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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12-14 and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “a transitional section at an interface between the first portion and the second portion” in is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned how the transitional section is implemented as Claim 1 previously states “the first portion extending from the first end to the second portion“. Therefore, if the first portion extends from the first end to the second portion, the first portion includes the subsequently claimed transitional section? For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “a transitional section at an interface between the first portion and the second portion” will be interpreted as – a transitional section existing along the pin fin--. Further clarification is required
Regarding Claim 16, “where a claim directed to a device can be read to include the same element twice, the claim may be indefinite.” Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See MPEP 2173.05(o). In this case, Claim 16 includes “a first pin and a second pin” in ll. 7, wherein it is unclear if the aforementioned limitations are a separate first and second pin fin when compared to the first and second pin fins of ll. 3. Claim 16 includes “a first pin” multiple times within the claim creating ambiguity if these pins are the same or two different first pins.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer et al. (Translation of DE102011089886A1) in view of Zhang et al. (Translation of CN115297671A) and in further view of Richerson et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0156264A1), hereinafter referred to as Meyer, Zhang and Richerson, respectively.
[AltContent: textbox (Second Portion)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First Portion)][AltContent: textbox (Transitional Section)]
PNG
media_image1.png
220
274
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Richerson Figure 7
Regarding Claim 1, Meyer discloses a heat sink comprising:
a substrate (110); and
a plurality of pin fins (122, shown in figure 3) the plurality of pin fins including a first pin (shown in figure 1 being the top left structural element (122)) and a second pin (shown in figure 1 being the structural element (122) adjacent the first pin), the first pin and the second pin having at least one different geometric characteristic (shown in figure 3, wherein the geometric characteristic is the cross sectional area of the structural element (122)),
the first pin (shown in figure 1 being the top left structural element (122)) comprising (i) a first end coupled to the substrate (shown in figure 3), (ii) a second end being opposite to the first end (shown in figure 3), (iii) a first portion (122c), and (iv) a second portion (122d),
the first portion extending from the first end to the second portion (shown in figure 3), the first portion of the first pin has a first cross-sectional shape taken along a length of the pin fin (shown in figures 3 and 4A-4E), the second portion of the first pin has a second cross-sectional shape taken along the length of the pin fin (shown in figures 3 and 4A-4E),
the first cross-sectional shape is selected from a predetermined list comprising an ellipse (shown in figure 4D), a circle (shown in figure 3), and an airfoil (shown in figure 4C) and the second cross-sectional shape is selected from the predetermined list (shown in figure 3). Meyer fails to disclose the second cross-sectional shape is selected from the predetermined list and is different from the first cross-sectional shape.
Zhang, also drawn to a heat sink with pin fins, teaches a first cross-sectional shape (20, airfoil) and a second cross-sectional shape (210) is selected from the predetermined list and is different from the first cross-sectional shape (shown in figure 7, “the radiating column 210 is cylindrical structure.. Optionally, the radiating column 210 can be set to other shapes, such as radiating column 210 can be set as triangular prism, quadrangular, elliptic cylinder and any shape, the first column fin 20 of the containing cavity 21 also can be corresponding to the radiating column 210 is set in any shape”). Further, Zhang states, “the circular arc surface can smoothly transition the fluid from front to back, the conical surface is extended to one side of the back flow, it can reduce the vortex beam on the far wall surface, all the are distributed close to the outer wall surface of the cone, increasing the convection area, and increasing the effective number of the near wall vortex beam, the heat exchange strength and heat exchange degree between the fluid and the outer wall surface of the first column fin 20 is higher, so as to enhance heat exchange; In addition, the reduction of the number of the far wall vortex beam also reduces the inner consumption between the fluid, reduces the flow loss, further improves the flow efficiency.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the second cross sectional shape of Meyer being selected from the predetermined list and being different from the first cross-sectional shape, as taught by Zhang, the motivation being reduce the flow resistance/loss and maintain a desired level of thermal transfer along the fin structure, wherein having different fin shapes are known to regulate pressure drop, convection area and the amount of heat exchange.
Meyer fails to disclose the first pin fin comprises a transitional section at an interface between the first portion and the second portion, the transitional section comprises a transitional cross-section that changes shape along the length of the pin fin from the first cross-sectional shape to the second cross-sectional shape.
Richerson, also drawn to pin fins for providing heat exchange (“turbine airfoil cooling features incorporating pins having a hybrid geometry, which provide improved heat transfer and pressure drop, thereby reducing cooling flow requirement”, ¶5), teaches at least one of the first pin fin (30) and the second pin fin (30, shown in figure 3, wherein a plurality of the pins (30) are shown) comprises a transitional section (36, shown in annotated figure 7) at an interface between the first portion (shown in annotated figure 7) and the second portion (shown in annotated figure 7), the transitional section comprises a transitional cross-section that changes shape along the length of the pin fin from the first cross-sectional shape to the second cross-sectional shape (shown in annotated figure 7, “the pin 30 has a morphing region 36 located at the second portion 34 of the pin 30 adjacent to the intermediate plane 46 where the shape of the pin 30 transitions smoothly from a sharp to a rounded shape”, ¶33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Meyer with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Richerson, the motivation being to remove any possible sharp edges for safety, reducing stress concentrations for extending fatigue life or to regulate pressure drop within the flow passage, wherein an abrupt transitional portion that creates a sharp corner also affects the pressure drop of the fluid.
Regarding Claim 3, a modified Meyer further teaches the plurality of pin fins (122, shown in figure 3) are arranged along a longitudinal direction with rows of pin fins such that each row of pin fins is spaced apart from the other rows of pin fins along a lateral direction (122, shown in figure 3), and the rows of pin fins are staggered such that a center of one of the pin fins is adjacent a spacing between adjacent pin fins of an adjacent row in the lateral direction (122, shown in figure 3).
Regarding Claim 4, a modified Meyer further teaches the first portion comprises at least 1% of a height of the pin fin (shown in figure 3).
Regarding Claim 5, a modified Meyer further teaches the airfoil shape (shown in figure 4B of Meyer and figure 7 of Zhang) has a leading side and a trailing side (shown in figure 4B of Meyer and figure 7 of Zhang), the leading side being bigger than the trailing side (shown in figure 4B of Meyer and figure 7 of Zhang).
A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed, regarding “leading” and “trailing”, does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. Please see Section 2114 of the MPEP entitled Functional Language.
Regarding Claim 21, a modified Meyer further teaches a height of the transitional section is between 1-20% of a height of the pin fin.
Regarding Claim 21, a modified Meyer fails to disclose a height of the transitional section is between 1-20% of a height of the pin fin. Richerson does, however, teach a height of the transitional section being a defined percentage of the height of the pin fin, wherein the length of the transition contributes to the amount of pressure drop within the flow path (see figures 7-8 and ¶33 of Richerson). Therefore, the height of the transitional section is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that an increased height of the transition section or rather a smoother transition between pin fin shapes provides the pressure drop being lessened within the flow path, reducing sharp edges and reducing stress concentrations for extending fatigue life, other parameters remaining consistent. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the a pin fin has a transitional section with a height, was disclosed in the prior art by Richerson, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the height of the transitional section being between 1-20% of a height of the pin fin. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Claims 7-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer et al. (Translation of DE102011089886A1) in view of Zhang et al. (Translation of CN115297671A) in view of Richerson et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0156264A1) and in further view of Melzner (US PG Pub. 2017/0167712A1), hereinafter referred to Melzner.
Regarding Claim 7, Meyer discloses a heat sink assembly comprising:
a substrate (110);
a housing (300, shown in figure 1) and the housing containing a fluid (shown in figure 1); and
a plurality of pin fins (122, shown in figure 3) coupled to the substrate (shown in figure 1), the plurality of pin fins including a first pin (shown in figure 1 being the top left structural element (122)) and a second pin (shown in figure 1 being the structural element (122) adjacent the first pin),
each of the pin fins comprising a first end coupled to the substrate comprising a first end coupled to the substrate (shown in figure 3), an opposite second end (shown in figure 3), a first portion (122c), and a second portion (122d),
each of the pin fins are spaced apart at the first end (shown in figure 3), the first portion extending from the first end to the second portion (shown in figure 3), the first portion has a first cross-sectional shape taken along a length of the pin fin (shown in figure 3), the second portion has a second cross-sectional shape taken along the length of the pin fin (shown in figure 3) and the second cross-sectional shape is an airfoil (shown in figure 4C), and the first cross-sectional shape is not an airfoil (shown in figures 2, 4A-4B and 4D-4E). Meyer fails to disclose the second cross-sectional shape is different from the first cross-sectional shape.
Zhang, also drawn to a heat sink with pin fins, teaches a first cross-sectional shape (20, airfoil) and a second cross-sectional shape (210) is different from the first cross-sectional shape (shown in figure 7, “the radiating column 210 is cylindrical structure.. Optionally, the radiating column 210 can be set to other shapes, such as radiating column 210 can be set as triangular prism, quadrangular, elliptic cylinder and any shape, the first column fin 20 of the containing cavity 21 also can be corresponding to the radiating column 210 is set in any shape”.) Further, Zhang states, “the circular arc surface can smoothly transition the fluid from front to back, the conical surface is extended to one side of the back flow, it can reduce the vortex beam on the far wall surface, all the are distributed close to the outer wall surface of the cone, increasing the convection area, and increasing the effective number of the near wall vortex beam, the heat exchange strength and heat exchange degree between the fluid and the outer wall surface of the first column fin 20 is higher, so as to enhance heat exchange; In addition, the reduction of the number of the far wall vortex beam also reduces the inner consumption between the fluid, reduces the flow loss, further improves the flow efficiency.” It is noted that Meyer discloses the claimed shapes being implemented on two portions of a pin fin, wherein Zhang teaches that it is old and well known to have different shapes on two portion of a pin fin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Meyer with the second cross-sectional shape is an airfoil, and the first cross-sectional shape is not an airfoil, as taught by Zhang, the motivation being reduce the flow resistance/loss and maintain a desired level of thermal transfer along the fin structure, wherein having different fin shapes are known to regulate pressure drop, convection area and the amount of heat exchange.
Meyer fails to disclose a housing enclosing the substrate.
Melzner, also drawn to a heat sink with cooling pins and a housing being sealed to a substrate, teaches a housing (40) enclosing the substrate (shown in figure 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Meyer with a housing enclosing the substrate, as taught by Melzner, the motivation being to reduce the need for sealing thereby eliminating components and the associated risk of fluid leaks.
Alternately, since the prior art of Melzner recognizes the equivalency of the housing enclosing the substrate and the housing being sealed to the substrate in the field of cooling electronic components, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the housing being sealed to the substrate of Meyer with the housing enclosing the substrate of Melzner as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent means for delivering fluid to a heat sink that are recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Meyer fails to disclose each of the pin fins includes a transitional section connecting the first and second portions of the respective pin fin that gradually transitions from the non-airfoil cross sectional shape to the airfoil cross-sectional shape along the length of the first pin.
Richerson, also drawn to pin fins for providing heat exchange (“turbine airfoil cooling features incorporating pins having a hybrid geometry, which provide improved heat transfer and pressure drop, thereby reducing cooling flow requirement”, ¶5), teaches each of the pin fins (30) includes a transitional section (36, shown in annotated figure 7) connecting the first (shown in annotated figure 7) and second (shown in annotated figure 7) portions of the respective pin fin that gradually transitions from the first cross sectional shape to the second cross-sectional shape along the length of the first pin (shown in annotated figure 7, “the pin 30 has a morphing region 36 located at the second portion 34 of the pin 30 adjacent to the intermediate plane 46 where the shape of the pin 30 transitions smoothly from a sharp to a rounded shape”, ¶33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Meyer with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Richerson, the motivation being to remove any possible sharp edges for safety, reducing stress concentrations for extending fatigue life or to regulate pressure drop within the flow passage, wherein an abrupt transitional portion that creates a sharp corner also affects the pressure drop of the fluid.
Regarding Claim 8, a modified Meyer further teaches the airfoil comprises a leading side and a trailing side (shown in figure 4B of Meyer and figure 7 of Zhang), the leading side being bigger than the trailing side (shown in figure 4B of Meyer and figure 7 of Zhang).
A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed, regarding “leading” and “trailing”, does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. Please see Section 2114 of the MPEP entitled Functional Language.
Regarding Claim 9, Meyer fails to disclose a pump configured to direct fluid flow through the housing, wherein the leading side of the airfoil is directed upstream of the fluid flow.
Melzner, also drawn to a heat sink with cooling pins, teaches a pump (73) configured to direct fluid flow through the housing (“a coolant pump 73 for producing a circulating stream of coolant”, ¶63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Meyer with a pump configured to direct fluid flow through the housing, as taught by Melzner, the motivation being to increase heat exchange through forced circulation or to regulate the amount of heat transfer produced by the forced flow of working fluid.
Zhang, also drawn to a heat sink with pin fins, teaches the leading side of the airfoil is directed upstream of the fluid flow (shown in figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Meyer with the leading side of the airfoil is directed upstream of the fluid flow, as taught by Zhang, the motivation “because of the reduction of the flow section, the flow rate is increased, the pressure is reduced, and the back half part is increased by the flow section, the pressure is also recovered, at this time, the fluid in the boundary layer overcomes the pressure increase to flow forward, the speed distribution tends to be gentle”.
