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 .
This is the first Office action responsive to application 18857271 filed 7/1/2025. Claims 1-16 are canceled by Applicant. Claims 17-33 are newly presented by Applicant.
Claim Objections
Claims 17, 19-22, 24-25, 27-28, 30, & 33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 17:
The recitation “some of the partitions” (l. 4) is believed to be in error for - - some of the plurality of partitions - -.
The recitation “the partitions” (l. 5) is believed to be in error for - - the plurality of partitions - -.
The recitation “are delimiting” (ll. 5-6) is believed to be in error for - - delimit - -.
The recitation “among which parietal corridors” (l. 6) is believed to be in error for - - the corridors comprising parietal corridors - -.
The recitation “and the adjoining partitions” (l. 7) is believed to be in error for - - and adjoining partitions - -.
The recitation “the partitions” (l. 9) is believed to be in error for - - the plurality of partitions - -.
The recitation “the partitions concentric” (l. 11) is believed to be in error for - - the plurality of partitions are concentric - -.
The recitation “turbomachine have” (3rd to last line) is believed to be in error for - - turbomachine and have - -.
The recitation “heat exchanger, distant” (2nd to last line) is believed to be in error for - - heat exchanger, spaced - -.
Regarding Claim 19:
The recitation “the internal” (l. 2) is believed to be in error for - - internal - -.
Regarding Claim 20:
The recitation “the internal” (l. 2) is believed to be in error for - - internal - -.
Regarding Claim 21:
The recitation “one of the partitions out of two partitions” (ll. 2-3) is believed to be in error for - - one partition out of two partitions of the plurality of partitions - -.
The recitation “one of the partitions out of two partitions” (l. 4) is believed to be in error for - - one partition out of two partitions of the plurality of partitions - -.
Regarding Claim 22:
The recitation “the height” (l. 2) is believed to be in error for - - a height - -.
Regarding Claim 24:
The recitation “the height” (ll. 1-2) is believed to be in error for - - a height - -.
Regarding Claim 25:
The recitation “a maximum height” (l. 2) is believed to be in error for - - a maximum height of the air/oil heat exchanger - -.
Regarding Claim 27:
The recitation “the plurality of partitions among the hollow or solid partitions” is believed to be in error for - - the hollow partitions - -.
Regarding Claim 28:
The recitation “the plurality of partitions among the hollow or solid partitions” is believed to be in error for - - the hollow partitions - -.
Regarding Claim 30:
The recitation “a stator is arranged” is believed to be in error for - - a stator arranged - -.
Regarding Claim 33:
The recitation “the plurality of partitions among the hollow or solid partitions” is believed to be in error for - - the hollow partitions - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 17-28 & 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Dependent Claim 17, the recitation “some of the partitions concentric or perpendicular to a radius of a turbomachine” (4th to last line through 3rd to last line) is vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether the turbomachine is required. The claim is directed to a heat exchanger, not a turbomachine, yet the foregoing recitation appears to require the turbomachine as a limitation to orient the plurality of partitions.
Claims 29-32 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because these claims unambiguously require a turbomachine, thus rendering the metes and bounds of the claims definite.
Regarding Dependent Claim 33, the recitation “a respective radius of the turbomachine” is vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether the “respective radius” of claim 33 includes or is the same as the “radius of a turbomachine” recited in claim 17.
Dependent Claims 18-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for their dependence from claim 17.
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.
Claims 17-18 & 21-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12503959. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each and every limitation of the aforementioned claims of the instant application is recited in the aforementioned claims of the reference patent.
Claims 17, 19, & 21-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 20-22 of copending Application No. 18857262 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each and every limitation of the aforementioned claims of the instant application is recited in the aforementioned claims of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 29 is 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:
Regarding Dependent Claim 29, and also Independent Claim 17 should Applicant obviate the double patenting rejections with the filing of respective terminal disclaimers, the prior art fails to teach some of the partitions concentric or perpendicular to a radius of a turbomachine have an upstream end arranged downstream of an inlet of the air/oil heat exchanger, distant from the inlet of the air/oil heat exchanger by a distance of at least 20% of a length of the air/oil heat exchanger.
The closest prior art is Breeze-Stringfellow 20190204010, which teaches a heat exchanger (Figs. 2 & 5-8) having partitions (parietal partitions at inner and outer walls, central partitions therebetween). Some of the partitions have upstream ends which are offset from the heat exchanger inlet (as shown in all aforementioned figures). Breeze-Stringfellow fails to teach a particular offset of the partitions from the inlet but does teach that the partitions are offset in order to mitigate the effect of flow blockage due to the presence of the partitions (para. [0034]). Breeze-Stringfellow particularly teaches that the partitions are offset such that “flow blockage of the fins 58 is introduced (considered from a flow point of view) at a rate similar to or less than the increase in flow area due to the divergence of the peripheral walls 42, 44” (para. [0035]). In other words, the offset of the locations of the upstream ends of the partitions in Breeze-Stringfellow is linked to the divergence of the internal and external walls of the heat exchanger rather than being linked to the length of the heat exchanger. One of ordinary skill in the art would not, based on the teachings of Breeze-Stringfellow, have set a minimum distance of the upstream ends of some of the partitions to be 20% of the length of the heat exchanger but would instead solely look at the change in area “seen” by the flow as it enters the heat exchanger and encounters both the divergence of the interior and exterior walls and various partitions. Given that Applicant discloses that this offset of the upstream ends of the partitions from the heat exchanger inlet increases the flow rate of the parietal corridors and thus the homogeneity of the speeds at the inlet of the exchanger (Applicant’s specification, p. 3, ll. 2-9), and given that Breeze-Stringfellow nowhere considers the length of the heat exchanger when determining the offset distance of the upstream ends of the partitions relative to the heat exchanger inlet, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breeze-Stringfellow’s offsets to be a minimum of 20% of the length of the heat exchanger, as recited in claim 17. Further, modifying Breeze-Stringfellow to force such a minimum offset could render Breeze-Stringfellow unsuitable for its stated purpose since, depending on the length of the heat exchanger relative to the rate at which the heat exchanger widens (i.e. the divergence of the internal and external walls discussed above), this modification could cause partitions to be offset at a smaller distance from the heat exchanger inlet than would be required to match the area expansion of the heat exchanger in accordance with Breeze-Stringfellow’s teachings (Breeze-Stringfellow; para. [0035]), thus nullifying the intended purpose of Breeze-Stringfellow’s offsets.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J WALTHOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4999. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10 a.m.-6 p.m. Eastern.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/SCOTT J WALTHOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights