DETAILED ACTION
Claims filed on 1/8/2026 have been entered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman (US 2016/0131441 A1), in view of Weiner (US 2015/0198092 A1).
Claim 1: Newman discloses a surface heat exchanger for an aircraft turbomachine, the heat exchanger (FIG.3) comprising:
a support all (annotated FIG.4),
a panel (annotated FIG.4) arranged parallel to the support wall (annotated FIG.4),
partitions (annotated FIG.4) configured to connect the support wall (annotated FIG.4) to the panel (annotated FIG.4) in a direction perpendicular to said support wall (annotated FIG.4), said partitions defining therebetween channels (54) in which a first air flow flows (paragraph [31]: air flow through channels), said partitions being parallel to each other and to a first flow direction (it is direction of air through channels) of said first air flow (air flow through channels), and
[AltContent: textbox (panel)]fins (paragraph [23]: fins 52 define channels 54) located in said channels (54) and extending parallel to each other (paragraph [23]: series of vertical fins 52) and to said first flow direction (paragraph [23]: different with heat exchanger is fluid flow arrangement where channels 54 alternate in type of fluid carried and direction of flow, in both lateral/vertical direction), said fins (52) being configured to be swept by said first air flow (paragraph [31]: air flow through channels), said panel (annotated FIG.4) comprising:
a central portion (annotated FIG.4) parallel to said support wall (annotated FIG.4) and located at a first distance (annotated FIG.4) from said support wall (annotated FIG.4), and a second distance (annotated FIG.4) from the support wall (annotated FIG.4), said second distance (annotated FIG.4) being less than said first distance (annotated FIG.4).
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (second distance )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (first distance )][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (central portion )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (partitions)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (support wall)]
PNG
media_image1.png
560
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Newman discloses the claimed limitations in claim 1, but fails to disclose a downstream portion having an orientation inclined, said downstream portion comprising an upstream end connected to said central portion and a free downstream end located at a second distance from the support wall and delimiting a main outlet of the channels with the support wall, said second distance being less than said first distance, said downstream portion comprising at least two stationary flaps arranged one behind the other from upstream to downstream and configured to delimit between them at least one additional outlet from said channels.
However, Weiner teaches a downstream portion (annotated FIG.5C) having an orientation inclined (as shown in annotated FIG.5C, it is inclined), said downstream portion (annotated FIG.5C) comprising an upstream end (annotated FIG.5C) and a free downstream end (annotated FIG.5C) delimiting a main outlet (paragraph [25]: flap 134 at the outlet-side of the cooler; to clarify, main outlet is at the outlet-side), said downstream portion (annotated FIG.5C) comprising at least two stationary flaps (paragraph [25]: flap 134 at outlet side of the cooler, in addition to flap 132 at inlet side of the cooler) arranged one behind the other from upstream to downstream and configured to delimit between them at least one additional outlet (to clarify, main outlet is at the outlet-side and flap 134 delimits an additional outlet at free downstream end, additional outlet is formed at where the airflow is affected by flap 134 and other outlet is formed a distance above the flap 134 where the airflow is not affected by flap 134 exiting at zero angle; see annotated FIG.5C) for the purpose of selectively directing the airflow since by doing so either maximize or minimizing cooling as needed (paragraph [24]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Newman to include a downstream portion having an orientation inclined, said downstream portion comprising an upstream end connected to and a free downstream end located at and delimiting a main outlet, said downstream portion comprising at least two stationary flaps arranged one behind the other from upstream to downstream and configured to delimit between them at least one additional outlet as taught by Weiner to be connected to said central portion and the channels with the support wall of Newman in order to selectively direct the airflow since by doing so either maximize or minimizing cooling as needed.
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (134)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (132)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (downstream portion)][AltContent: textbox (outlet)][AltContent: textbox (outlet)][AltContent: textbox ()][AltContent: textbox ()][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (free downstream end)][AltContent: textbox (upstream end)]
PNG
media_image2.png
200
516
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: Newman as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein a number of flaps is between two and five (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Weiner to include a number of flaps is between two and five in order to enhance directing the airflow, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a known device involves only routine skill in the art Duplication of parts: MPEP 2144.04 VI-B).
Claim 3: Newman as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein each of said flaps (Weiner 132/134) extends in a plane inclined at a predetermined angle (Weiner flaps inclined at an angle; see FIG.4) with respect to said support wall (Newman annotated FIG.4).
Claim 4: Newman as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the predetermined angles of said flaps (Weiner 134) (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Weiner to include multiple angled flaps in order to enhance directing the airflow, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a known device involves only routine skill in the art Duplication of parts: MPEP 2144.04 VI-B) decreases from said central portion to said main outlet (Weiner to clarify, angle of flap is decreasing towards the outlet; see annotated FIG.5C).
Further, Weiner as modified lacks a value of the predetermined angle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Weiner to include a value of the predetermined angle in order to control directing the airflow, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Please note that in the instant application, the applicant does not disclose any criticality for the claimed limitations - Optimum value: MPEP 2144.05 II-B.
Claim 5: Newman as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 3, wherein a value of each of said angles of the flaps (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Weiner to include multiple angled flaps in order to enhance directing the airflow, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a known device involves only routine skill in the art Duplication of parts: MPEP 2144.04 VI-B) is between 0°and 45° (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Weiner to include a value of each of said angles of the flaps is between 0°and 45° in order to control directing the airflow, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Please note that in the instant application, the applicant does not disclose any criticality for the claimed limitations - Optimum value: MPEP 2144.05 II-B).
Claim 6: Newman as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the or each additional outlet (Weiner additional outlet is formed at where the airflow is affected by flap 134 and other outlet is formed a distance above the flap 134 where the airflow is not affected by flap 134 exiting at zero angle) is defined by a height (Weiner an arbitrary height of outlet) whose value is less than or equal (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Newman to include a height is less than or equal to second distance in order to control directing the airflow, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Please note that in the instant application, the applicant does not disclose any criticality for the claimed limitations - Optimum value: MPEP 2144.05 II-B) to said second distance (Newman annotated FIG.4).
Claim 7: Newman as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 6, wherein the or each height (Weiner an arbitrary height of outlet) and the second distance (Newman annotated FIG.4) each represents between 5% and 60% of said first distance (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Newman to include represents between 5% and 60% of said first distance in order to control directing the airflow, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Please note that in the instant application, the applicant does not disclose any criticality for the claimed limitations - Optimum value: MPEP 2144.05 II-B).
Claim 8: Newman as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein each of said flaps (Weiner 132/134) is connected to said support wall (Newman annotated FIG.4) by at least a portion of said fins (Newman 52) and/or by a support element rising between the support wall and the flaps.
Claim 10: Newman as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, an aircraft turbomachine (preamble/intended use) comprising at least one heat exchanger (80).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to all the claims under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument on pages 7-8: “Newman does not disclose the following feature of claim 1: fins located in said channels and extending parallel to each other and to said first flow direction, said fins being configured to be swept by said first air flow, said panel comprising: a downstream portion having an orientation inclined with respect to said support wall, said downstream portion comprising an upstream end connected to said central portion and a free downstream end located at a second distance from the support wall and delimiting a main outlet of the channels with the support wall, said second distance being less than said first distance, said downstream portion comprising at least two stationary flaps arranged one behind the other from upstream to downstream and configured to delimit between them at least one additional outlet from said channels. There are no fins located inside each channel. Newman is silent concerning the configuration of the panel with a downstream inclined portion”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because Newman discloses fins (52 defines channel 54 see paragraph [23] and figure 3) as indicated in the office action above. To clarify, as disclosed in paragraph [23] and figure 3, fins 52 area within the channels 54. Further, Newman is only modified by Weiner to teach a downstream portion having an orientation inclined (as shown in annotated FIG.5C, it is inclined; to clarify, as shown in FIG.5C the guide vane 114 is oriented by an angle therefore inclined and as the result of that the flow through the downstream portion is also angled or inclined), and said downstream portion (annotated FIG.5C) comprising at least two stationary flaps arranged one behind the other from upstream to downstream (paragraph [25]: flap 134 at outlet side of the cooler, in addition to flap 132 at inlet side of the cooler, to clarify, as shown in FIG.5C there is flap 134 from upstream to downstream). As indicated in the office action above Weiner teaches flaps in order to direct the airflow since by doing so either maximize or minimizing cooling as needed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 KAMRAN TAVAKOLDAVANI whose telephone number is (313)446-6612. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Len Tran can be reached on (571) 272-1184. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAMRAN TAVAKOLDAVANI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights