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.
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 12-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "said fins" . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency from a claim that has been rejected.
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) 1-6, 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 1, CN ‘623 teach a pin for a core layer of a heat exchanger, the pin (2) configured such that fluid flowing through the core layer passes the pin, the pin comprising: a leading edge; a trailing edge; a first end and a second end (figs); an outer surface between the leading edge and trailing edge and the first and second ends; a pin core extending from the first end to the second end and defining the leading edge and the trailing edge (figs).
CN ‘623 fail to explicitly teach vanes.
Heneveld teach and a plurality of vanes (910) 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 a direction from the first end to the second end ( in the instant combination, fig 9, secondary reference teach 111 or vanes and thus instant combination extends dimples of primary reference into vanes 910, as taught by primary reference) to 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 vanes as taught by Heneveld in the CN ‘623 invention in order to advantageously allow for enhanced heat exchange.
Re claim 2, CN ‘623 teach the pin core has a cross-section that tapers from the leading edge to the trailing edge (figs).
Re claim 3, CN ‘623 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 poin the middle section is rounded).
Re claim 4, Heneveld teach wherein the vanes have a curved profile (fig 9) to 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 vanes as taught by Heneveld in the CN ‘623, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for enhanced heat exchange.
Re claim 5, Heneveld teach each vane defines a convex curve from the leading edge to the trailing edge (fig 9) to 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 vanes as taught by Heneveld in the CN ‘623, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for enhanced heat exchange.
Re claim 6, CN ‘623 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) to 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 vanes as taught by Heneveld in the CN ‘623, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for enhanced heat exchange.
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.
CN ‘623, as modified , teach at least one pin as defined by claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1) to 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 CN ‘623 as modified by Heneveld in the CN ‘623 invention in order to advantageously allow for enhanced heat exchange.
Re claim 11, CN ‘623, as modified , teach comprising a plurality of said at least one pin (fig 1 of CN ‘623 noting primary reference noting multiple 2 would be modified in instant combination).
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 (noting 2 but inlet in fig 1 is a bar, with rows of multiple pins 2 behind the bars 2), the inflow path and the outflow path each having a plurality of said pins, the layer further comprising a plurality of turning vanes (noting two last exit rows provide an exit row of multiple 2 are considered turning vanes) 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 CN ‘623 CN 211012623 U in view of Heneveld US 10,907,480 B2 and King US 20160169000 A1.
Re claim 7, CN ‘623, as modified, 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) 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 CN ‘623, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for enhanced heat exchange.
Re claim 8, CN ‘623, as modified, fail to teach certain vane details.
King teach a position of attachment of the vanes to the pin core defines a slope from the leading edge to the trailing edge (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 CN ‘623, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for enhanced heat exchange.
Re claim 9, King teach the slope has an angle of substantially 15 degrees (para 44, relative to each other) 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 CN ‘623, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for enhanced heat exchange.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20080066888 A1, US 10429138 B2, US 7810552 B2.
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