Regarding Claim 10, a modified Meyer further teaches the first cross-sectional shape is an ellipse (shown in figure 4D of Meyer) or circle (shown in figure 3 of Meyer).
Regarding Claim 12, a modified Meyer further teaches the plurality of pin fins (122, shown in figure 3) are arranged along a longitudinal direction with rows of pin fins such that each row of pin fins is spaced apart from the other rows of pin fins along a lateral direction (122, shown in figure 3), and the rows of pin fins are staggered such that a center of one of the pin fins is adjacent a spacing between adjacent pin fins of an adjacent row in the lateral direction (122, shown in figure 3).
Regarding Claim 13, a modified Meyer further teaches the first portion comprises at least 1% of a height of the pin fin (shown in figure 3 of Meyer and figure 7 of Zhang).
Regarding Claim 14, a modified Meyer further teaches the first portion comprises between 1% and 40% of the height of the pin fin (shown in figure 7 of Zhang).
Regarding Claim 14, Meyer fails to disclose the first portion comprises between 1% and 40% of the height of the pin fin. Meyer does, however, teach that the first portion comprises a defined percentage of the total height of the pin fin. Therefore, the height percentage of the first portion is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that with an increased first height of the pin fin, the weight of the heat exchanger increases, the flow path contacting the first portion increases and the heat exchange capacity through conduction of the larger first portion increases, other parameters remaining consistent. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the heat exchanger has a first and second portion, was disclosed in the prior art by Meyer and Zhang, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the first portion comprising between 1% and 40% of the height of the pin fin. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding Claim 15, a modified Meyer further teaches the different geometric characteristic is a cross-sectional shape of the first pin and the second pin (taught by Zhang in figure 7, as the first and second fin comprises different shapes).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer et al. (Translation of DE102011089886A1) in view of Zhang et al. (Translation of CN115297671A).
Regarding Claim 16, Meyer discloses a heat sink comprising:
a substrate (110); and
a plurality of pin fins (122, shown in figure 3), the plurality of pin fins including a first pin (shown in figure 1 being the top left structural element (122)) and a second pin (shown in figure 1 being the structural element (122) adjacent the first pin),
the first pin and the second pin having at least one different geometric characteristic (shown in figure 3, wherein the geometric characteristic is the cross sectional area of the structural element (122)),
each of the pin fins comprising a first end coupled to the substrate (shown in figure 3), a second end being opposite to the first end (shown in figure 3),
a first portion (122c), and a second portion (122d), the first portion extending from the first end to the second portion (shown in figure 3), the plurality of pin fins includes a first pin (shown in figure 1 being the top left structural element (122)) and a second pin (shown in figure 1 being the structural element (122) adjacent the first pin), the first portion of the first pin is a non-streamlined body (shown in figures 2, 4A-4B and 4D-4E) and the second portion of the first pin is a streamlined body (shown in figure 4C).
Meyer fails to disclose the first pin body having a shape and a second pin body having a different shape.
Zhang, also drawn to a heat sink with pin fins, teaches a first pin body having a shape (20, airfoil) and a second pin body having a different shape (210, shown in figure 7, “the radiating column 210 is cylindrical structure.. Optionally, the radiating column 210 can be set to other shapes, such as radiating column 210 can be set as triangular prism, quadrangular, elliptic cylinder and any shape, the first column fin 20 of the containing cavity 21 also can be corresponding to the radiating column 210 is set in any shape”.) Further, Zhang states, “the circular arc surface can smoothly transition the fluid from front to back, the conical surface is extended to one side of the back flow, it can reduce the vortex beam on the far wall surface, all the are distributed close to the outer wall surface of the cone, increasing the convection area, and increasing the effective number of the near wall vortex beam, the heat exchange strength and heat exchange degree between the fluid and the outer wall surface of the first column fin 20 is higher, so as to enhance heat exchange; In addition, the reduction of the number of the far wall vortex beam also reduces the inner consumption between the fluid, reduces the flow loss, further improves the flow efficiency.” It is noted that Meyer discloses the claimed shapes being implemented on two portions of a pin fin, wherein Zhang teaches that it is old and well known to have different shapes on two portion of a pin fin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Meyer with the first portion of the first pin is a non-streamlined body and the second portion of the first pin is a streamlined body, as taught by Zhang, the motivation being reduce the flow resistance/loss and maintain a desired level of thermal transfer along the fin structure, wherein having different fin shapes are known to regulate pressure drop, convection area and the amount of heat exchange.
Regarding Claim 17, a modified Meyer further teaches the streamlined body is an airfoil (shown in figure 4B of Meyer and figure 7 of Zhang).
Regarding Claim 18, a modified Meyer further teaches the non-streamlined body is an ellipse (shown in figure 4D of Meyer) or circle (shown in figure 3 of Meyer).
Regarding Claim 19, a modified Meyer further teaches the streamlined body (airfoil shown in figure 4B of Meyer and figure 7 of Zhang) is a shape having a drag coefficient below a predetermined threshold value (see functional language below), and the non-streamlined body (shown in figure 4D of Meyer figure 3 of Meyer) is a shape having a drag coefficient equal to or above the predetermined threshold value (see functional language below).
Regarding Claim 20, a modified Meyer further teaches the predetermined threshold value is the drag coefficient of an ellipse (shown in figure 4D of Meyer) measured in a flow direction along a length of the ellipse (see functional language below).
Regarding Claims 19-20, MPEP 2114 II clearly states “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" and a claim having a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Because Claims 19-20 fail to further limit the apparatus in terms of structure, but rather only recite further functional limitations, regarding “a drag coefficient” and “a predetermined threshold value”, the invention as taught by the combined teachings of Meyer and Zhang are deemed fully capable of performing such function. Meyer comprises shapes having a drag coefficients which are capable of having values below a predetermined threshold. Therefore, the claim limitations are met by the combination of the references put forth in this action.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer et al. (Translation of DE102011089886A1) in view of Zhang et al. (Translation of CN115297671A) in view of Richerson et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0156264A1), as applied in Claims 1, 3-5 and 21 above and in further view of Govers (USP1958364A), hereinafter referred to as Govers.
Regarding Claim 22, although a modified Meyers teaches a first cross-sectional shape being an ellipse (shown in figure 4D) or a circle (shown in figure 3), and a second cross-sectional shape being an airfoil (shown in figure 4B of Meyer and figure 7 of Zhang), Meyers fails to disclose the first cross-sectional shape is an ellipse or a circle, and the second cross-sectional shape is an airfoil.
Govers, also drawn to heat transfer with flow resistance considerations, teaches a first cross-sectional shape is a circle (10, shown in figure 1), and a second cross-sectional shape is an airfoil (11).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting the pin fin of Meyer with a first cross-sectional shape and a second cross-sectional shape selected from a circle, elliptical, diamond, airfoil or penguin with a pin fin having a first cross-sectional shape being a circle and a second cross-sectional shape being an airfoil; further the prior art to Govers teaches a heat exchanger component having a first cross-sectional shape being a circle and a second cross-sectional shape being an airfoil is known. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Meyers with having a first cross-sectional shape being a circle and a second cross-sectional shape being an airfoil, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat exchanger device; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Govers there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Meyers by having a first cross-sectional shape being a circle and a second cross-sectional shape being an airfoil for providing “high efficiency of heat transfer and relatively low resistance to the flow” (Pg. 1 ll. 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 7 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.
On page 9 of the Arguments the Applicant states, “These limitations restrict the allowable shapes for the portions to objectively verifiable subsets of geometries. The Specification expressly supports this structural framing and the particular threshold used. (See, e.g., [0013], FIGS. 2A-2B). The Specification further explains the distinct fluid-dynamic behavior of an ellipse versus an airfoil and its implications on heat transfer and pressure drop (see, e.g., [0019]), confirming that the claimed drag-coefficient constraints are tied to concrete structural differences, not mere intended use.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. A drag coefficient is influenced by more than just a shape, wherein surface roughness, fluid properties, angle of attack etc.. also contribute to the overall aerodynamics of the device. The pin fin shapes, as taught by Meyers and Zhang are capable of producing drag coefficients above or below a predetermined threshold value by manipulating the fluid direction, velocity or viscosity, among other characteristics. Further, Meyers and Zhang teach the shapes defined in the specification as being associated with the streamlined and non- streamlined bodies.
On page 10 of the Arguments the Applicant states, “Neither Meyer nor Zhang discloses, measures, or selects fin shapes to satisfy these quantitative constraints. Meyer discusses various cross-section alternatives but never teaches a portion's shape chosen and dimensioned such that its drag coefficient is below (or at/above) a specified threshold tied to an ellipse in the stated measurement orientation…The record contains no measurements, no threshold values, and no articulated reasoning establishing inherency or capability of the prior art structures to meet these specific quantitative constraints.” In response to applicant's argument that the prior art fails to disclose, measure or “selects fin shapes to satisfy these quantitative constraints”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim, wherein there is no structural distinction between the shapes taught by Meyer and Zhang and the claimed shapes.
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 PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0930-1800.
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 at (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 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.
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights