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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). At Page 5 line 5 of the originally filed Specification, Applicant states, “Figure 1 illustrates a flow chart of a conventional method of manufacturing Printed Circuit Heat Exchanges (PCHEs).” Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Swift et al. (US 4,516,632 A).
The claims remain unamended and the text of the rejection remains unchanged. For convenience, the text of the rejections is provided below:
As to claim 1, Swift teaches a method of manufacturing an energy exchanging device (Title: “Microchannel crossflow fluid heat exchanger and method for its fabrication”), the method comprising: defining, a plurality of through slots in a major surface of a plurality of plates by a through cut machining process (slots 14a, 16a are formed in sheets 14 and 16 respectively as shown in Fig 5. The slots are formed by “chemical milling” as described at Col 2 line 37.), wherein, each of the plurality of through slot defines a flow channel (Col 2 lines 37-39: “The slots in the sheets are preferably formed by chemical milling so as to result in fluid flow channels of uniform cross-sectional dimension”); stacking (as shown in Fig 5, various sheets are stacked), the plurality of plates (sheets 14, 16) with at least one blanking member (sheet 12) positioned at both the major surfaces of each of the plurality of plates to form a plurality of fluid flow paths about the plurality of through slots (as shown in Fig 5, the sheets 12 are stacked between pairs of sheets 14, 16. This creates two separate flow paths from slots 14a, 16a); bonding, the at least one blanking member with the major surface of each of the plurality of plates, to form an energy exchanging core (the stack is bonded by brazing as described at Col 3 lines 58-62); and defining, at least two inlet ports (as shown in Fig 4, recesses 18, 18’, 20, and 20’ are ports. See also Col 4 lines 1-6: “The brazed stack of sheets is milled on all four sides to form opposing pairs of rectangular manifold recesses 18 and 18', and 20 and 20', shown in FIGS. 1, 2 and 4. The recesses 18 and 18' open onto the exposed opposite ends of the slots 14a, and the recesses 20 and 20' open onto the ends of slots 16a.” Recesses 18 and 20 may reasonably be interpreted as “inlet ports”) and at least two outlet ports in the energy exchanging core (recesses 18’ and 20’ may reasonably be interpreted as “outlet ports”), for flow of fluid along the plurality of fluid flow paths within the energy exchanging core (Col 4 lines 8-11: “The milled recesses form manifolds by which fluids can be admitted to and received from the channels formed by the slots 14a and 16a.”).
As to claim 3, Swift teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of through slots are defined on the major surface of each of the plurality of plates defining a marginal space at edges of the corresponding plate of the plurality of plates (as shown in Fig 4, any space denoted by 18, 18’, 20, 20’ is considered the claimed “marginal space.”).
As to claim 4, Swift teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the blanking member is at least one of a solid plate and a selective diffusion membrane (Swift teaches the sheet 12 is a solid plate).
As to claim 5, Swift teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of flow channels are defined profile including at least one of a straight profile, zig-zag profile, serpentine profile, non-geometric profile, and S-shaped profile (as shown in Fig 5, the slots 14a, 16a are defined by straight profiles.).
As to claim 6, Swift teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of plates spaced by the at least one blanking member is stacked such that, each plate of the plurality of plates on either side of the at least one blanking member is defined with the plurality of flow channels with at least one predetermined profile including at least one of a straight profile, zig-zag profile, serpentine profile, non-geometric profile and S-shaped profile (as shown in Fig 5, the slots 14a, 16a are defined by straight profiles.).
As to claim 7, Swift teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein stacking of the plurality of plates (as shown in Fig 5) comprises: disposing at least one blanking member to form a base for the energy exchanging core (solid end plate 17); interposing at least one plate of the plurality of plates between the plurality of blanking members (sheet 14 is between two sheets 12), wherein the plurality of plates and the at least one blanking member are progressively and relatively positioned such that, the at least one blanking member on both the major faces of each plate define the plurality of fluid flow path about the plurality of through slots for fluid flow through the energy exchanging core (because the sheet 14 has through slots, the side of the flow channel are defined by the sheet 14, and the top and bottom of the flow channel are defined by the sheets 12.).
As to claim 9, Swift teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein defining the at least two inlet ports and the at least two outlet ports in the energy exchanging core includes machining a portion of the blanking member and the marginal space defined at the opposing ends of the plurality of plates by a material removal process including at least one of a milling, drilling, blanking, waterjet cutting, electrochemical etching, micro milling, and wire electrical discharge machining process (Swift teaches that manifold recesses 18, 18’, 20, 20’ are formed by “milling” and “electrical discharge milling.” See the resulting manifolds as shown in Fig 1.).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swift et al. (US 4,516,632 A) in view of Tonkovich et al. (WO 2012054455 A2).
Claim 2 remains unamended and the text of the rejection remains unchanged. For convenience, the text of the rejections is provided below:
As to claim 2, Swift teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, but does not teach the through cut machining process includes at least one of a laser machining, wire electrical discharge machining, waterjet cutting, electrochemical etching, micro milling, and spark erosion machining.
Rather, Swift teaches “chemical milling” but not specifically “electrochemical etching.” However, through slots used as flow channels in a stacked-sheet energy exchange device were known at the time the invention was effectively filed to be made by a process of electrochemical etching. See Tonkovich page 26 which teaches, “Each of the plates may be fabricated using known techniques including wire electrodischarge machining, conventional machining, laser cutting, photochemical machining, electrochemical machining, stamping, etching (for example, chemical, photochemical or plasma etching) and combinations thereof.” It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have formed the slots of Swift by the electrochemical etching of Tonkovich. Such a person would have understood that chemical milling and electrochemical etching were known analogues which were known to be advantageously swapped to achieve the same results. See MPEP § 2143 B.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swift et al. (US 4,516,632 A) in view of Anikiel (US 2019/0368829 A1).
Claim 2 remains unamended and the text of the rejection remains unchanged. For convenience, the text of the rejections is provided below:
As to claim 8, Swift teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the bonding includes: applying, an adhesive bond between the major surface of the plurality of plates and the at least one blanking member while stacking (Swift teaches brazing the plates together. Thus the braze material (copper) between the plates is considered the claimed “adhesive bond material.”); and heating, the stack of the plurality of plates and the at least one blanking member by a joining process (the braze described at Col 3 lines 58-63 is a joining process by heating). Swift does not teach the braze specifically includes: at least one of a vacuum brazing, diffusion bonding, adhesive bonding, soldering and welding, to form the energy exchanging core.
However, brazing and vacuum brazing were well known to be interchangeable to manufacture stacked plate heat exchanger devices. See Anikiel which teaches a heat exchanger formed of stacked plates. See Fig 4. Anikiel teaches at paragraph [0060]: “the plurality of stacked plates 30 arranged parallel to one another may be joined to each other by brazing, which involves placing filler material, for example copper or nickel, between each plate 30 in the stack, and then vacuum-brazing with copper or nickel.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for a step of vacuum-brazing as described by Anikiel. Such a person would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to avoid oxidative issues of brazing under non-vacuum conditions, thereby improving the resulting product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5, Applicant argues Figure 1 does not need the designation –Prior Art—because “Figure 1 is part of the claimed subject matter and is not prior art.” This is not convincing since at Page 5 line 5 of the originally filed Specification, Applicant has already admitted, “Figure 1 illustrates a flow chart of a conventional method of manufacturing Printed Circuit Heat Exchanges (PCHEs).” Thus even if the elements of Fig. 1 are part of the claimed subject matter, only that which is old is illustrated and the Figure must be designated --Prior Art--.
On Page 6, Applicant argues Swift does not anticipate claim 1 because Swift does not teach or suggest the “through cut machining process.” Applicant agrees Swift teaches “chemical milling” but states the slots formed by chemical milling are “not disclosed to be of through cut as recited in the claimed subject matter.”
Applicant points to the present application’s specification page 22: “the through cut machining process may include at least one of the processes such as, but not limited to, a laser machining, wire electrical discharge machining (wire EDM), and spart erosion machining or any other machining process.”
Applicant argues, “Chemical milling is a subtractive chemical process that removes material through chemical dissolution, which is fundamentally different from the mechanical through cut machining processes recited in claim 1 and enumerated in claim 2.”
In response, Examiner asserts that Swift’s “chemical milling” produces “through cuts” as “slots” in the otherwise unperforated stainless steel sheets, see Col 3 lines 43-45. The slots are useful for conveying fluid therethrough and are therefore not blind holes but are “through” holes. The term “cut” is interpreted reasonably broadly as any perforation of the sheet, met by the term “slot.” The question is thus reduced to whether “chemical milling” is a “machining process.”
Applicant wishes the term “machining process” to be read in light of the Specification as one of “laser machining ... wire EDM ... spark erosion machining” or as introduced in the last paragraph of Remarks page 6 as a “mechanical” process. The claim limitation “through cut machining process” does not invoke 112(f) and reading limitations from the Specification or arguments into the claim is improper. The claim must be interpreted according to the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
It is clear that even Applicant’s machining processes are not limited to purely mechanical machining processes as Applicant’s “machining process” includes examples such as laser machining (thermal energy based machining process), wire EDM (electrothermal machining process), and spark erosion machining (also an electrothermal process). Applicant’s specification also teaches waterjet cutting and micro milling (which are each mechanical machining processes) and electrochemical etching (which is not a mechanical machining process). Thus, even by Applicant’s own admission, the term “machining process” must be broad enough to encompass all of these different processes.
Examiner asserts that “machining process” also includes Swift’s “chemical milling.”
Chemical milling is a “machining process” under Applicant’s definition: “Chemical milling is a subtractive chemical process that removes material through chemical dissolution.” Yet Applicant argues this is “fundamentally different from the mechanical through cut machining recited in claim 1 and enumerated in claim 2.”
In response, Examiner asserts that “material removal through chemical dissolution” is a “machining process” even if it is by a “fundamentally different” mechanism than a mechanical machining process. Operating by a “fundamentally different” mechanism does not preclude being grouped together under the term “machining process.” For example, laser machining and electrochemical etching are machining processes by Applicant’s own admission but which operate by fundamentally different mechanisms.
Examiner’s BRI of “machining process” is the controlled removal of material from a workpiece. Swift’s “chemical milling” by which material removal is controlled by masks, choice of chemical, temperature and time, meets this definition.
Last, according to chapter 7 of the Manufacturing Process Selection Handbook, “Non-traditional Machining Processes” chemical milling is considered a machining process. See Page 217.
On Page 7, Applicant mistakenly asserts that the Office’s admission that Swift does not anticipate claim 2 “undermines the anticipation rejection of claim 1.” Rather, claim 2 is necessarily more narrow than claim 1 from which it depends. Swift anticipates the “machining process” of claim 1 but not the narrower list of machining processes of claim 2.
Applicant’s arguments on page 7 regarding orthogonal or in-line configurations are not commensurate in scope with the claims as no such configurations are claimed.
Applicant’s arguments on page 7 regarding variable slot lengths and dimensions are not commensurate in scope with the claims as no such configurations are claimed.
Applicant’s arguments on page 7 regarding symmetrical sheets are not commensurate in scope with the claims as no such configurations are claimed.
Applicant’s arguments on page 7 regarding variable marginal spaces on the sheets are not commensurate in scope with the claims as no such configurations are claimed.
On pages 8 and 9, Applicant’s arguments against the rejection of claims 2 and 8 are not convincing.
Applicant acknowledges that Tonkovich is relied upon to teach electrochemical etching as a species of the through cut machining process as claimed. However, instead of addressing Tonkovich’s teachings, Applicant merely argues Swift doesn’t teach the machining process of claim 1. This is not convincing since Tonkovich is relied upon to teach a narrower limitation than found in claim 1. That Tonkovich teaches both electrochemical etching and chemical milling is further evidence that chemical milling is in fact a “machining process.”
Similarly, Applicant provides no substantive reasons for how Anikiel does not obviate the limitations of claim 8.
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 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 JACOB JAMES CIGNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5262. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/JACOB J CIGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 13 August 2026
Prosecution Insights