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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/6/24 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “honeycomb material” of claim 18 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The current figures show no honeycomb structure merely a box element. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 7 and 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.
Claims 7 and 16 include the limitation of “the groove angle is selected such that liquid phase fluid flow expels vapor phase fluid flow from the plurality of grooves and into the main channel” which is dependent on the exact use of the structure. One skilled in the art would note that such is dependent on the fluid, flowrate, amount of heat transfer that occur, thus the limitation is based on the use of the structure and thus this language makes it impossible to determine if the claimed apparatus is being read on until it is applied to system which makes the claim indefinite as it makes it unclear when infringement occurs (when system is made or when system used) MPEP 2173.05 (p).
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-11, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (U.S. PGPub 2021/0239408) in view of Fujita et al. (U.S. PGPub 2005/0051318).
Regarding claim 1, Cho teaches a fluid flow pathway of a radiator (element 101) comprising: a flow channel (element 140) having an inlet end (end by element 110) and an outlet end (end by element 120), the flow channel including: a plurality of grooves (element 142) extending in a lengthwise direction along an interior of the flow channel (para. 0039), each groove extending from a groove base (“B” fig. 5) to a groove apex (“A” per fig. 4) radially outboard of the groove base (per fig. 4); and a main channel (per fig. 4 area shown) defined radially between the groove bases of the plurality of grooves; an outlet header (element 120) to which flow channel is installed at a header channel (inherent in fig1 as elements 140 feed into header 120, would be the inlet from 140 into it).
Cho does not teach a porous insert disposed between the flow channel and the header channel to regulate a flow of fluid into the outlet header from the flow channel. Fujita teaches a porous insert (elements 5a-5d) disposed between the flow channel and the header channel to regulate a flow of fluid into the outlet header (element 7) from the flow channel (per fig. 8A-8B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Cho to include the insert of Fujita, the motivoant would be downsize the header/manifold (para. 0042).
Regarding claim 2, Fujita further teaches the porous insert includes: a base portion (at element 15a) installed to the header channel; and a body portion (at element 18a) installed into the outlet end of the flow channel; wherein the body portion blocks the main channel of the flow channel (per fig. 8A-8B, note the limitation only requires some level of blocking not complete thus as showing figures this limitation is met). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Cho to include the insert of Fujita, the motivoant would be downsize the header/manifold (para. 0042).
Regarding claim 6, Cho teaches wherein a groove of the plurality of grooves is defined by opposing groove sidewalls having a selected groove angle therebetween and converging at the groove apex (per fig. 4, note that the specific angle or angle range is not claimed thus any angle reads on the limitation).
Regarding claim 7, Cho teaches the groove angle is selected such that liquid phase fluid flow expels vapor phase fluid flow from the plurality of grooves and into the main channel (per fig. 4, para. 0041).
Regarding claim 8, Cho teaches an inlet header (element 110) to which the flow channel is connected at the inlet end of the flow channel (per fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Cho does not specifically teach the porous insert is formed from a plurality of micro-sized particles bonded together via, one of sintering or by one or more additive manufacturing processes. This is a product-by-process claim and “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding cliam 10, Cho teaches a heat exchanger (fig. 1), comprising: one or more fluid flow networks (element 101), each fluid flow network including a plurality of flow channels (elements 140) having an inlet end and an outlet end (p[r fig. 1 and description),at least one flow channel of the plurality of flow channels including: a plurality of grooves (element 142) extending in a lengthwise direction along an interior of the flow channel (per fig. 2), each groove extending from a groove base (“B” fig. 4) to a groove apex (“A” fig. 4) radially outboard of the groove base; and a main channel (per fig. 4 area shown) defined radially between the groove bases of the plurality of grooves; an inlet header (element 110) to which each inlet end is installed; an outlet header (element 120) to which each outlet end is installed at a respective header channel (inherent in fig1 as elements 140 feed into header 120, would be the inlet from 140 into it).
Cho does not teach a porous insert disposed between the flow channel and the header channel to regulate a flow of fluid into the outlet header from the flow channel. Fujita teaches a porous insert (elements 5a-5d) disposed between the flow channel and the header channel to regulate a flow of fluid into the outlet header (element 7) from the flow channel (per fig. 8A-8B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Cho to include the insert of Fujita, the motivoant would be downsize the header/manifold (para. 0042).
Regarding claim 11, Fujita further teaches the porous insert includes: a base portion (at element 15a) installed to the header channel; and a body portion (at element 18a) installed into the outlet end of the flow channel; wherein the body portion blocks the main channel of the flow channel (per fig. 8A-8B, note the limitation only requires some level of blocking not complete thus as showing figures this limitation is met). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Cho to include the insert of Fujita, the motivoant would be downsize the header/manifold (para. 0042).
Regarding claim 15, Cho teaches wherein a groove of the plurality of grooves is defined by opposing groove sidewalls having a selected groove angle therebetween and converging at the groove apex (per fig. 4, note that the specific angle or angle range is not claimed thus any angle reads on the limitation).
Regarding claim 16, Cho teaches the groove angle is selected such that liquid phase fluid flow expels vapor phase fluid flow from the plurality of grooves and into the main channel (per fig. 4, para. 0041).
Regarding claim 17, Cho does not specifically teach the porous insert is formed from a plurality of micro-sized particles bonded together via, one of sintering or by one or more additive manufacturing processes. This is a product-by-process claim and “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (U.S. PGPub 2021/0239408) in view of Fujita et al. (U.S. PGPub 2005/0051318), and further view of Menez Sanchez (U.S. PGPub 2021/0403095).
Regarding claim 18, Cho does not teach a honeycomb material disposed between adjacent flow channels of the plurality of flow channels. Menez teaches a honeycomb colling fins applied to a radiator core (para. 0024). It would have been oblivious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Cho to include the honeycomb fins of Menez such that a honeycomb material disposed between adjacent flow channels of the plurality of flow channels, the motivation would be to dissipate heat rapidly (para. 0024).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (U.S. PGPub 2021/0239408) in view of Fujita et al. (U.S. PGPub 2005/0051318), and further view of Alario et al. (U.S. Patent 4,470,451).
Regarding claim 19, Cho does not teach one or more face sheets in thermal communication with the plurality of flow channels. Alario teaches one or more face sheets (elements 226 or 230) in thermal communication with the plurality of flow channels (element 218). It would have been oblivious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Cho to include the plates of Alario as claimed, the motivation would be to protect the tube while providing a large heat transfer surface.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (U.S. PGPub 2021/0239408) in view of Fujita et al. (U.S. PGPub 2005/0051318), and further view of Han et al. (U.S. PGPub 2019/0186848).
Regarding claim 20, Cho does not teach the one or more fluid flow networks is two fluid flow networks. Han teaches a radiator for two fluid flow networks (fig. 2). It would have been oblivious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Cho to include the multiple flow networks of Han, the motivation would be save space and combine multiple elements into one.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of patent 11,718,423. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 12-14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 3 and 12 (including dependent claims 4 and 13) are allowable as the body portion includes a body ring extending radially outwardly, the body ring includes a plurality of ring openings configured to allow for a flow of fluid from the plurality of grooves is not taught by or obvious in light of the applied prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 5 and 14 are allowable as he body portion extends from the base portion to a conical body tip is not taught by or obvious in light of the applied prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fisk (U.S. Patent 4,300,481) and Usui (JP2004-317060) both teach heat exchanger tube inserts for the outlet side of the pipes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joel Attey whose telephone number is (571) 272-7936. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 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.
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights