channel and the housing is provided with an air inlet (19) and outlet (21) with the inlet, second channel, and outlet arranged in flow order (Figs. 1-2), per claim 18; the air inlet and outlet are located at opposite sides of the housing (Figs. 1-2) and the same side of the air vent (they are both located above the air vent in Fig. 2), per claim 19.
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greber in view of Raskin and Yoon.
Regarding claims 20-21, Greber teaches that the heat exchange core comprises a layer of the heat exchange tube (3) with a first gap formed between the layer and the housing (see, e.g. 35 in Fig. 3); each layer comprises at least one tube, a tube cavity is the second heat exchange channel (see Fig. 1); wherein an end of the heat exchange tube extends into the air inlet (see Fig. 3) and another into the air outlet (again, Fig. 3) and the tubes are fixed to the housing (via 29).
Greber does not teach the heat exchange member arranged in the first gap forming the inlet and outlet channels.
Yoon teaches it is old and well-known to divide channels for heat exchange fluids formed between adjacent tubes (see Fig. 3) into multiple (at least two) channels adjacent each other (320; Fig. 3) with second openings (see Fig. 4) for communication between the adjacent channels via a heat exchange member (see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to sub-divide the inlet and/or outlet channels of Greber, as taught by Yoon, to increase turbulence and disrupt boundary layer formation.
Regarding claims 27-28, Greber teaches that the heat exchange core comprises at least two layers of the heat exchange tube (3) with gaps between adjacent layers (see Figs. 2-3); each layer may comprise at least two tubes, a tube cavity is the second heat exchange channel (see Fig. 1); wherein an end of the heat exchange tube extends into the air inlet (see Fig. 3) and another into the air outlet (again, Fig. 3) and the tubes are fixed to the housing (via 29).
Greber does not teach the heat exchange member arranged in the first gap forming the inlet and outlet channels.
Yoon teaches it is old and well-known to divide channels for heat exchange fluids formed between adjacent tubes (see Fig. 3) into multiple (at least two) channels adjacent each other (320; Fig. 3) with second openings (see Fig. 4) for communication between the adjacent channels via a heat exchange member (see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to sub-divide the inlet and/or outlet channels of Greber, as taught by Yoon, to increase turbulence and disrupt boundary layer formation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 102 rejection: The fact that Greber describes the partition 33 as having features to prevent interference with the communication channel formed by the gap (45) between the heat exchanger (see elements 3) and the housing (upper 24 in Fig. 2) does not somehow remove the presence of the gap.
The remainder of the arguments depend upon the same argument presented for the 102 rejection.
Regarding the 112 rejection of claim 10: The amendments to claim 1 exacerbate the grounds of rejection rather than curing it, as asserted.
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
Prosecution Insights