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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/22/26 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonnell (U.S. PGPub 2019/0063849) in view of Lamich et al. (U.S. PGPub 2004/0069468) and Charlet (U.S. Patent 3,960,210).
Regarding claim 1, McDonnell teaches a heat exchanger (element 10), comprising: a bundle of elongated tubes (element 16) comprising open ends (inlet and outlet shown in fig. 2 with flow arrows) for a first fluid (para. 0016); (see objection above for following section) a pair of manifolds (elements 12 and 14) wherein one manifold is located on each of the opposite sides of the open ends of the elongated tubes (per fig. 1-3); a housing (element 18) configured to form a conduit for a second fluid (para. 0016) and at least partially encapsulating the elongated tubes (para. 0016 and fig. 1-3),wherein the housing comprises an inner surface facing the elongated tubes (inner side element 28), at least one connection point (any point where element 50 (not 26) meets element 30 on either side see fig. 3) formed by two portions of the housing that are perpendicular to each other (elements 30); one of the portions comprises a bent end section (element 26) forming the connection point by parallel arrangement with the other portion (see fig. 3).
McDonnell does not teach at least one sealing portion located at least within the housing, so that the sealing portion overlaps at least a portion of the at least one connection point formed by the two portions of the housing that are periocular to each other and adjacent to at least one manifold, wherein the sealing portion is brazed to the at least one connection point at an inner surface of the housing.
Lamich teaches a heat exchanger (fig. 1-2) further comprises at least one sealing portion (elements 30,32, 34, 36; note that this does not fall under 112f as sealing of gaps is well understood by one skilled in the art) located at least within the housing (per fig. 1 & 2) and overlapping at least a portion of the at least one connection point (per fig. 1 & 2, where elements 60 and 46 meet) formed by the two portions of the housing that are periocular to each other and adjacent to at least one manifold (elements 40). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify McDonnell to include the sealing portion of Lamich as taught inside the housing at the claimed location and as Lamich teaches it wraps around the circumference of the header connection it would overlaps at least portion of the connection point adjacent to at least one manifold as taught by McDonald, the motivation would be to reinforce the corners.
Lamich does not teach the sealing portion is brazed to the at least one connection point at an inner surface of the housing (it does teach it being soldered). Charlet teaches brazing flanges (sealing portions=flanges; Col. 3, ln 14-20). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify McDonnell and Lamich to include braze the flanges as claimed, the motivation would be to increase the mechanical strength (Col. 3, ln 14-20).
Regarding claim 5, McDonnell teaches the housing is formed by a base portion (element 24) and a cover plate (element 26), wherein the cover plate with base portion forms two connection points (any point along edges where element 26 connects to element 24).
Regarding claim 6, McDonnell teaches the base portion is substantially (understood to be greater than 50%) U-shaped (per fig. 3), and the cover plate is substantially flat, wherein the cover plate comprises bent end sections for arranging the connection points (per fig. 2-3, note the 112b above and the assumed intended meaning reads on this structure.).
Regarding claim 11, Lamich further teaches the sealing portion is formed by an elongated ring portion (per fig. 1 & 2). This would be incorporated for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonnell (U.S. PGPub 2019/0063849) in view of Lamich et al. (U.S. PGPub 2004/0069468) and Charlet (U.S. Patent 3,960,210), and in further view of Beetz et al. (U.S. PGPub 2008/0053644).
Regarding claim 2, McDonnell teaches the manifold comprises at least one header (element 19) comprising open ends (per fig. fig. 2 & 4) to receive the elongated tubes (as shown in fig. 2 & 4 the tube opening are fed from the headers, note the term “receive” is extremely broad and read on by this structure).
McDonnell does not teach the header is encapsulated by the housing. Beetz further teaches the header is encapsulated by the housing (per fig 2 & 4). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify McDonnell to include the header as taught by Beetz of being inside the housing, the motivation would be to seal between flow channels with the sealing member (para. 0025).
Claim(s) 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonnell (U.S. PGPub 2019/0063849) in view of Lamich et al. (U.S. PGPub 2004/0069468) and Charlet (U.S. Patent 3,960,210), and in further view of Dieguez Fortes et al. (U.S. PGPub 2017/0336147) and Shinhama et al. (U.S. PGPub 2010/0025028).
Regarding claim 7, McDonnell does not teach the cover plate comprises at least one separator configured to form a path for the second fluid within the housing, wherein the cover plate further comprises a separator receiver configured to fix the separator perpendicularly to the cover plate.
Dieguez Fortes teaches the heat exchanger includes at least one separator (element 6.5) configured to form a path for the second fluid within the housing (per fig. 20). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify McDonnel to include the separator of Dieguez Fortes between the cover plate and the base portion which aligns with the tubes shown, the motivation would be to maximize the heat transfer distance/time.
McDonnell and Dieguez do not teach the cover plate further comprises a separator receiver configured to fix the separator perpendicularly to the cover plate. Shinhama teaches that a separator (elements D1-D4) is held in place with a separator receiver (element 8a)configured to fix the separator perpendicularly to the cover plate (element 8). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify McDonnel and Dieguez Fortes to include the support system of Shinhama, the motivation would be to easy positioning and securing (para. 0133).
Regarding claim 8, Shinhama further teaches the housing comprises a depletion (7e) configured to receive the free end of the separator in the base portion (element 7). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify McDonnel and Dieguez Fortes to include the support system of Shinhama, the motivation would be to easy positioning and securing (para. 0133).
Regarding claim 9, Dieguez Fortes further teaches the separator comprises a recessed section (6.5.1) configured to form fluid communication between the two-sections of fluid flow within the housing (per fig. 20). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify McDonnel to include the separator of Dieguez Fortes between the cover plate and the base portion which aligns with the tubes shown, the motivation would be to maximize the heat transfer distance/time.
Claim(s) 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonnell (U.S. PGPub 2019/0063849) in view of Lamich et al. (U.S. PGPub 2004/0069468) and Charlet (U.S. Patent 3,960,210), and in further view of Schmidt et al. (U.S. PGPub 2010/0025023).
Regarding claim 12, McDonnell and Lamich and Charlet do not teach the sealing portion further comprises a spacer plate protruding therefrom, wherein the spacer plate is located in-between the manifold and the housing.
Schmidt teaches the sealing portion (elements 25 and 39) further comprises a spacer plate (element 39) protruding therefrom (per fig. 2C & D), wherein the spacer plate is located in-between the manifold (element 27) and the housing (element 29). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify McDonnel to further include the spacer plate of Schmidt, the motivation would be better sealing (para. 0025).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amendments overcoming the drawing objections and 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections and 112b rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejections (103) of the claims 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.
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 JOEL M ATTEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8-5 and Friday 8-10 and 2-4.
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 be reached on (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.
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights