CTNF 18/459,804 CTNF 93616 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1 September, 2023; 1 August, 2024; and 9 December, 2024 are being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 11 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 recites in line 6, “ the first port part partitioning ribs are the second port part partitioning ribs ”, which appears to include a typographical error. It is suggested the claim be amended to - - the first port part partitioning ribs [[are]] and the second port part partitioning ribs - -. Claim 27 recites in line 6, “ the first port part partitioning ribs are the second port part partitioning ribs ”, which appears to include a typographical error. It is suggested the claim be amended to - - the first port part partitioning ribs [[are]] and the second port part partitioning ribs - -. Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “ channelizing part ” in claim 10 and 26 . Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 12-14 and 28-30 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. Claim 12 recites, “ a principle partitioning rib extending from the first inlet to the first outlet basically along the air flow direction of the air flow passage ” and “ that comprises an auxiliary partitioning rib basically parallel to the principle partitioning rib ” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear the metes and bounds of the claim are with the utilization of the term “ basically ”. Is the extension of the principle partitioning rib along the airflow direction of the air flow passage or not? Is the auxiliary partitioning rib parallel to the principle portioning rib or no? Looking at the originally-filed specification, it appears to extend along the airflow direction of the air flow passage and the auxiliary partitioning rib appears to be parallel to the principle partitioning rib, such that the claim is being interpreted as such. Claims 13-14 depend from claim 14, and thereby, are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim 28 recites, “ a principle partitioning rib extending from the first inlet to the first outlet basically along the air flow direction of the air flow passage ” and “ that comprises an auxiliary partitioning rib basically parallel to the principle partitioning rib ” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear the metes and bounds of the claim are with the utilization of the term “ basically ”. Is the extension of the principle partitioning rib along the airflow direction of the air flow passage or not? Is the auxiliary partitioning rib parallel to the principle portioning rib or no? Looking at the originally-filed specification, it appears to extend along the airflow direction of the air flow passage and the auxiliary partitioning rib appears to be parallel to the principle partitioning rib, such that the claim is being interpreted as such. Claims 29-30 depend from claim 28, and thereby, are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE ( US 2008/0156470 A1 – published 3 July, 2008 ), in view of MATSUZOE ( JP H10 – 170176 A – published 26 June, 1998; provided with an English machine translation in the IDS filed on 1 September, 2023 ) . As to claim 1 , LEE discloses a heat exchanger ( abstract ) comprising: core fins including a first core fin ( 212 or 222; figure 4 ) and a second core fin ( 212 or 222; figure 4 ); and films ( 211 and 221 ) of which is attached to a side face of each of the core fins ( figure 4; par. 31 and 34 ), wherein the core fins and the films are alternately stacked ( par. 31 ), the first core fin and the second core fin are stacked ( par. 31 ), an airflow passage ( figures 2-3; par. 24-30 ), formed by the alternately stacked core fins and films and the stacked first corm film and second core film ( figures 2-4 and 10B; par. 24-30 ), comprise: a first port part serving as a first inlet ( see annotated figures 2-4, which provides exemplary first port parts and second port parts ); and a second port part facing the first port part and serving as a first outlet ( see annotated figures 2-4, which provides exemplary first port parts and second port parts ), an air flow flows from the first inlet to the first outlet in an air flow direction ( see annotated figures 2-4; par. 31, in view of par. 26-29 ), the first core fin and the second core fin each comprise a port lateral side part that constitutes one of the first port part and the second port part ( part at the location of the defined first port part and/or defined second port part, shown in annotated figures 2-4, so as to be the port lateral side part ), and in a stacking direction ( direction of which the core fins and films are positioned one atop another, resulting in the heat exchanger, 20, shown in figure 1 ) of the first core fin and the second core fin, a fin interlayer distance on an outermost side of at least one of the first port part and the second port part ( fin height distance at the location of at least one of the first port part and the second port part ) is relative to a fin interlayer distance at a different position between the first inlet and the first outlet of the air flow passage ( fin height distance at the location along the central portion of the fin cores, between the inlet and outlets of air flow at the first port part and second port part ). PNG media_image1.png 363 748 media_image1.png Greyscale Annotated Figure 2 of LEE PNG media_image2.png 334 748 media_image2.png Greyscale Annotated Figure 3 of LEE PNG media_image3.png 854 1085 media_image3.png Greyscale Annotated Figure 4 of LEE However, LEE does not disclose expressly wherein the fin interlayer distance on an outermost side of at least one of the first port part and the second port part ( fin height distance at the location of at least one of the first port part and the second port part ) is greater than a fin interlayer distance at a different position between the first inlet and the first outlet of the air flow passage. MATSUZOE, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a heat exchanger ( par. 1 ). MATSUZOE teaches a first core fin ( A ) and a second core fin ( A; par. 6 ) stacked upon one another ( figure 5 ) of which a fin interlayer distance is provided ( height of the fins, 2 ). The fin interlayer distance at an outermost side at the inlet and outlet of the core fins( figure 6 ) is greater ( due to the sloped shape at the inlet and outlet ends thereof; figure 6 ) than a fin interlayer distance at a different position between the inlet and outlet of the core fins ( central portion of the fins; figure 6 ). Particularly, MATSUZOE teaches wherein providing the “ trumpet-like manner ” at the inlet and outlets of the core fins allows the fluid to flow smoothly, while effectively holding the superimposed core fins to one another in a stable manner ( par. 13 ).Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify LEE, in view of the teachings of MATSUZOE, to include this fin interlayer distance correlation, as claimed, for these reasons. As to claim 4 , LEE, as modified by MATSUZOE, previously taught the inclusion of the “ trumpet-like manner ” at the inlet and outlets of the core fins to provide the fin interlayer distance correlation ( see rejection of claim 1 ). Furthermore, providing such teachings causes the inlet and outlet of the core fins ( figure 6 ) is tapered toward an outermost side ( the outermost side at the inlet or the outlet shown in figure 6 ) in a transverse section parallel to the air flow direction ( direction parallel along the airflow into the passage of MATSUZOE ). Again, MATSUZOE teaches wherein providing the “ trumpet-like manner ” at the inlet and outlets of the core fins allows the fluid to flow smoothly, while effectively holding the superimposed core fins to one another in a stable manner ( par. 13 ).Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify LEE, in view of the teachings of MATSUZOE, to include this feature, as claimed, for these reasons. As to claim 5 , LEE, as modified, further discloses wherein the port lateral side part of the second core fin has a surface directed toward the first core fin ( upper or lower surface of “port part partitioning ribs”, any one of or various combinations of 312a-b and/or 322a-d ) and on which port part partitioning ribs are disposed ( figure 7; par. 42; figure 10B ). As to claim 7 , LEE, as modified, previously taught the fin interlayer distance on an outermost side of at least one of the first port part and the second port part ( fin height distance at the location of at least one of the first port part and the second port part ) is greater than ( teachings of MATZUSOE; see rejection of claim 1 ) a fin interlayer distance at a different position between the first inlet and the first outlet of the air flow passage ( fin height distance at the location along the central portion of the fin cores, between the inlet and outlets of air flow at the first port part and second port part ). Furthermore, the combination provided the fin interlayer distance was a height distance ( along the stacking direction of the core fins to one another ), which is necessarily perpendicular to the airflow direction. As such, the combination necessarily provides the requirement set forth by the claim of “ wherein the fin interlayer distance on an outermost side of the first inlet of the air flow passage is longer than the fin interlayer distance perpendicular to the air flow direction at a different position between the first inlet and the first outlet of the air flow passage ”. As to claim 8 , LEE, as modified, further teaches wherein, in each of the first port part and the second port part, a port part partitioning rib closest to an end of each of the first port part and the second port part in an extending direction of the port lateral side part among the port partitioning ribs of the second core fin is shorter than the remaining port partitioning ribs ( see annotated figure 7 ). PNG media_image4.png 713 1144 media_image4.png Greyscale Annotated Figure 7 of LEE As to claim 10 , LEE, as modified by MATSUZOE, previously taught the inclusion of the “ trumpet-like manner ” at the inlet and outlet ends of the port part partitioning ribs ( see rejection of claims 1, 4, 5 ), such that the “ trumpet-like manner ” of the port part partitioning ribs forms the channelizing part thereof that guides the airflow in the airflow direction. Again, providing such teachings causes the inlet and outlet of the core fins ( figure 6 ) allows the fluid to flow smoothly, while effectively holding the superimposed core fins to one another in a stable manner ( par. 13 ).Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify LEE, in view of the teachings of MATSUZOE, to include this feature, as claimed, for these reasons. As to claim 11 , LEE, as modified, further discloses wherein the port part partitioning ribs of the second core fin comprise: first port part partitioning ribs ( see annotated figure 7 ); and second port part partitioning ribs ( see annotated figure 7 ) that are longer than the first port part partitioning ribs ( see annotated figure 7 ), wherein the first port part partitioning ribs and the second port part partitioning ribs are disposed alternately( see annotated figure 7 ), and in each of the first port part and the second port part, a port part partitioning rib closest to an end of the each of the first port part and the second port part in an extending direction of the port lateral side part is one of the first port part partitioning ribs ( see annotated figure 7 ). As to claim 16 , LEE, as modified, further discloses wherein a principle partitioning rib extending between the port lateral side part of the first port part and the port lateral side part of the second port part has an opening allowing passage of air flow on a side that is distant from a film bonded ( figure 47, and 10B, wherein the opening includes a portion on a side opposite to the film/rib connection side ). As to claim 19 , LEE, as modified, previously taught the heat exchanger of claim 1 ( see rejection of claim 1 ). LEE, further, discloses an air treatment device ( figure 1 ) comprising, wherein the heat exchanger includes a second inlet and a second outlet ( figure 1-3 ); a fresh air port inlet that is in communication with the first inlet and that imports fresh air flow( 12; par. 26 ); a supply air port that is in communication with the first outlet and that exports the fresh air flow ( 13; par. 26 ); a return air port that is in communication with the second inlet and that imports indoor air flow ( 14; par. 26 ); and exhaust air port that is in communication with the second outlet and that exports the indoor air flow ( 15; par. 26 ), wherein the fresh air flow and the indoor air flow cross each other, flow in the heat exchanger and executes heat exchange ( par. 25-30 ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 and 32-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE ( US 2008/0156470 A1 – published 3 July, 2008 ), in view of ISHIMARU ( US 2015/0075758 A1 – published 19 March, 2015 ) . As to claim 3 , LEE discloses a heat exchanger ( abstract ) comprising: core fins including a first core fin ( 212 or 222; figure 4 ) and a second core fin ( 212 or 222; figure 4 ); and films ( 211 and 221 ) of which is attached to a side face of each of the core fins ( figure 4; par. 31 and 34 ), wherein the core fins and the films are alternately stacked ( par. 31 ), the first core fin and the second core fin are stacked ( par. 31 ), an airflow passage ( figures 2-3; par. 24-30 ), formed by the alternately stacked core fins and films and the stacked first corm film and second core film ( figures 2-4 and 10B; par. 24-30 ), comprise: a first port part serving as a first inlet ( see annotated figures 2-4, which provides exemplary first port parts and second port parts ); and a second port part facing the first port part and serving as a first outlet ( see annotated figures 2-4, which provides exemplary first port parts and second port parts ), an air flow flows from the first inlet to the first outlet in an air flow direction ( see annotated figures 2-4; par. 31, in view of par. 26-29 ), the first core fin and the second core fin each comprise a port lateral side part that constitutes one of the first port part and the second port part ( part at the location of the defined first port part and/or defined second port part, shown in annotated figures 2-4, so as to be the port lateral side part ), and the port lateral part of the second core fin ( figure 7 ) comprises a port part partitioning rib ( any one of 312a-d and/or 322a-d ) that is in contact with a surface of the port lateral side part of the first core fin ( par. 40 ) and that is relative in size to a principle partitioning rib ( any other one of 312a-d and/or 322a-d ) extending between a port lateral side part of the first port part and a port lateral side part of the second port part. However, LEE, as modified, does not expressly disclose wherein the port part partitioning rib is smaller in width than the principle partitioning rib. ISHIMARU, however, is within the field of endeavor, provided a heat exchanger ( abstract ). ISHIMARU teaches a fin core ( figure 2 ), which are stacked alternately to one another to form the heat exchanger ( figure 1 ). ISHIMARU teaches wherein the fin core includes a port part partitioning rib ( 5 ) that is in contact with a surface of the inlet/outlet ( figure 2 ) thereof and is smaller in width ( par. 26 ) than a principle partitioning rib ( 6 ) extending between the inlet and outlet thereof ( figure 2 ). Particularly, ISHIMARU teaches wherein providing the smaller width of the port partitioning rib enables minimization of pressure loss, so as to not decrease the heat transfer area and the moisture-permeable area of the fin core ( par. 26 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify LEE, in view of the teachings of ISHIMARU to include the width correlation, as claimed, for these reasons. As to claim 32 , LEE, as modified, further discloses wherein a principle partitioning rib extending between the port lateral side part of the first port part and the port lateral side part of the second port part has an opening allowing passage of air flow on a side that is distant from a film bonded ( figure 47, and 10B, wherein the opening includes a portion on a side opposite to the film/rib connection side ). As to claim 33 , LEE, as modified, further discloses wherein: the first core fin comprises a first frame ( 313 and/or 323 ), the second core fin comprises a second frame ( 313 and/or 323 ) and has an identical outline shape to an outline shape of the first frame ( figure 1-4 and 7 ), the first frame and the second fame are stacked ( figure 1 ), the port lateral side part of the first core fin and the port lateral side part of the second core fin are respectively disposed along a first portion and a second portion disposed at opposite corners ( figures 2-4 and 7 ) of the first frame and the second frame, each of the first frame and the second frame further comprises a third portion and a fourth portion disposed at opposite corners ( figures 2-4 and 7, another set of portions opposite from one another that are disposed at different corners to that of the first and second portions ), a crossing port lateral side part is disposed along the third portion and the fourth portion ( figures 2-4 and 7, another set of portions opposite from one another that are disposed at different corners to that of the first and second portions ), the crossing port lateral side part of the first frame comprises port part partitioning ribs on a surface opposite to the second core fin ( figure 2 ), and the port part partitioning ribs any one of 312a-d and/or 322a-d ) at the crossing port lateral side part of the first frame are relative in size to a principle partitioning rib ( any other one of 312a-d and/or 322a-d ) extending between the port lateral side part of the first port part and the port lateral side part of the second port part. However, LEE, as modified, does not expressly disclose wherein the port part partitioning rib is smaller in width than the principle partitioning rib. ISHIMARU, however, is within the field of endeavor, provided a heat exchanger ( abstract ). ISHIMARU teaches a fin core ( figure 2 ), which are stacked alternately to one another to form the heat exchanger ( figure 1 ). ISHIMARU teaches wherein the fin core includes a port part partitioning rib ( 5 ) that is in contact with a surface of the inlet/outlet ( figure 2 ) thereof and is smaller in width ( par. 26 ) than a principle partitioning rib ( 6 ) extending between the inlet and outlet thereof ( figure 2 ). Particularly, ISHIMARU teaches wherein providing the smaller width of the port partitioning rib enables minimization of pressure loss, so as to not decrease the heat transfer area and the moisture-permeable area of the fin core ( par. 26 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify LEE, in view of the teachings of ISHIMARU to include the width correlation, as claimed, for these reasons. As to claim 34 , LEE, as modified, further discloses wherein the port lateral side part of the first core fin has a surface directed toward the air flow passage and having an outline shape ( any one surface of the port lateral side part of the first core fin; figure 4 and 7 ). LEE, further, discloses the outline shape and a partitioning rib at the port lateral side part of the second core fin are formed in each of two side faces of the second frame ( figures 4 and 7 ). However, LEE, as modified, does not expressly disclose wherein the outline shape is necessarily one of a slant face, a curved face, and a stepped face. ISHIMARU teaches a fin core ( figure 2 ), which are stacked alternately to one another to form the heat exchanger ( figure 1 ). ISHIMARU teaches wherein the fin core includes a surface of the inlet/outlet ( figure 2 ) thereof includes a slant face. Particularly, ISHIMARU teaches wherein providing the slanted face at the inlet/outlet surface of the core fins to enable minimization of pressure loss, so as to not decrease the heat transfer area and the moisture-permeable area of the fin core ( par. 26 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify LEE, in view of the teachings of ISHIMARU to include the structure, as claimed, for these reasons. As to claim 35, LEE, as modified, previously taught the heat exchanger of claim 3 ( see rejection of claim 3 ). LEE, further, discloses an air treatment device ( figure 1 ) comprising, wherein the heat exchanger includes a second inlet and a second outlet ( figure 1-3 ); a fresh air port inlet that is in communication with the first inlet and that imports fresh air flow( 12; par. 26 ); a supply air port that is in communication with the first outlet and that exports the fresh air flow ( 13; par. 26 ); a return air port that is in communication with the second inlet and that imports indoor air flow ( 14; par. 26 ); and exhaust air port that is in communication with the second outlet and that exports the indoor air flow ( 15; par. 26 ), wherein the fresh air flow and the indoor air flow cross each other, flow in the heat exchanger and executes heat exchange ( par. 25-30 ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2, 6, 17-18, 20-24, and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE ( US 2008/0156470 A1 – published 3 July, 2008 ), in view of MATSUZOE ( JP H10 – 170176 A – published 26 June, 1998; provided with an English machine translation in the IDS filed on 1 September, 2023 ) and ISHIMARU ( US 2015/0075758 A1 – published 19 March, 2015 ) . As to claim 2 , LEE, as modified, discloses wherein the port lateral part of the second core fin ( figure 7 ) comprises a port part partitioning rib ( any one of 312a-d and/or 322a-d ) that is in contact with a surface of the port lateral side part of the first core fin ( par. 40 ) and that is relative in size to a principle partitioning rib ( any other one of 312a-d and/or 322a-d ) extending between a port lateral side part of the first port part and a port lateral side part of the second port part. However, LEE, as modified, does not expressly disclose wherein the port part partitioning rib is smaller in width than the principle partitioning rib. ISHIMARU, however, is within the field of endeavor, provided a heat exchanger ( abstract ). ISHIMARU teaches a fin core ( figure 2 ), which are stacked alternately to one another to form the heat exchanger ( figure 1 ). ISHIMARU teaches wherein the fin core includes a port part partitioning rib ( 5 ) that is in contact with a surface of the inlet/outlet ( figure 2 ) thereof and is smaller in width ( par. 26 ) than a principle partitioning rib ( 6 ) extending between the inlet and outlet thereof ( figure 2 ). Particularly, ISHIMARU teaches wherein providing the smaller width of the port partitioning rib enables minimization of pressure loss, so as to not decrease the heat transfer area and the moisture-permeable area of the fin core ( par. 26 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify LEE, in view of the teachings of ISHIMARU to include the width correlation, as claimed, for these reasons. As to claim 6 , LEE, as modified, further discloses wherein the port lateral side part of the first core fin has a surface directed toward the air flow passage and having an outline shape ( any one surface of the port lateral side part of the first core fin; figure 4 and 7 ). However, LEE, as modified, does not expressly disclose wherein the outline shape is necessarily one of a slant face, a curved face, and a stepped face. ISHIMARU, however, is within the field of endeavor, provided a heat exchanger ( abstract ). ISHIMARU teaches a fin core ( figure 2 ), which are stacked alternately to one another to form the heat exchanger ( figure 1 ). ISHIMARU teaches wherein the fin core includes a surface of the inlet/outlet ( figure 2 ) thereof includes a slant face. Particularly, ISHIMARU teaches wherein providing the slanted face at the inlet/outlet surface of the core fins to enable minimization of pressure loss, so as to not decrease the heat transfer area and the moisture-permeable area of the fin core ( par. 26 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify LEE, in view of the teachings of ISHIMARU to include the structure, as claimed, for these reasons. As to claim 17 , LEE, as modified, further discloses wherein: the first core fin comprises a first frame ( 313 and/or 323 ), the second core fin comprises a second frame ( 313 and/or 323 ) and has an identical outline shape to an outline shape of the first frame ( figure 1-4 and 7 ), the first frame and the second fame are stacked ( figure 1 ), the port lateral side part of the first core fin and the port lateral side part of the second core fin are respectively disposed along a first portion and a second portion disposed at opposite corners ( figures 2-4 and 7 ) of the first frame and the second frame, each of the first frame and the second frame further comprises a third portion and a fourth portion disposed at opposite corners ( figures 2-4 and 7, another set of portions opposite from one another that are disposed at different corners to that of the first and second portions ), a crossing port lateral side part is disposed along the third portion and the fourth portion ( figures 2-4 and 7, another set of portions opposite from one another that are disposed at different corners to that of the first and second portions ), the crossing port lateral side part of the first frame comprises port part partitioning ribs on a surface opposite t the second core fin ( figure 2 ), and either the port part partitioning ribs any one of 312a-d and/or 322a-d ) at the crossing port lateral side part of the first frame are relative in size to a principle partitioning rib ( any other one of 312a-d and/or 322a-d ) extending between the port lateral side part of the first port part and the port lateral side part of the second port part. However, LEE, as modified, does not expressly disclose wherein the port part partitioning rib is smaller in width than the principle partitioning rib. ISHIMARU, however, is within the field of endeavor, provided a heat exchanger ( abstract ). ISHIMARU teaches a fin core ( figure 2 ), which are stacked alternately to one another to form the heat exchanger ( figure 1 ). ISHIMARU teaches wherein the fin core includes a port part partitioning rib ( 5 ) that is in contact with a surface of the inlet/outlet ( figure 2 ) thereof and is smaller in width ( par. 26 ) than a principle partitioning rib ( 6 ) extending between the inlet and outlet thereof ( figure 2 ). Particularly, ISHIMARU teaches wherein providing the smaller width of the port partitioning rib enables minimization of pressure loss, so as to not decrease the heat transfer area and the moisture-permeable area of the fin core ( par. 26 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify LEE, in view of the teachings of ISHIMARU to include the width correlation, as claimed, for these reasons. As to claim 18 , LEE, as modified, further discloses wherein the port lateral side part of the first core fin has a surface directed toward the air flow passage and having an outline shape ( any one surface of the port lateral side part of the first core fin; figure 4 and 7 ). LEE, further, discloses the outline shape and a partitioning rib at the port lateral side part of the second core fin are formed in each of two side faces of the second frame ( figures 4 and 7 ). However, LEE, as modified, does not expressly disclose wherein the outline shape is necessarily one of a slant face, a curved face, and a stepped face. ISHIMARU teaches a fin core ( figure 2 ), which are stacked alternately to one another to form the heat exchanger ( figure 1 ). ISHIMARU teaches wherein the fin core includes a surface of the inlet/outlet ( figure 2 ) thereof includes a slant face. Particularly, ISHIMARU teaches wherein providing the slanted face at the inlet/outlet surface of the core fins to enable minimization of pressure loss, so as to not decrease the heat transfer area and the moisture-permeable area of the fin core ( par. 26 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify LEE, in view of the teachings of ISHIMARU to include the structure, as claimed, for these reasons. As to claim 20 , LEE, as modified, further discloses wherein the port lateral side part of the first core fin. However, LEE, as modified, does not further disclose wherein the port lateral side part of the first core in is tapered toward an outermost side in a transverse section parallel to the airflow direction. MATSUZOE, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a heat exchanger ( par. 1 ). MATSUZOE teaches a first core fin ( A ) and a second core fin ( A; par. 6 ) which include the “ trumpet-like manner ” at the inlet and outlets of the core fins to allow the fluid to flow smoothly, while effectively holding the superimposed core fins to one another in a stable manner ( par. 13 ). Providing such teachings causes the inlet and outlet of the core fins ( figure 6 ) is tapered toward an outermost side ( the outermost side at the inlet or the outlet shown in figure 6 ) in a transverse section parallel to the air flow direction ( direction parallel along the airflow into the passage of MATSUZOE ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify LEE, in view of the teachings of MATSUZOE, to include this fin interlayer distance correlation, as claimed, for these reasons. As to claim 21 , LEE, as modified, further discloses wherein the port lateral side part of the second core fin has a surface directed toward the first core fin ( upper or lower surface of “port part partitioning ribs”, any one of or various combinations of 312a-b and/or 322a-d ) and on which port part partitioning ribs are disposed ( figure 7; par. 42; figure 10B ). As to claim 22 , LEE, as modified, further discloses wherein the port lateral side part of the first core fin has a surface directed toward the air flow passage and having an outline shape ( any one surface of the port lateral side part of the first core fin; figure 4 and 7 ). However, LEE, as modified, does not expressly disclose wherein the outline shape is necessarily one of a slant face, a curved face, and a stepped face. ISHIMARU, further, teaches a fin core ( figure 2 ), which are stacked alternately to one another to form the heat exchanger ( figure 1 ). ISHIMARU teaches wherein the fin core includes a surface of the inlet/outlet ( figure 2 ) thereof includes a slant face. Particularly, ISHIMARU teaches wherein providing the slanted face at the inlet/outlet surface of the core fins to enable minimization of pressure loss, so as to not decrease the heat transfer area and the moisture-permeable area of the fin core ( par. 26 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify LEE, in view of the teachings of ISHIMARU to include the structure, as claimed, for these reasons. As to claim 23 , LEE, as modified, discloses a fin interlayer distance on an outermost side of the first inlet ( fin height distance at the location of at least one of the first port part which is the first inlet ) is relative to a fin interlayer distance at a different position between the first inlet and the first outlet of the air flow passage ( fin height distance at the location along the central portion of the fin cores, between the inlet and outlets of air flow at the first port part and second port part ). However, LEE, as modified, does not disclose expressly wherein the fin interlayer distance on an outermost side of the first inlet ( fin height distance at the location of at least one of the first port part and the second port part ) is longer than a fin interlayer distance at a different position between the first inlet and the first outlet of the air flow passage. MATSUZOE, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a heat exchanger ( par. 1 ). MATSUZOE teaches a first core fin ( A ) and a second core fin ( A; par. 6 ) stacked upon one another ( figure 5 ) of which a fin interlayer distance is provided ( height of the fins, 2 ). The fin interlayer distance at an outermost side at the inlet and outlet of the core fins( figure 6 ) is longer ( due to the sloped shape at the inlet and outlet ends thereof; figure 6 ) than a fin interlayer distance at a different position between the inlet and outlet of the core fins ( central portion of the fins; figure 6 ). Particularly, MATSUZOE teaches wherein providing the “ trumpet-like manner ” at the inlet and outlets of the core fins allows the fluid to flow smoothly, while effectively holding the superimposed core fins to one another in a stable manner ( par. 13 ).Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify LEE, in view of the teachings of MATSUZOE, to include this fin interlayer distance correlation, as claimed, for these reasons. As to claim 24 , LEE, as modified, further teaches wherein, in each of the first port part and the second port part, a port part partitioning rib closest to an end of each of the first port part and the second port part in an extending direction of the port lateral side part among the port partitioning ribs of the second core fin is shorter than the remaining port partitioning ribs ( see annotated figure 7 ). As to claim 26 , LEE, as modified, further discloses wherein the port part partitioning ribs each comprise at an end a channelizing part that guides the air flow in the air flow direction ( figures 4 and 7, such as the end part of the port part partitioning ribs ). As to claim 27 , LEE, as modified, further discloses wherein the port part partitioning ribs of the second core fin comprise: first port part partitioning ribs ( see annotated figure 7 ); and second port part partitioning ribs ( see annotated figure 7 ) that are longer than the first port part partitioning ribs ( see annotated figure 7 ), wherein the first port part partitioning ribs and the second port part partitioning ribs are disposed alternately( see annotated figure 7 ), and in each of the first port part and the second port part, a port part partitioning rib closest to an end of the each of the first port part and the second port part in an extending direction of the port lateral side part is one of the first port part partitioning ribs ( see annotated figure 7 ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE ( US 2008/0156470 A1 – published 3 July, 2008 ), in view of MATSUZOE ( JP H10 – 170176 A – published 26 June, 1998; provided with an English machine translation in the IDS filed on 1 September, 2023 ) and ODAJIMA ( KR20080084569A – published 11 January, 2008; see English machine translation for citations ) . As to claim 9 , LEE, as modified, further discloses comprising: a shell ( 11 ) accommodating the first core fin, the second core fin, and the films ( figures 1-3 ), wherein the airflow passage includes: a first flow path ( figure 2 ); and a second flow path ( figure 3 )crossing the first flow path ( figure 3, in view of figure 2; par. 24-30 ), the first flow path and the second flow path each having an inlet and an outlet ( figure 2-3 ), the inlet of the first flow path is disposed adjacent to the outlet of the second flow path ( figures 2-3 ), the inlet of the second flow path is disposed adjacent to the outlet of the first flow path ( figures 2-3 ), the shell comprises a baffle to either one of the inlet and the outlet ( see figure 1, wherein walls are provided within the shell; par. 25-27 ), the baffle constitutes a filter guide rail ( MPEP § 2114 – II, wherein the intended use of the baffle can be a filter guide rail, absent further structural definition to differentiate the baffle of the prior art and the instant application ) and a port part partitioning rib at a position corresponding to the baffle is shorter than remaining port part partitioning ribs ( see annotated figure 7, in view of figure 1, wherein the placement of the shorter port part partitioning rib is positioned at a position which would correspond to the baffle ). However, LEE, as modified, does not expressly disclose wherein the baffle is bent. ODAJIMA, however, is within the field of endeavor, provided a heat exchanger ( abstract ). ODAJIMA teaches a shell ( housing shown in figure 14 ) including a baffle (27 ) that is bend ( figure 14 ). ODAJIMA teaches wherein the bent baffle is included for the purpose of partitioning the shell to allow the supplying air and exhaust air to pass, as directed, through the heat exchanger ( pg. 5 ). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify LEE, in view of ODAJIMA, to include the baffle being bent for this reason . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE ( US 2008/0156470 A1 – published 3 July, 2008 ), in view of MATSUZOE ( JP H10 – 170176 A – published 26 June, 1998; provided with an English machine translation in the IDS filed on 1 September, 2023 ) and FUKUMOTO ( JP 2016-138707 A – published 4 August, 2016; see provided English machine translation for citations ) . As to claim 12 , LEE, as modified, further discloses wherein: the first core fin comprises a first frame ( 313 and/or 323 ), the second core fin comprises a second frame ( 313 and/or 323 ), the first frame and the second frame each comprise: an outer frame having a hexagonal shape ( figure 4 and 7 ); a principle partitioning rib( any one of 312a-3123d and/or 322a-322d ) extending from the first inlet to the first outlet basically along the air flow direction of the air flow passage ( figure 4 and 7 ); and wherein the outer frame is provided with: two triangular regions ( see annotated figure 4; figure 7 ), and a quadrate region disposed between the two triangular regions ( see annotated figure 4; figure 7 ), and that comprises an auxiliary partitioning rib ( another one of 312a-312d and/or 322a-322d ) basically parallel to the principle partitioning rib ( see figure 4 and 7 ). However, LEE, as modified, does not disclose including two longitudinal ribs extending in a transverse direction of the air flow direction in the air flow passage and partitioning the outer frame. FUKUMOTO, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a heat exchanger ( par. 1 ). FUKUMOTO teaches including two longitudinal ribs ( 16; figure 3-4 and 5 ) that extend in a transverse direction to the air flow direction of the air flow passage ( figures 3-4 and 5 ). In addition, the positioning of the two longitudinal ribs cause partitioning of the outer frame of the core plates ( external sides; figure 3-4 ) to include two triangular regions ( entrance and exit regions at the two ends of the plates, figures 3 and 4 ) and a quadrate region between the two triangular regions ( between the entrance and exit regions; figures 3 and 4 ). Particularly, FUKUMOTO teaches the purpose of the tow longitudinal ribs is to provide reinforcement ( par. 23 and 26 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify LEE, in view of FUKUMOTO, to include the two longitudinal ribs, as claimed, for this reason. As to claim 13 , LEE, as modified, previously described the inclusion of the auxiliary partitioning ribs ( see rejection of claim 12 ), in addition to further discloses the auxiliary principle partitioning rib ( such as 312b and 312c and/or 322b and 322c ) being adjacent to principle partitioning ribs( such as 312a and 312d and/or 322a and 322d ) on respective sides of the auxiliary partitioning rib ( figure 4 and 7 ). Furthermore, LEE discloses wherein the distance therebetween the auxiliary partitioning rib and the principle partitioning ribs is equally distant ( par. 54 ) . As to claim 14 , LEE, as modified, further discloses wherein the auxiliary partitioning rib is equal to or less than the principle partitioning rib in terms of height in the stacking direction ( par. 54 ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE ( US 2008/0156470 A1 – published 3 July, 2008 ), in view of MATSUZOE ( JP H10 – 170176 A – published 26 June, 1998; provided with an English machine translation in the IDS filed on 1 September, 2023 ), ISHIMARU ( US 2015/0075758 A1 – published 19 March, 2015 ), and ODAJIMA ( KR20080084569A – published 11 January, 2008; see English machine translation for citations ) . As to claim 25 , LEE, as modified, further discloses comprising: a shell ( 11 ) accommodating the first core fin, the second core fin, and the films ( figures 1-3 ), wherein the airflow passage includes: a first flow path ( figure 2 ); and a second flow path ( figure 3 )crossing the first flow path ( figure 3, in view of figure 2; par. 24-30 ), the first flow path and the second flow path each having an inlet and an outlet ( figure 2-3 ), the inlet of the first flow path is disposed adjacent to the outlet of the second flow path ( figures 2-3 ), the inlet of the second flow path is disposed adjacent to the outlet of the first flow path ( figures 2-3 ) the shell comprises a baffle to either one of the inlet and the outlet ( see figure 1, wherein walls are provided within the shell; par. 25-27 ), the baffle constitutes a filter guide rail ( MPEP § 2114 – II, wherein the intended use of the baffle can be a filter guide rail, absent further structural definition to differentiate the baffle of the prior art and the instant application ) and a port part partitioning rib