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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Norbeck (Translation of SE450166B), hereinafter referred to as Norbeck.
Regarding Claim 1, Norbeck discloses a recuperative heat exchanger (shown in figure 1) comprising:
a matrix (14), which is made of heat absorbing material (“The rotor is filled with a moisture and heat-exchanging mass composed of thin layers, such as asbestos or cellulose paper, metal such as aluminum or the like, plastic or other materials having suitable properties for use”) and has a plurality of fluid flow channels (shown in figure 1, being bounded by the flats (16)) extending there through in a flow direction of fluid (shown in figure 1), wherein
the flow channels comprise channel sections (20, 22, 24) that are attached to and between dividers (16, shown in figure 2) and that are successive in the flow direction and at least partly staggered relative to each other (shown in figures 1-2).
The recitation that “recuperative” has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause.
Statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962).
Regarding Claim 2, Norbeck further discloses the successive channel sections (20, 22, 24) of the flow channel are staggered in a transverse direction of said flow channel (shown in figure 2, being the left to right direction).
Regarding Claim 4, Norbeck further discloses the flow channels comprise two or more than two successive channel sections (20, 22, 24).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Center)]
[AltContent: textbox (Inlet)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Corrugation Leg)]
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
161
385
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Norbeck Figure 2
Regarding Claim 5, Norbeck further discloses the successive channel sections are staggered such that an edge of an outlet opening of the channel section crosses an inlet opening of the following channel section (shown in annotated figure 2, wherein the right leg of a corrugation in the strip shaped portion (20) crosses the inlet of a corrugation in the strip shaped portion (22)).
Regarding Claim 6, Norbeck further discloses an edge of the outlet opening of the channel section crosses the center of the inlet opening of the following channel section (shown in annotated figure 2, wherein the edge of the annotated “Corrugation Leg” crosses the “Center” of the subsequent “Inlet”).
Regarding Claim 8, Norbeck further discloses the successive channel sections (20, 22, 24) are staggered such that an outlet opening of the channel section is in direct fluid flow communication with inlet openings of at least two following channel sections (shown in annotated figure 2, wherein the outlet of the strip shaped portion (20) provides fluid to the inlets of strip shaped portions (22 and 24)).
Regarding Claim 9, Norbeck further discloses the flow channels have a sinusoidal cross-sectional shape (shown in figure 2).
Regarding Claim 10, Norbeck further discloses the heat exchanger further comprises a plurality of adjacent flow channels (shown in figure 1), each channel comprising a matrix as recited in claim 1 (shown in figure 1).
Claims 1, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukada et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0370834A1), hereinafter referred to as Fukada.
Regarding Claim 1, Fukada discloses a recuperative heat exchanger (shown in figure 21) comprising:
a matrix (10), which is made of heat absorbing material (“the heat transfer surface 10 is formed from a thin sheet of metal, such as aluminum, that is engaged between a set of dies that cuts or lances the sheet and displaces portions of the sheet of metal to form the alternating series of rows of corrugations of the corrugated heat transfer surface 10” (¶40)) and has a plurality of fluid flow channels (shown in figure 21, wherein the heat exchanger (300) contains a plurality of flow passages between the tubes (250), see also ¶66) extending there through in a flow direction of fluid (shown in figure 21), wherein
the flow channels comprise channel sections (14, shown in figure 2) that are attached to and between dividers (tubes (252) as shown in figure 21 or plates (213, 215), see ¶66) and that are successive in the flow direction and at least partly staggered relative to each other (shown in figure 2).
The recitation that “recuperative” has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause.
Statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962).
Regarding Claim 7, Fukada further discloses every other channel section in the fluid flow direction is placed at the same transverse location (shown in figures 1-2).
Regarding Claim 11, Fukada further discloses a method of producing the matrix of the recuperative heat exchanger according to claim 1 (see previous rejection of Claim 1), wherein the matrix is manufactured using an additive manufacturing technique (“The corrugated member 212 is disposed between upper and lower or first and second plates 213, 215. In some embodiments, for example, the corrugated member 212 and the first and second plates 213, 215 are formed using additive manufacturing techniques and are a unitary, one piece construction”, ¶66).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norbeck (Translation of SE450166B) as applied in Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 8-10 above and in further view of Fukada et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0370834A1).
Regarding Claim 11, although Norbeck further discloses a method of producing the matrix of the recuperative heat exchanger according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1), Norbeck fails to disclose the matrix is manufactured using an additive manufacturing technique.
Fukada, also drawn to a heat exchanger having staggered fins, teaches a matrix is manufactured using an additive manufacturing technique (“The corrugated member 212 is disposed between upper and lower or first and second plates 213, 215. In some embodiments, for example, the corrugated member 212 and the first and second plates 213, 215 are formed using additive manufacturing techniques and are a unitary, one piece construction”, ¶66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Norbeck with the matrix being manufactured using an additive manufacturing technique, as taught by Fukada, the motivation being that a unitary one piece construction decreases assembly complexity, reduces the number of components required for the assembly, eliminates joints that act as failure points and increases thermal conduction.
Claims 1-3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (Translation of WO2018120944A1) in view of Fukada et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0370834A1), hereinafter referred to as Lu and Fukada, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Lu discloses a recuperative heat exchanger comprising:
a matrix (1), which is made of heat absorbing material (“The fin assembly 1 may be integral, for example, the fin assembly 1 is formed from a single sheet or a plate (for example, an aluminum plate)” and has a fluid flow channel (shown in figure 5, being bounded by the tubes (3)) extending there through in a flow direction of fluid (shown in figures 9 and10), wherein
the flow channel comprise channel sections (10, 20) that are attached to and between dividers (3, shown in figure 5) and that are successive in the flow direction and at least partly staggered relative to each other (shown in figures 8-10). Lu fails to disclose a plurality of fluid flow channels.
Fukada, also drawn to a heat exchanger having staggered fins, teaches a plurality of fluid flow channels (shown in figure 21, wherein the heat exchanger (300) contains a plurality of flow passages between the tubes (250)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Lu with a plurality of fluid flow channels, as taught by Fukada, the motivation being to increase overall heat transfer capability with multiple flow paths or to increase heat transfer relative to a single tube with multiple matrices.
Alternately, Lu discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of fluid flow channels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a plurality of fluid flow channels, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI (B).
The recitation that “recuperative” has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause.
Statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962).
Regarding Claim 2, Lu further discloses the successive channel sections (shown in figures 8-10) of the flow channel are staggered in a transverse direction of said flow channel (shown in figures 8-9, being the left to right direction).
Regarding Claim 3, Lu further discloses the successive channel sections (10, 20) are staggered relative to each other in two directions that are:
transverse in respect to each other (shown in figure 10, being the left to right direction), and transverse in respect to the flow direction or flow channel (shown in figure 10, being the top bottom direction).
Regarding Claim 11, although Lu further discloses a method of producing the matrix of the recuperative heat exchanger according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1), Lu fails to disclose the matrix is manufactured using an additive manufacturing technique.
Fukada, also drawn to a heat exchanger having staggered fins, teaches a matrix is manufactured using an additive manufacturing technique (“The corrugated member 212 is disposed between upper and lower or first and second plates 213, 215. In some embodiments, for example, the corrugated member 212 and the first and second plates 213, 215 are formed using additive manufacturing techniques and are a unitary, one piece construction”, ¶66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Lu with the matrix being manufactured using an additive manufacturing technique, as taught by Fukada, the motivation being that a unitary one piece construction decreases assembly complexity, reduces the number of components required for the assembly, eliminates joints that act as failure points and increases thermal conduction.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights