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 .
Status of the Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the reply dated 4/15/2026 are as follows:
Claims 1, 3-5, and 15 are amended,
Claim 2 is canceled,
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn,
Claims 1 and 2-15 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (PCT Publication WO88/01722, previously cited) in view of Han et al. (Chinese Patent Publication CN106370043A, “Han”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Fischer discloses a heat exchanger (fig 8a,8b embodiment), comprising a plurality of working fluid channel sheets stacked along an O-Z direction (stacking direction), wherein a working fluid channel sheet comprise an inlet (see annotated fig 8b below), an outlet (see annotated fig 8b below) and a heat exchange region (see annotated fig 8b below) located between the inlet and the outlet; the heat exchange region is provided with a plurality of structures (12a-d, 16, 17, 18); center points of the microstructures on the adjacent working fluid channel sheets (fig 8a and fig 8b) are aligned along an O-XY direction (see annotated fig 8b below); and the structures on the adjacent working fluid channel sheets (fig 8a) have different shapes;
wherein the working fluid channel sheets comprise a plurality of first working fluid channel sheets (8a) and a plurality of second working fluid channel sheets (8b) alternately stacked (see fig 1), and the structures comprise first structures disposed on the first working fluid channel sheets and second structures disposed on the second working fluid channel sheets, and the recesses comprise first recesses (between the structures) on the other side of the first structure and second recesses on the other side of the second structure;
wherein the first microstructure comprises two first edge portions separately exceeding two ends of the second structure along an O-Y direction, and the second microstructure comprises two second edge portions separately exceeding two ends of the first structure along an O-X direction;
when the two adjacent working fluid channel sheets are stacked, the first edge portion is attached to a periphery of the second recess to serve as a supporting point or a bonding point, and the second edge portion is attached to a periphery of the first recess to serve as a bonding point (as the plates must be bonded at the edges).
However, Fischer does not explicitly disclose microstructures. Han, however, discloses a heat exchanger wherein a heat exchange region is provided with a plurality of microstructures (3, fig 1). Fischer teaches that microstructure heat exchangers provide small size and light weight (page 1, lines 19-25). It would have been obvious for Han to have the structures be microstructures in order to reduce the size and weight of the heat exchanger.
The limitations of the microstructures being formed by stamping is considered a product-by-process limitation. In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
PNG
media_image1.png
450
982
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Fischer and Han discloses all previous claim limitations. Fischer further discloses wherein projections (of 12a-d, 16, 17, 18) of the first edge portion and a second edge portion in the O-XY direction (see annotated fig 2 below) along the O-Z direction (stacking direction) do not overlap.
PNG
media_image2.png
443
783
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Fischer and Han discloses all previous claim limitations. Fischer, as modified, further discloses wherein taking a projection of the center point of the first microstructure (12a-d, see rejection of claim 1 wherein Li teaches microstructures m) in the O-XY direction (see annotated fig 8b below) along the O-Z direction (stacking direction) as a center of circle (see annotated fig 8b below), the projections (of 12a-d, 16, 17, 18) of the first edge portion (see annotated fig 8b below) and the second edge portion (see annotated fig 8b below) are disposed at intervals along a circumferential direction of the center of circle.
PNG
media_image3.png
443
783
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Fischer and Han discloses all previous claim limitations. Fischer, as modified, further discloses a length of the first microstructure along the O-Y direction is greater than a length along the 0-X direction (see annotate fig 8a below), a length of the second microstructure along the 0-Y direction is smaller than or equal to a length along the O-X direction (see annotated fig 8b below), the length of the first microstructure along the O-Y direction is greater than the length of the second microstructure along the O-Y direction (see annotated fig 8b below), and the length of the first microstructure along the 0-X direction is smaller than the length of the second microstructure along the 0-X direction (see annotated fig 8b below).
PNG
media_image4.png
884
982
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Fischer and Han discloses all previous claim limitations. Fischer, as modified, further discloses wherein the first microstructure (12a-d) is gourd-shaped (see annotated fig 8b below), and the second microstructure (16, 17, 18) circular (see annotated fig 1 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
443
783
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
271
420
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Fischer and Han discloses all previous claim limitations. Fischer, as modified, further discloses wherein both ends (see annotated fig 8b below) of the first microstructure (12a-d) along the O-Y direction (see annotated fig 8b below) exceed the second microstructure (16, 17, 18), and both ends (see annotated fig 8b below) of the second microstructure along the O-X direction (see annotated fig 8b below) exceed the first microstructure.
PNG
media_image7.png
443
783
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Fischer and Han discloses all previous claim limitations. Fischer, as modified, further discloses heat exchange region comprises a turbulent region (see annotated fig 8b below) and transition regions (see annotated fig 8b below) located on two sides of the turbulent region along a direction from a side where the inlet is located to a side where the outlet is located, a density of the microstructures (12a-d) disposed in the turbulent region is greater than a density of the microstructures disposed in the transition region;
the plurality of microstructures are arranged at intervals along a plurality of sine curves (see annotated fig 8b below), and the plurality of sine curves are arranged at intervals from the side where the inlet (see annotated fig 8b below) is located to the side where the outlet (see annotated fig 8b below) is located; and a number of the sine curves located in the turbulent region is not greater than 3 (as there is only 1).
PNG
media_image8.png
443
783
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Fischer and Han discloses all previous claim limitations. Fischer, as modified, further discloses wherein a pitch (see annotated fig 8b below) between every two adjacent sine curves in the transition region is greater than a pitch between every two adjacent sine curves in the turbulent region (see annotated fig 8b below).
PNG
media_image9.png
443
783
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Fischer and Han discloses all previous claim limitations. Fischer, as modified, further discloses wherein the working fluid channel sheets comprise a plurality of first working fluid channel sheets (1) and a plurality of second working fluid channel sheets (2) stacked alternately along the O-Z direction (stacking direction); the first working fluid channel sheets each comprise a first inlet (see annotated fig 8a below), a first outlet and a first heat exchange region located between the first inlet and the first outlet, the first heat exchange region is provided with a plurality of first microstructures (12a-d); and the second working fluid channel sheets each comprise a second inlet (see annotated fig 8a below), a second outlet (see annotated fig 8a below) and a second heat exchange region (see annotated fig 8a below) located between the second inlet and the second outlet, the second heat exchange region is provided with a plurality of second microstructures; and wherein a side of the first microstructure facing the first inlet and a side of the second microstructure facing the second inlet have different shapes (see annotated fig 8a below).
PNG
media_image10.png
335
738
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Fischer and Han discloses all previous claim limitations. Fischer, as modified, further discloses wherein the side of the first microstructure (12a-d) facing the first inlet is arc-shaped (see fig 1), and the side of the second microstructure (16, 17, 18) facing the second inlet is pointed (see annotated fig 8a above).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Fischer and Han discloses all previous claim limitations. Fischer, as modified, further discloses wherein the heat exchanger further comprises a first inflow chamber (formed by the first inlets, see annotated fig 8a above) communicating with a plurality of first inlets, and the heat exchanger further comprises a second inflow chamber (formed by the second inlets, see annotated fig 8a above) communicating with a plurality of second inlets.
However, Fischer does not explicitly disclose and a first inflow tube or a first inflow tube joint communicating with the first inflow chamber, an extending direction of the first inflow tube or the first inflow tube joint intersects with an arrangement direction of the first inlets and the first heat exchange regions; and a second inflow tube or a second inflow tube joint communicating with the second inflow chamber, an extending direction of the second inflow tube or the second inflow tube is the same as an arrangement direction of the second inlets and the second heat exchange regions. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that inflow tubes are old and well known in the art of heat exchangers and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Fischer to provide inflows pipes in order to allow for circulation of the fluids.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 10) that Fischer the waveform patterns (Wellen muster) of adjacent plates are identical groove structures, stacked solely through end support. Fischer does not disclose the combined design of "microstructures of different shapes + center point alignment + edge protrusion"; the support method involves contact at the wave crest ends, without the technical feature of "edge protrusion forming a bonding surface.". The Examiner respectfully disagrees; the waveform patterns of Fischer are inverted so the at they do not match as shown in figure 8b, further the edge portions of the plates are bonded as required by the claims.
Applicant argues (page 10) that Han discloses a heat exchanger where a heat exchange region is provided with a plurality of microstructures. However, the flow channels are straight channels + elliptical channels formed by etching, with the channels themselves being through structures, lacking the design of "stamped microstructures + different microstructures on adjacent plates," and rely on a chemical etching process, which is entirely different from the stamping process of the present case. However, Han is only required to teach providing microstructures in order to reduce the weight of the heat exchanger.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY E ARANT whose telephone number is (571)272-1105. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6 ET.
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, Jianying Atkisson 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.
/HARRY E ARANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights