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 § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heneveld US 10,907,480 B2.
Re claim 1, Heneveld teach a pin (annotated fig) for a core layer of a heat exchanger, the pin configured such that fluid flowing through the core layer passes the pin, the pin comprising: a leading edge(left side fig 10a; noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘edge’ is border or a point near the beginning or the end); a trailing edge (right side , fig 10a) separated from the leading edge along a length dimension ; a first end and a second end (top and bottom ends); an outer surface between the leading edge and trailing edge and the first and second ends, wherein the outer surface defines a thickness of the pin along a width dimension orthogonal to the length dimension (fig 10a); a pin core extending along a height dimension from the first end to the second end and defining the leading edge and the trailing edge, wherein the height dimension is orthogonal to the length dimension and the width dimension (fig 10a, noting the core is considered the central part ); and a plurality of vanes (911) extending from the pin core, each vane of the plurality of vanes extending between the leading edge and the trailing edge, the vanes being arranged one above another in the height dimension from the first end to the second end (fig 10a), wherein each of the plurality of vanes comprises a contour extending: at a first slope along the length dimension in the height dimension (fig 10a), such that the height dimension of each of the plurality of vanes increases as a function of distance along the length dimension from the leading edge; and at a second slope along the width dimension in the height dimension, such that the height dimension of each of the plurality of vanes increases as a function of distance along the width dimension from the pin core (fig 9).
For clarity, the recitation “…for a core layer of a heat exchanger …” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Noting Heneveld teach the limitations nevertheless (col 1)
PNG
media_image1.png
451
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, Heneveld teach the pin core has a cross-section that tapers from the leading edge to the trailing edge (figs).
Re claim 3, Heneveld teach wherein the cross-section is a rounded triangular shape noting the pointed end which increases thickness has a triangular shape and since the taper returns to another point the middle section is rounded (figs).
Re claim 4, Heneveld teach wherein the vanes have a curved profile (fig 9)
Re claim 5, Heneveld teach each vane defines a convex curve from the leading edge to the trailing edge (fig 9)
Re claim 6, Heneveld teach wherein each vane is attached to the pin core at an angle of less than 90 degrees relative to the pin core (fig 10 a).
Re claim 8, Heneveld teach wherein a position of attachment of the vanes to the pin core defines the first slope from the leading edge to the trailing edge (figs).
Re claim 16, Heneveld teach a pin for a core layer of a heat exchanger, the pin configured such that fluid flowing through the core layer passes the pin, the pin comprising: a leading edge; a trailing edge separated from the leading edge along a length dimension; a first end and a second end; an outer surface extending from the leading edge to the trailing edge and from the first end to the second end; a pin core extending along a height dimension from the first end to the second end and defining the leading edge and the trailing edge, wherein the height dimension is orthogonal to the length dimension (see the rejection of claim 1); and a plurality of curved vanes (911) extending from the pin core, each vane of the plurality of vanes swept between the leading edge and the trailing edge, the vanes being arranged one above another in the height dimension from the first end to the second end (fig 10a), wherein each of the plurality of vanes has a top surface characterized by a contour extending: at a positive slope along the length dimension in the height dimension from the leading edge (figs), such that the height dimension of the top surface of each of the plurality of vanes increases as a function of distance along the length dimension from the leading edge; and at a negative slope along the length direction in the height dimension approaching the trailing edge (figs, noting following the front to back contour the slope increases towards the middle and then decreases negatively back towards the back edge /tip), such that the height dimension of the top surface of each of the plurality of vanes decreases as a function of distance along the length dimension approaching the trailing edge (figs, from the midpoint to the very back).
For clarity, the recitation “…for a core layer of a heat exchanger …” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Noting Heneveld teach the limitations nevertheless (col 1)
Re claim 17, Heneveld teach pin for a core layer of a heat exchanger, the pin configured such that fluid flowing through the core layer passes the pin, the pin comprising: a leading edge; a trailing edge separated from the leading edge along a length dimension; a first end and a second end; an outer surface extending from the leading edge to the trailing edge and from the first end to the second end, wherein the outer surface defines a thickness of the pin along a width dimension orthogonal to the length dimension; a pin core extending along a height dimension from the first end to the second end and defining the leading edge and the trailing edge, wherein the height dimension is orthogonal to the length dimension and the width dimension (see the rejection of claim 1); and a plurality of curved vanes (911) extending from the pin core, each vane of the plurality of vanes extending between the leading edge and the trailing edge, the vanes being arranged one above another in the height dimension from the first end to the second end, wherein each of the plurality of vanes is attached to the pin core at an angle of less than 90 degrees relative to the pin core, such that the height dimension of each of the plurality of vanes increases as a function of distance along the width dimension from the pin core (fig 10a, see the rejection of claim 6).
For clarity, the recitation “…for a core layer of a heat exchanger …” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Noting Heneveld teach the limitations nevertheless (col 1)
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘623 CN 211012623 U in view of Heneveld US 10,907,480 B2.
Re claim 10, CN ‘623 teach a layer for a heat exchanger, the layer comprising: an inlet; an outlet (fig 1); an upper sheet (6); a lower sheet (1); a fluid flowpath defined between the upper sheet and lower sheet and from the inlet to the outlet, but fail to teach at least one pin as defined by claim 1.
Heneveld teach at least one pin as defined by claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1) to add more surface area to contact cooling fluid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include at least one pin as defined by claim 1 as taught by Heneveld in the CN ‘623 invention in order to advantageously allow for enhanced heat exchange.
Re claim 11, CN ‘623, as modified , teach wherein the at least one pin comprises a plurality of pins each disposed in the flowpath and connecting the upper sheet to the lower sheet (fig 1 of CN ‘623 noting primary reference noting multiple 2 would be modified in instant combination). Additionally noting Heneveld teach wherein the at least one pin comprises a plurality of pins each disposed in the flowpath and connecting the upper sheet to the lower sheet (fig noting multiple pins in the instant combination) to add more surface area to contact cooling fluid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include pins as taught by Heneveld in the CN ‘623 invention in order to advantageously allow for enhanced heat exchange.
Re claim 12, CN ‘623 teach wherein the layer defines an inflow path from the inlet, and an outflow path to the outlet, the inflow path and the outflow path being separated in the layer by a separation bar, the plurality of pins comprising a first group of pins disposed in the inflow path and a second group of pins disposed in the outflow path, , the layer further comprising a plurality of turning vanes to turn a direction of flow from the inflow path by substantially 180 degrees to the outflow path bar (noting 2 but inlet in fig 1 is a bar, with rows of multiple pins 2 behind the bars 2; noting two last exit rows provide an exit row of multiple 2 are considered turning vanes, noting the modifies pins meet the limitations in the instant combination) to turn a direction of flow from the inflow path by substantially 180 degrees to the outflow path.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “to turn a direction of flow from the inflow path by substantially 180 degrees to the outflow path” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 13, CN ‘623 teach wherein the plurality of turning vanes includes a first plurality of turning vanes to turn the direction of flow from the inflow path by substantially 90 degrees and a second plurality of turning vanes to turn the direction of flow by a further 90 degrees to the outflow path (noting first row is a first plurality and second row is a second plurality, see rejection of claim 12).
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “to turn the direction of flow by a further 90 degrees to the outflow path” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 14, CN ‘623 teach a heat exchanger comprising a first layer and a second layer (fig 3a), each of the first layer and the second layer comprising a layer as defined by claim 10, wherein: the upper sheet of the second layer is also the lower sheet of the first layer (see the rejection of claim 10).
Re claim 15, CN ‘623 teach a method of additively manufacturing a pin for a layer of a heat exchanger (see the rejection of claim 1, 10 and 14), the method comprising: additively manufacturing a pin as claimed in claim 1 (page 1).
Additionally, Heneveld teach the method comprising: additively manufacturing a pin as claimed in claim 1 (fig 13) to manufacture features on pins.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include vanes as taught by Heneveld in the CN ‘623, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for enhanced heat exchange with a known manufacture process.
Claim(s) 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heneveld US 10,907,480 B2 in view of and King US 20160169000 A1.
Re claim 7, Heneveld fail to teach certain vane details.
King teach each vane is attached to the pin core at an angle of less than 45 degrees relative to the pin core (figs 5a, b, c or para 44) to guide airflow .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include certain vane details as taught by King in the Heneveld invention in order to advantageously allow for enhanced heat exchange.
Re claim 9, King teach the first slope has an angle of substantially 15 degrees (figs 5a, b, c or para 44) to guide airflow .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include certain vane details as taught by King in the Heneveld invention in order to advantageously allow for enhanced heat exchange.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see reply, filed 4/16/2026, with respect to 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that new independent claim scope is not taught by CN 623 or Heneveld. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
However, the scope of the independent claim scope has been changed in the latest reply and therefore the examiner is now relying on Heneveld to teach the recited scope (see detailed rejection above). Therefore, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Heneveld teach rounded/elliptical vanes which increase in slope positively towards the mid point from the front leading edging edge and then decrease in slope negatively back towards the trailing edge due to the shape which meets the newly claimed limitations in the independent claims.
Applicant argues the claims dependent on the independent claim(s) are allowable based upon their dependence from an independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been addressed above. Thus, the rejections are proper and remain.
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 GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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.
/GORDON A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights