2DETAILED ACTION
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
While the description of interlacing headers, supplemented by the newly entered drawings, provides clarity on the topic. The amendments to claim 9 only add specificity to its internal contradictions.
Claim 9 defines first and second inlet headers, on the same side, as a first pair; it then defines first and second outlet headers, on a second side, as a second pair. The claim then states that the first pair comprises the first inlet and second outlet headers and that the second pair comprises the second inlet and first outlet headers.
These statements are directly contradictor.
Claims 10-16 depend from claim 9.
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) 1-4, 8-12, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Zaffetti (US 2017/0292791) in view of Palmer (US 2020/0041212).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Zaffetti teaches an additively manufactured heat exchanger comprising: first and second headers (36, 42) forming a first pair and disposed on a first side of the core interlaced with each other and first and second headers (38, 40) forming a second pair and disposed on a second side of the core interlaced with each other; a core (12) interposed between two pairs of interleaved headers (Fig. 3); the header comprises first and second pathways (32, 34) disposed n thermal communication with each other (see cross section Fig. 4) which direct fluid between the first and second pairs of inlet and outlet headers, respectively (Para. [0031]); while Zaffetti teaches that the headers on the first side (36, 42) may both be inlet headers and that the headers on the second side (38, 40) may both be outlet headers (see Para. [0037] describing parallel flow use with both fluids flowing in the same direction).
Zaffetti does not teach that adjacent rows and columns of the tubes overlap in the respective row and column directions.
Palmer teaches that it is old and well-known to form such heat exchanger cores (Fig. 2) with tubes for two different heat exchanging fluids (in 108 and 118) arranged in rows and columns which overlap in their respective row and column directions (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to form the device of Zaffetti with the overlapping arrangement of Palmer in order to decrease the distance between the adjacent tubes and thus increase thermal transfer efficiency.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, in Palmer the rows and columns are arranged such that lines drawn through the center points of the tubes in every row and in every column evenly bisect the associated tubes (i.e. the tubes are circular and their centers are colinear along every row and every column).
Zaffetti further teaches that: each header comprises a header component (inlet opening) attached to a body (cylindrical portion) with header fins (36, 38, 40, 42; see Fig. 3) arrayed along and extending from the body for association with each column of the first individual pathways (e.g. Figs. 5-6), per claims 3 and 11; the body and fins of each header cooperatively encompass at least a portion of the body and header fins of the header with which it is interlaced (see Fig. 3; e.g. 36 at least partially encompassing 42 and vice versa), per claims 4 and 12; the core comprises self-supporting core support structures (the structures which make up the core are self-supporting as no further elements are disclosed which support them), per claims 8 and 16.
Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaffetti in view of Palmer, Roper (US 2021/0116188) and Stay (US 4,940,086).
Regarding claim 5 and 13, Zaffetti teaches that the bodies of the headers have rounded exteriors (cylindrical header portions; Fig. 3) and the header fins have cross-sections which are channel shaped (see Fig. 3 and Fig. 6; cross section of header fins taken in parallel with the axis of the cylindrical portion of the associated header are a three-sided channel).
Zaffetti does not specify the “C” shape to the header fins nor that the headers are all on the same (upper) side of the core.
Roper teaches that the rearrangement of such inlet and outlet headers from an arrangement similar to Zaffetti (fig. 3) to one having all inlet and outlet headers bodies (321, 322, 312, 311) arranged at the same, upper, side of the core (Fig. 4) is within the ordinary skill.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to rearrange the headers and inlet/outlets of Zaffetti, as taught by Roper, to fit any particular installation space or other practical engineering requirement as such rearrangement of parts is within the ordinary skill.
Stay teaches that it is old and well-known to form header components with “C” shaped cross-sections (see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to form the header fins of Zaffetti in “C” shapes, as taught by Stay, to minimize sharp corners and smooth internal flow.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaffetti in view of Palmer and Stay (US 4,940,086).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Zaffetti does not teach stiffening fins.
Stay further teaches incorporating stiffening fins (134) into header components oriented perpendicularly to the header fin (see Figs. 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the header fins of Zaffetti with stiffening fins, as taught by Stay, in order to increase the strength and rigidity of the device.
As such fins in Stay extend around the entire external perimeter of the header fins, in combination they will inherently be between each header fin and any adjacent structures, such as the other header fins of Zaffetti.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaffetti in view of Palmer and Tyan (US 2018/0099475).
Zaffetti does not include exterior structural reinforcements.
Tyan teaches that it is old and well-known to design structures from cellular hexagonal, triangular, or square patterns to increase strength to weight ratios (Figs. 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to design the device of Zaffetti using cellular cored surfaces to increase the strength to weight ratio of the device and/or save on material.
Claim(s) 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaffetti in view of Palmer and Sabharwall (US 20240307966).
Regarding claim 17, Zaffetti teaches the method of forming, via additive manufacturing (Para. [0021]) a heat exchanger comprising: first and second inlet headers (36, 42) and first and second outlet headers (38, 40) interlaced with each other, respectively; a core (12) interposed between two pairs of interleaved headers (Fig. 3); the header comprises first and second pathways (32, 34) disposed n thermal communication with each other (see cross section Fig. 4) which direct fluid between the first and second pairs of headers, respectively (Para. [0031]). Zaffetti does not specify the type of additive manufacturing.
Zaffetti does not teach that adjacent rows and columns of the tubes overlap in the respective row and column directions.
Palmer teaches that it is old and well-known to form such heat exchanger cores (Fig. 2) with tubes for two different heat exchanging fluids (in 108 and 118) arranged in rows and columns which overlap in their respective row and column directions (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to form the device of Zaffetti with the overlapping arrangement of Palmer in order to decrease the distance between the adjacent tubes and thus increase thermal transfer efficiency.
Sabharwall teaches that it is old and well-known to form heat exchangers via PBF-L (Para. [0038]) which inherently is a process involving building up elements in layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize any known additive manufacturing technique, including PBF-L as taught by Sabharwall, as such choices were left to one of ordinary skill by Zaffetti.
Regarding claim 20, Zaffetti teaches self-supporting core support structures (no external structures are disclosed as required to support the core).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaffetti in view of Palmer, Stay, and Sabharwall.
Regarding claims 18, Zaffetti does not teach stiffening fins.
Stay further teaches incorporating stiffening fins (134) into header components oriented perpendicularly to the header fin (see Figs. 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the header fins of Zaffetti with stiffening fins, as taught by Stay, in order to increase the strength and rigidity of the device.
As such fins in Stay extend around the entire external perimeter of the header fins, in combination they will inherently be between each header fin and any adjacent structures, such as the other header fins of Zaffetti.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaffetti in view of Palmer, Tyan, and Sabharwall.
Regarding claim 19, Zaffetti does not include exterior structural reinforcements.
Tyan teaches that it is old and well-known to design structures from cellular hexagonal, triangular, or square patterns to increase strength to weight ratios (Figs. 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to design the device of Zaffetti using cellular cored surfaces to increase the strength to weight ratio of the device and/or save on material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the art rejections of claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because they entirely depend upon the newly entered limitations which are addressed above with a new ground of rejection.
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 Devon Lane whose telephone number is (571)270-1858. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9-4.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571.270.5054. 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.
/DEVON LANE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights