DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 5/22/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-2, 4-13 and 15-22 are pending. Claims 4-5 and 15-16 remain withdrawn from further consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2,6-13 and 17-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 1,2,10-13, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leemans et al. (US 20170219291A1). Regarding claim 1, Leemans et al. discloses (figure 3 and paragraph 21) a heat exchanger comprising a plurality of heat exchanger plates (150, 156) stacked along a stacking axis defining a plurality of first pathways (formed by 150,156, 158,160) through which a first fluid is directed; and a plurality of fins (V-fin assembly 110 or 200) disposed between adjacent first pathways of the plurality of first pathways, the plurality of fins at least partially defining a plurality of second pathways (air path, paragraph 21) through which a second fluid is directed; wherein the heat exchanger plates (150, 156) are formed from a sheet material (thin); and wherein the plurality of fins (110 or 200) are formed from one or more additive manufacturing processes. (paragraph 22, 3-D printing); and wherein each fin of the plurality of fins extends from a first plate of the plurality of heat exchanger plates to a second plate of the plurality of heat exchanger plates; and a fin thickness of at least one fin of the plurality of fins decreases with increasing distance from the nearer of the first plate and the second plate to the middle section. (see figures A or B, similar to applicant’s invention as shown in figure 3d).
Regarding claim 2, Leemans et al. discloses (figure 4A) a plurality of plate openings (170) in the plurality of heat exchanger plates (150,156); wherein a fin (200) of the plurality of fins is formed extending into each of the plurality of fins to the heat exchanger plate.
Regarding claim 10, Leemans discloses that the plurality of heat exchanger plates (150,156) define a plurality of heat exchanger layers along the stacking axis; and wherein a first heat exchanger layer (air layer) of the plurality of heat exchanger layers includes the plurality of fins (110 or 200) formed from one or more additive manufacturing processes (paragraph 21); and wherein a second heat exchanger layer (liquid layer) of the plurality of heat exchanger layers includes a plurality of fins (152) formed not from one or more additive manufacturing processes. Regarding claim 11, Leemans further discloses (figure 3) that the heat exchanger is one of cross-flow heat exchanger. Regarding claim 12, Leemans et al discloses (figure 3 , 4A and paragraph 21) a method of forming a heat exchanger, comprising stacking a plurality of heat exchanger plates (150, 156) along a stacking axis thereby defining a plurality of first fluid pathways through which a first fluid (liquid) is directed; positioning a plurality of fins (V-fin 110 or 200) between adjacent first fluid pathways to at least partially define a plurality of second fluid pathways (air way) through which a second fluid (air) is directed; wherein the heat exchanger plates (150,156) are formed from a sheet material; and wherein the plurality of fins are formed from one or more additive manufacturing processes. (paragraph 22) and wherein each fin of the plurality of fins extends from a first plate of the plurality of heat exchanger plates to a second plate of the plurality of heat exchanger plates; and a fin thickness of at least one fin of the plurality of fins decreases with increasing distance from the nearer of the first plate and the second plate.
Regarding claim 13, Leemans discloses (figure 4A) a plurality of plate openings (170) in the plurality of heat exchanger plates (150,156); and forming a fin (200) of the plurality of fins to extend into each of the plurality of plate openings to secure the plurality of fins to the heat exchanger plate.
Regarding claim 20, Leemans et al. discloses that the one or more additive manufacturing processes includes 3D printing. (paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 22, Leemans further discloses that the fin thickness tapers continuously with increasing distance from the nearer of the first plate and the second plate to the middle section.
PNG
media_image1.png
772
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: the modified figure corresponds to figure 4A of Leemans with limitation shown.
PNG
media_image2.png
734
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B: the modified figure corresponds to figure 4b of Leemans with limitation shown.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez et al. (US 2015/0361922A1) in view of Wright et al. (US 11,639,828B2). Alvarez et al. discloses (figures 1 and 5) a heat exchanger comprising a plurality of heat exchanger plates (106) stacked along a stacking axis defining a plurality of first pathways (104, above and below 102, figure 1) through which a first fluid is directed; and a plurality of fins (116) disposed between adjacent first pathways of the plurality of first pathways, the plurality of fins (116) at least partially defining a plurality of second pathways (102) through which a second fluid is directed; wherein the heat exchanger plates (106) are formed from a sheet material (thin); and wherein the plurality of fins (116) are formed from one or more additive manufacturing processes. (paragraph 25) and wherein each fin of the plurality of fins (116) extends from a first plate of the plurality of heat exchanger plates to a second plate of the plurality of heat exchanger plates. Regarding claims 1 and 21-22, Alvarez et al. does not disclose that a fin thickness of at least one fins decreases with increasing distance from the nearer of the first plate and the second plate. Wright discloses (figure 11 and 12) a heat exchanger that has fins (220) having a double triangular shape (hourglass shape) between a first and second plate (203, 204), so that the fin thickness decreases or tapers continuously with increasing distance from the nearer of the first plate and the second plate for a purpose of providing a symmetric set of counter-rotating vortices to increase turbulence within the channel (200) and structurally rigidity (column 5, lines 43-46, 54-56 and column 6, lines 44-50). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Wright’s teaching in Alvarez’s device for a purpose of providing a symmetric set of counter-rotating vortices to increase turbulence within the channel and structurally rigidity (column 5, lines 43-46, 54-56 and column 6, lines 44-50).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Alvarez et al. discloses (figure 1) that the plurality of fins (116) are arranged in a plurality of rows, each row extending across a flow direction of the second fluid through the plurality of second pathways.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Alvarez et al. further discloses (figure 5) one or more of a fin spacing (D1, D2) and a fin thickness (T1, T2) is varied between a first row of the plurality of rows and a second row of the plurality of row.
Regarding claim 8, Alvarez et al. further discloses a turbulator disposed between adjacent fins of the plurality of fins. Regarding the limitation of “a turbulator”, the Office interprets the term “turbulator” as a device or structure to cause turbulence of fluid. Alverez et al discloses (figure 5) that any fin (116) which is disposed in the way of the flow path and to cause turbulence of the fluid flow when the flow fluid hits the fin . Therefore, any fin (116) is considered to read on “a turbulator”. In particular in figure 5, the Office interprets any fin (116) that is located between the most upstream fins (116) and the most downstream fins (116) to read as a turbulator disposed between adjacent fins of the plurality of fins.
Regarding claim 11, Alvarez et al. further discloses (figure 1) that the heat exchanger is one of cross-flow heat exchanger. Regarding claim 12, Alvarez et al discloses (figures 1 and 5) a method of forming a heat exchanger, comprising stacking a plurality of heat exchanger plates (106) along a stacking axis thereby defining a plurality of first fluid pathways (104) through which a first fluid is directed; positioning a plurality of fins (116) between adjacent first fluid pathways (104) to at least partially define a plurality of second fluid pathways (pathways in 102) through which a second fluid is directed; wherein the heat exchanger plates (106) are formed from a sheet material; and wherein the plurality of fins (116) are formed from one or more additive manufacturing processes. (paragraph 25) and wherein each fin of the plurality of fins (116) extends from a first plate of the plurality of heat exchanger plates to a second plate of the plurality of heat exchanger plates; and a fin thickness of at least one fin of the plurality of fins decreases with increasing distance from the nearer of the first plate and the second plate. (see figure 3, the fin has a portion (118) has a thickness decreases with increasing distance from the nearer of the plate 106).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leemans et al. (US 20170219291A1) in view of Friestad et al. (US 20200141655A1). Leemans et al. substantially discloses all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above except for the limitation that sheet is metal. Friestad et al discloses (figure 1 and paragraph 42) a heat exchanger comprises a plurality of plates (20a,b,c), wherein the plates are made of stainless steel for a purpose of improving the corrosive resistant of the heat exchanger. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Friestad’s teaching in Leemans’ device for a purpose of improving the corrosive resistant of the heat exchanger.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez et al. and Wright et al. and further in view of Friestad et al. (US 20200141655A1). Alvarez et al and Wright et al. substantially disclose all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above except for the limitation that sheet is metal. Friestad et al discloses (figure 1 and paragraph 42) a heat exchanger comprises a plurality of plates (20a,b,c), wherein the plates are made of stainless steel for a purpose of improving the corrosive resistant of the heat exchanger. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Friestad’s teaching in the combination of Alvarez and Wright for a purpose of improving the corrosive resistant of the heat exchanger.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lewandowski et al. (US 20220282931A1) discloses a heat exchanger device.
Furrer et al. (US 2018/0292146A1) discloses a partially additive manufactured heat exchanger.
Dewar et al. (US 5845399A) discloses a composite plate pin.
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 THO V DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4793. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 10-6PM.
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, Atkisson Jianying can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/THO V DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights