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 § 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 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokozakura et al. (US PG Pub. 2017/0030254A1) in view of Citti et al. (Translation of JP2016090217A), hereinafter referred to as Tokozakura and Citti, respectively.
[AltContent: textbox (Divider)]
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
266
349
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tokozakura Figure 1A
[AltContent: textbox (First Plate)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second Plate)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
232
236
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Citti Figure 2
Regarding Claim 2, Tokozakura discloses a heat exchanger, comprising:
a plurality of first plates (10); and
a plurality of second plates (10) alternatingly arranged with the first plates (“the heat exchanger 1 is a plate-stack type heat exchanger configured by stacking plural plates 10”, (¶31) and “plural plates 10 are stacked so as to form three types of flow passages”, (¶32)), wherein multiple plates are stacked to form the heat exchanger with the even numbered plates being first plates and the odd numbered plates being second plates) to form a first flow path for a first fluid/medium (shown in figure 1A, being the flow path between the first inflow port (111) and the first outflow port (112)), a second flow path for a second fluid/medium (shown in figure 1C, being the flow path between the second inflow port (121) and the second outflow port (122)), and a third flow path for a third fluid/medium (shown in figure 1A, being the flow path between the third inflow port (131) and the third outflow port (132)), wherein
the first fluid/medium is in thermal energy exchange relationship with the second fluid/medium and the third fluid/medium (shown in figure 1B), wherein
at least one divider (shown in annotated figure 1A, wherein the divider is formed by the plates and separates the Eng Oil flow passage from the T/M Oil flow passage) to define a first portion of the heat exchanger (shown in annotated figure 1A, being the left side of the heat exchanger) and a second portion of the heat exchanger (shown in annotated figure 1A, being the right side of the heat exchanger), wherein
three inflow openings and three outflow openings (shown in figures 1A-1B, wherein the plates (10) of the middle section of the heat exchanger contain inlets and outlet for the three working fluids), and wherein
one inflow opening and one outflow opening for the first fluid/medium are diagonally opposite each other and are located on opposite sides of the divider (shown in figure 1A, being the flow path between 111-112),
one inflow opening and one outflow opening for the second fluid/medium are diagonally opposite each other and are located on the same side of the divider (shown in figure 1C, being the flow path between 121-122), and
one inflow opening and one outflow opening for the third fluid/medium are diagonally opposite each other and are located on the same side of the divider (shown in figure 1A, being the flow path between 131-132). Tokozakura fails to disclose at least one of the first and second plates includes at least one divider and at least one of the first and second plates includes three inflow openings.
Citti, also drawn to a stacked plate heat exchanger for multiple fluids teaches, a plurality of first plates (shown in annotated figure 2 above) and a plurality of second plates alternatingly arranged with the first plates (shown in annotated figure 2 above), at least one of the first and second plates includes at least one divider (123, wherein the heat insulation portion (123) is formed on the plate by a protrusion) and at least one of the first and second plates includes three inflow openings (shown in figures 4-5, 16, 31 and 33). It is noted that Tokozakura discloses the stacked plate heat exchanger for three working fluids having a divider but fails to explicitly disclose the structure for said divider. Citti teaches it is old and well known to have a divider being integral to a heat exchanger plate, while the plate has openings for three fluid flows.
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 stacked plates of Tokozakura with at least one of the first and second plates including at least one divider and at least one of the first and second plates including three inflow openings, as taught by Citti, the motivation being to provide additional contact area between the alternating plates with the insulating part, thereby increasing the structural integrity of the heat exchanger assembly and by integrating the insulating portion with the plate the need for additional components is reduced and the assembly is simplified.
Regarding Claim 4, Tokozakura further discloses the second flow path (shown in figure 1C, being the flow path between the second inflow port (121) and the second outflow port (122)) is located entirely in the first portion of the heat exchanger (shown in annotated figure 1A, being the left side of the heat exchanger) and the third flow path (shown in figure 1A, being the flow path between the third inflow port (131) and the third outflow port (132)) is formed entirely in the second portion of the heat exchanger (shown in annotated figure 1A, being the right side of the heat exchanger).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokozakura et al. (US PG Pub. 2017/0030254A1) in view of Citti et al. (Translation of JP2016090217A) as applied in Claims 2 and 4 above in view of Zeng et al. (Translation of CN215864803U), hereinafter referred to as Zeng.
Regarding Claim 6, although Tokozakura discloses the first and second plates being stacked, Tokozakura fails to disclose at least one of the first and second plates includes at least one shaped section surrounding at least one inflow opening.
Zeng, also drawn to a stacked plate heat exchanger for multiple fluids with a divider, teaches at least one of a first and second plate (11, shown in figure 2) includes at least one shaped section (121) surrounding at least one inflow (16) opening (shown in figures 1-2). Zeng states, “the lower layer heat exchange plate 1 of the first hole 121 convex part and located on the upper layer heat exchange plate 1 of the second hole 122 of the edge position, also can be sealing joint and support the heat exchange plate 1 between the space”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide at least one of the first and second plates of Tokozakura with at least one of the first and second plates includes at least one shaped section surrounding at least one inflow opening, as taught by Zeng , the motivation being to provide separated flow paths within the plate pairs with integral means, thereby reducing the need for additional components and ensuring a fluid seal.
Regarding Claim 7, although Tokozakura discloses the first and second plates being stacked, Tokozakura fails to disclose at least one of the first and second plates includes at least one shaped section surrounding at least one outflow opening.
Zeng, also drawn to a stacked plate heat exchanger for multiple fluids with a divider, teaches at least one of a first and second plate (11, shown in figure 2) includes at least one shaped section (121) surrounding at least one outlfow (17) opening (shown in figures 1-2). Zeng states, “the lower layer heat exchange plate 1 of the first hole 121 convex part and located on the upper layer heat exchange plate 1 of the second hole 122 of the edge position, also can be sealing joint and support the heat exchange plate 1 between the space”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide at least one of the first and second plates of Tokozakura with at least one of the first and second plates includes at least one shaped section surrounding at least one outflow opening, as taught by Zeng , the motivation being to provide separated flow paths within the plate pairs with integral means, thereby reducing the need for additional components and ensuring a fluid seal.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokozakura et al. (US PG Pub. 2017/0030254A1) in view of Citti et al. (Translation of JP2016090217A) as applied in Claims 2 and 4 above and in further view of Wand et al. (USP 5462113A), hereinafter referred to as Zeng.
Regarding Claim 8, Tokozakura fails to disclose at least one end plate disposed adjacent at least one of the first and second plates.
Wand, also drawn to a stacked plate heat exchanger for multiple fluids, teaches at least one end plate (12, 14) disposed adjacent at least one of the first and second plates (16, 18, 20, shown in figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Tokozakura with at least one end plate disposed adjacent at least one of the first and second plates, as taught by Wand, the motivation being to provide a thicker wall for mounting the heat exchanger, to increase the structural stability of the heat exchanger or for providing a mounting surface for the inlet/outlet fluid lines.
Regarding Claim 9, Tokozakura fails to disclose the at least one end plate includes at least three inlet ports.
Wand, also drawn to a stacked plate heat exchanger for multiple fluids, teaches the at least one end plate includes at least three inlet ports (shown in figure 1 of Wand).
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 three inlets and three outlets for individual working fluids being positioned on one side of the heat exchanger with three inlets and three outlets for individual working fluids being positioned on different sides of the heat exchanger; further the prior art to Wand teaches it is known to place the inlets and outlet for three working fluids on a single side of a heat exchanger. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Tokozakura with having the inlets and outlet for three working fluids on a single side of a heat exchanger, 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 Wand there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Tokozakura by having the inlets and outlets for three working fluids on a single side of a heat exchanger in order to conform to a preexisting fluid layout or to provide a mounting surface for the heat exchanger without obstructions.
Regarding Claim 10, Tokozakura fails to disclose the at least one end plate includes at least three outlet ports.
Wand, also drawn to a stacked plate heat exchanger for multiple fluids, teaches the at least one end plate includes at least three outlet ports (shown in figure 1 of Wand)
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 three inlets and three outlets for individual working fluids being positioned on one side of the heat exchanger with three inlets and three outlets for individual working fluids being positioned on different sides of the heat exchanger; further the prior art to Wand teaches it is known to place the inlets and outlet for three working fluids on a single side of a heat exchanger. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Tokozakura with having the inlets and outlet for three working fluids on a single side of a heat exchanger, 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 Wand there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Tokozakura by having the inlets and outlets for three working fluids on a single side of a heat exchanger in order to conform to a preexisting fluid layout or to provide a mounting surface for the heat exchanger without obstructions.
Claims 11, 13-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. (Translation of CN215864803U) in view of Evans et al. (US PG Pub. 2003/0201094A1), hereinafter referred to as Zeng and Evans, respectively.
Regarding Claim 11, Zeng discloses a heat exchanger, comprising:
a plurality of first plates (shown in figure 2, being the top most plate); and
a plurality of second plates (shown in figure 2, being the second top most plate) alternatingly arranged with the first plates to form a first flow path (shown in figure 2) for a first fluid/medium (16-17 on the right side plate heat exchange structure), a second flow path for a second fluid/medium (18-19 on the right side plate heat exchange structure), a third flow path for a third fluid/medium (16-17 on the left side plate heat exchange structure), and a fourth flow path for a fourth fluid/medium (18-19 on the left side plate heat exchange structure, shown in figure 2, Zeng states, “The solution makes each layer of heat exchange plate 1 separated by the partition rib 13 a plurality of heat exchange hole unit 12, substantially forming a plurality of heat exchanger, which not only reduces the processing difficulty, and has better integration degree, small weight, small occupied space”), wherein
the first fluid/medium is in thermal energy exchange relationship with the second fluid/medium and the third fluid/medium is in thermal energy exchange relationship with the fourth fluid/medium (“input hot water in the first flow passage 16, the second flow passage 17 output cooling water, the third flow passage 18 input cold water, the fourth flow passage 19 output heating water”, wherein figures 1-2 and 11, shown similar flow paths on both heat exchange hole units (12)), wherein
at least one of the first and second plates (shown in figure 2, being the top most plate and the second top most plate, respectively) includes at least one divider (13) to define a first portion of the heat exchanger (the right side plate heat exchange structure as shown in figure 2) and a second portion of the heat exchanger (the left side plate heat exchange structure, as shown in figure 2), wherein
at least one of the first and second plates (shown in figure 2, being the top most plate and the second top most plate, respectively) includes at least four inflow openings and at least four outflow openings (shown in figure 2), wherein
one inflow opening and one outflow opening for the first fluid/medium are opposite each other and are located on the same side of the divider (16-17 on the right side plate heat exchange structure are laterally opposite one another),
one inflow opening and one outflow opening for the second fluid/medium are opposite each other and are located on the same side of the divider (18-19 on the right side plate heat exchange structure are laterally opposite one another),
one inflow opening and one outflow opening for the third fluid/medium are opposite each other and are located on the same side of the divider (16-17 on the left side plate heat exchange structure are laterally opposite one another), and
one inflow opening and one outflow opening for the fourth fluid/medium are opposite each other and are located on the same side of the divider (18-19 on the left side plate heat exchange structure are laterally opposite one another). Although Zeng discloses the first fluid/medium, second fluid/medium, third fluid/medium and fourth fluid/medium have inflow openings and outflow openings opposite one another forming a U-shaped flow path, Zeng fails to disclose one inflow opening and one outflow opening for the first fluid/medium, second fluid/medium, third fluid/medium and fourth fluid/medium are diagonally opposite each other.
Evans, also drawn to a plate heat exchanger for multiple fluids, teaches one inflow opening (36) and one outflow opening (38) for a fluid/medium, are diagonally opposite (see ¶20) each other (“The locations of the flow openings and bosses could be varied, for example, the flow openings through each plate could be longitudinally positioned relative to each other rather than diagonally located, or could be located side-by-side, separated by a barrier forcing an indirect U-shaped flow path”, ¶37).
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 a u-shaped flow path between an inlet and outlet within a stacked plate heat exchanger with a diagonal flow path between an inlet and outlet within a stacked plate heat exchanger; further the prior art to Evans teaches a diagonal flow path between an inlet and outlet is known for exchanging heat within a stacked plate heat exchanger and is equivalent to a u-shaped flow path. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Zeng with having diagonal flow paths between inlets and outlets, 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 Evans there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Zeng by having diagonal flow paths between inlets and outlets in order to conform to preexisting fluid piping or to reduce pressure loss within the heat exchanger due to a shorter flow path.
Regarding Claim 13, Zeng further discloses at least one of the first flow path (16-17 on the right side plate heat exchange structure) and the second flow path (18-19 on the right side plate heat exchange structure) is located entirely in the first portion of the heat exchanger (shown in figure 2).
Regarding Claim 14, Zeng further discloses at least one of the third flow path (16-17 on the left side plate heat exchange structure) and the fourth flow path (18-19 on the left side plate heat exchange structure) is located entirely in the second portion of the heat exchanger (shown in figure 2, “the partition rib 13 of the invention separates the integrated plate type heat exchanger into a plurality of independent heat exchange area, so it can simultaneously heat the plurality of heat source in the vehicle, substantially forming two plate type heat exchange structure”).
Regarding Claim 16, Zeng further discloses first and second plates (shown in figure 2, being the top most plate and the second top most plate, respectively) includes at least one shaped section surrounding at least one inflow opening (16 in the top most plate and 18 in the second top most plate, the shaped portion being a recess in the plate).
Regarding Claim 17, Zeng further discloses at least one of the first and second plates (shown in figure 2, being the top most plate and the second top most plate, respectively) includes at least one shaped section surrounding at least one outflow opening (17 in the top most plate and 19 in the second top most plate, the shaped portion being a recess in the plate).
Regarding Claim 18, Zeng further discloses at least one end plate (2) disposed adjacent at least one of the first and second plates (shown in figure 2).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. (Translation of CN215864803U) as applied in Claims 11, 13-14 and 16-18 above and in further view of Wand et al. (USP 5462113A), hereinafter referred to as Wand.
Regarding Claim 19, Zeng fails to disclose the at least one end plate includes at least three inlet ports.
Wand, also drawn to a stacked plate heat exchanger for multiple fluids, teaches at least one end plate (12), at least one end plate includes at least three inlet ports (shown in figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Zeng with at least one end plate disposed adjacent at least one of the first and second plates, as taught by Wand, the motivation being to provide a thicker wall for mounting the heat exchanger, to increase the structural stability of the heat exchanger or for providing a mounting surface for the inlet/outlet fluid lines.
Regarding Claim 20, Zeng fails to disclose the at least one end plate includes at least three outlet ports.
Wand, also drawn to a stacked plate heat exchanger for multiple fluids, teaches at least one end plate (12) includes at least three outlet ports (shown in figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Zeng with the at least one end plate includes at least three outlet ports, as taught by Wand, the motivation being to provide a thicker wall for mounting the heat exchanger, to increase the structural stability of the heat exchanger or for providing a mounting surface for the inlet/outlet fluid lines.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2 and 11 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 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