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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 11/25/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no undue burden on the examiner to consider all claims in the single application. This is not found persuasive because the restriction requirement has concluded that the groups of inventions lack a single general inventive concept and lack unity. Thus, an undue burden on is placed on the examiner when all claims are considered.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/25/2025.
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, 5-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slaasted (US Patent No. 3,017,161) in view of Middendorf (WO 01/25710 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Slaasted discloses a heat exchanger (Figs. 1-3), comprising:
a plurality of microstructure sheets (sheets 12, Fig. 3. Note that “microstructure” does not specify a distinct structure of the sheets and the BRI of the claimed element is directed to the structure of the sheets itself), each of the microstructure sheets comprising a heat exchange region (region of the tube 10 with fins 11 and 15) with a microstructure (the fins 11 and 15. Similarly, the “micro” in “microstructure” is does not specify a distinct structure so that “microstructure” is understood as a structure or the fins 11 and 15 of Slaasted), and an edge region with an inlet region (opening 13 on left side of Fig. 2) and an outlet region (opening 13 on right side of Fig. 2), and the microstructure comprising a plurality of hollow protrusions; and
a plurality of gaskets for microstructure sheets (plurality of spacers 14 between each sheet 12), each of the gaskets for microstructure sheets having an inlet port (arc 21 on left side of Fig. 2) and an outlet port (arc 21 on left side of Fig. 2) corresponding to the inlet region and outlet region respectively (both openings 13 and arcs 21 on the same side corresponds to each other), wherein the plurality of gaskets for microstructure sheets are alternately stacked with the plurality of gaskets for microstructure sheets (sheets 12 and spacers 14 are alternatively stacked, see Fig. 3).
Slaasted fails to disclose the microstructure comprising a plurality of hollow protrusions.
Middendorf discloses the microstructure comprising a plurality of hollow protrusions (dimples 3, see Figs. 1-3, provided on plates 1). The dimples stagger and the plates are hold at the desired distance, see Fig. 2 and page 1, lines 30-37.
It is noted that the fins 11 and 15 on sheets 12 of Slaasted and dimples 3 on plates 1 of Middendorf are known element of fin structure and their function is known for increasing heat transfer area, heat exchange efficiency and define a plate distance between adjacent plates. Therefore, the fins 11 and 15 of Slaasted may be replaced It has been held that a "simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” is obvious. In this instance the prior art provides for the known element fin structure. It is known in the art to substitute the fins 11 and 15 of Slaasted for dimples 3 of Middendorf. The result of the substitution would have been predictable to increase heat transfer area and heat exchange efficiency. MPEP 2143 B
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the microstructure comprising a plurality of hollow protrusions in Slaasted as taught by Middendorf through simple substitution.
Regarding claim 5, Slaasted in claim 1 further discloses wherein two adjacent rows of protrusions on each of the microstructure sheets are misaligned (a row of dimples on the same plate staggers with a row of dimples on another adjacent plate in the modification, see Fig. 2 of Middendorf. Thus, the two adjacent rows of protrusions on each of the microstructure sheets are misaligned).
Regarding claim 6, Slaasted in claim 1 further discloses wherein the protrusions on two adjacent microstructure sheets are eccentrically arranged (the dimples on two adjacent plates are not on the same center or eccentrically arranged, see Fig. 2 of Middendorf).
Regarding claim 7, Slaasted in claim 1 further discloses wherein an eccentric distance of the protrusions on two adjacent microstructure sheets (a horizontal distance between a center of a dimple on a plate and a center of an adjacent dimple on an adjacent plate) is between 1/3 and 2/3 of a diameter of each of the protrusions (the horizontal distance is roughly 1/2 of a diameter of each dimple, see Fig. 2 of Middendorf).
Regarding claim 8, Slaasted in claim 1 further discloses wherein a thickness of each of the gaskets for microstructure sheets is consistent with a height of the microstructure (the thickness of spacers 14 and the thickness of the modified dimples in the tube 10 are the same).
Regarding claim 10, Slaasted in claim 1 further discloses wherein each of the microstructure sheets and each of the gaskets for microstructure sheets form a working fluid channel sheet (the tube 10 with sheets 12 and gasket 14 between the two sheets 12 form a tube 10); the heat exchanger comprises a plurality of working fluid channel sheets stacked in a first direction (a plurality of the tubes 10 stacked in a horizontal direction of Fig. 3), and working fluid channels formed between two adjacent working fluid channel sheets (channels between each tube 10 having fins 11 before the modification); two adjacent working fluid channel sheets (two adjacent tubes 10) forming the working fluid channel (the channel between the two adjacent tubes 10) are each provided with a first end portion (left side of the two adjacent tubes 10, according to the orientation in Fig. 2) and a second end portion (right side of the two adjacent of the tubes 10, according to the orientation in Fig. 2) encircled to form an inlet of the working fluid channel (the left side and right side are ends of the channel between the two adjacent tubes 10 the encircles or surrounds the channel between the tubes 10 to form an inlet on top side or bottom side of the tubes 10 in Fig. 2); and at least a portion of the first end portion and at least a portion of the second end portion are misaligned along an extension direction of the working fluid channel (the left side and right side are not on the same side of the tubes 10 so that they are misaligned an entire extension direction of the working fluid channel).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slaasted (US Patent No. 3,017,161) in view of Middendorf (WO 01/25710 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Valenzuela (US Patent No. 6,170,568).
Regarding claim 2, Slaasted in claim 1 further discloses wherein each of the microstructure sheets comprises a microchannel located between adjacent protrusions (channel between the dimples 3 modified by Middendorf).
Slaasted fails to disclose a ratio of a width of the microchannel to a thickness of each of the microstructure sheets is not greater than 3.
The claimed width of the microchannel and thickness of each of the microstructure sheets are result effective. Valenzuela discloses that the thickness of plates 30 and 32, number and spacing of dimples 50 and 52 to be used to determine the pressure of the fluids to be transported in passages 24 and 26 needs to be addressed (col. 6, lines 11-29). Further, the number of dimples 50 and 52 is selected primarily as a function of the fluid pressures in passages 24 and 26, with more dimples being required as pressures increase (col. 5, lines 61-67). Therefore, the width of the microchannel, which is the spacing between adjacent dimples, effectively results a change in the pressure rating/resistance of the heat exchanger. Further, the thickness of plates 30 and 32 also effectively results a change in the pressure resistance of the heat exchanger and the thickness of a channel flow area. Although Valenzuela is silent to the claimed ratio, one of ordinary skill in the art would perform routine optimization of the dimple spacing and the thickness of the heat exchange plates in order to obtain the ratio not greater than 3 for the required pressure rating of the heat exchanger based on the teaching of Valenzuela. Therefore, the claimed ratio, which is dependent from a width of the microchannel to a thickness of each of the microstructure sheets, is not novel through routine optimization of the dimple spacing (in modified Slaasted in view of Middendorf) and the thickness of the plate 12 (in Slaasted).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a ratio of a width of the microchannel to a thickness of each of the microstructure sheets is not greater than 3 in Slaasted as taught by Valenzuela through routine optimization.
Regarding claim 3, Slaasted in claim 1 fails to disclose wherein a height of each of the protrusions is not greater than a thickness of each of the microstructure sheets, and/or a diameter of each of the protrusions is not greater than 0.7 mm (“and/or” is understood as one of the conjunctions “and” and “or”).
The claimed diameter of each of the protrusions is result effective. Valenzuela further discloses the diameter of dimples 50 and 52 is selected as a function of fluid pressures, fluid properties, materials characteristics and other application and design parameters of heat exchanger 20, and the diameter of dimples 50 and 52 may be 0.5mm (col. 4, lines 61-67). Therefore, the diameter of dimples effectively varies fluid pressures and fluid properties in the fluid channel. One of ordinary skill in the art would perform routine optimization of the dimple diameter not greater than 0.7 mm as claimed or 0.5mm as disclosed in Valenzuela for optimum fluid pressures and fluid properties in the fluid channel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a height of each of the protrusions is not greater than a thickness of each of the microstructure sheets, and/or a diameter of each of the protrusions is not greater than 0.7 mm in Slaasted as taught by Valenzuela through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 4, Slaasted in claim 1 fails to disclose wherein a center distance between two adjacent protrusions is between 0.5 mm and 2.5 mm.
The center distance between two adjacent protrusions as claimed may be the spacing of dimples in Slaasted in view of Middendorf and result effective. Similar to claim 2 above, Valenzuela discloses the spacing of dimples 50 and 52 to be used to determine the pressure of the fluids to be transported in passages 24 and 26 needs to be addressed (col. 6, lines 11-29). Further, the number of dimples 50 and 52 is selected primarily as a function of the fluid pressures in passages 24 and 26, with more dimples being required as pressures increase, and ranges from 2mm-6mm (col. 5, lines 61-67). Therefore, the spacing of dimples effectively varies fluid pressures and pressure rating in the fluid channel. One of ordinary skill in the art would perform routine optimization of the dimples spacing between 0.5 mm and 2.5 mm as claimed for optimum fluid pressures and fluid properties in the fluid channel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein a center distance between two adjacent protrusions is between 0.5 mm and 2.5 mm in Slaasted as taught by Valenzuela through routine experimentation.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slaasted (US Patent No. 3,017,161) in view of Middendorf (WO 01/25710 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Itabashi (WO 2013/111693 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Slaasted in claim 1 fails to disclose wherein a width of each of the gaskets for microstructure sheets is between 2.5 mm and 5 mm.
The width of each of the gaskets for microstructure sheets in Slaasted is result effective. Based on the structure of the spacer 14 in Slaasted and a flat bar 133 on an edge of the plates 131 in Fig. 6C of Itabashi, increasing the Width (Wf in Itabashi) results an increased bonding area of the spacer to the plate and decreased channel cross-sectional area between the heat exchange plates, while decreasing the Width results a decreased bonding area of the spacer to the plate and increased channel cross-sectional area between the heat exchange plates. One of ordinary skill in the art would perform routine optimization of a width of each of the gaskets for microstructure sheets is between 2.5 mm and 5 mm as claimed in order to obtain required or balanced bonding strength of the gasket to the plate/channel cross-sectional area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein a width of each of the gaskets for microstructure sheets is between 2.5 mm and 5 mm in Slaasted in view of Itabashi through routine optimization.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FOR K LING whose telephone number is (571)272-8752. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 am to 5 pm.
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.
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/F.K.L/Examiner, Art Unit 3763