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
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeffers et al. (US 20200166289), hereinafter referred to as Jeffers.
Re claim 13, Jeffers teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a memory (implicit; ¶ 57, “Such selection of parameters may be made one or more smart algorithms”);
a processor (implicit; ¶ 57, “Such selection of parameters may be made one or more smart algorithms”) in electronic communication with the memory, wherein the processor is to:
control a printhead to print a three-dimensional (3D) lattice structure; and
control the printhead to print a pipe structure transecting the 3D lattice structure, wherein the pipe structure is to conduct fluid to a target region including a portion of the 3D lattice structure (see ¶ 56-57).
Re claim 14, Jeffers teaches the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the 3D lattice structure and the pipe structure are printed concurrently (see ¶ 56-57).
Re claim 15, Jeffers teaches the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the processor is to control the printhead to print a housing around the lattice structure (see ¶ 56-57 and Fig 6).
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) 1-3, 5-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chin (US 20070187072), hereinafter referred to as Chin, in view of Jeffers.
Re claim 1, Chin teaches a heat exchanger, comprising:
a flow channel (fluid channel from 22 to 21);
a e.g. 13a-b) disposed in the flow channel; and
a pipe structure (e.g. 22) embedded in the e.g. 133) of the flow channel.
Chin does not teach the limitation of the structure being a lattice structure.
However, Jeffers teaches a heat exchanger comprising a lattice structure (21).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Chin and integrated the structure being a lattice structure, as taught by Jeffers, in order to make it possible to build unique product shapes for different applications (see Jeffers ¶ 5-7).
Re claim 2, Chin, as modified, teaches the heat exchanger of claim 1. Jeffers further teaches the limitation of wherein the lattice structure is a three-dimensional (3D) lattice (e.g. ¶ 56, “the lattice structure cell 21 are built together using additive manufacturing (or 3D printing)”).
Re claim 3, Chin, as modified, teaches the heat exchanger of claim 2. Jeffers further teaches the limitation of wherein the lattice structure and the pipe structure are 3D printed (e.g. ¶ 56, “the lattice structure cell 21 are built together using additive manufacturing (or 3D printing)”).
Re claim 5, Chin, as modified, teaches the heat exchanger of claim 1. Chin further teaches the limitation of further comprising an inlet, wherein the pipe structure is disposed through the inlet (e.g. see Fig 7).
Re claim 6, Chin, as modified, teaches the heat exchanger of claim 5. Chin further teaches the limitation of wherein the inlet is disposed on an opposite side (exterior side) of a wall of the heat exchanger from the target region (e.g. see Fig 7).
Re claim 7, Chin, as modified, teaches the heat exchanger of claim 1. Chin further teaches the limitation of further comprising a channel between the lattice structure and an interior wall of the flow channel (e.g. see Fig 7).
Re claim 8, Chin, as modified, teaches the heat exchanger of claim 1. Chin further teaches the limitation of wherein the target region corresponds to a heat source location (e.g. ¶ 21, “an evaporator (10)”).
Re claim 9, Chin, as modified, teaches the heat exchanger of claim 1. Chin further teaches the limitation of wherein the pipe structure transects the lattice structure (e.g. see Fig 7). Jeffers further teaches the limitation of wherein the pipe structure transects the lattice structure (e.g. see Fig 7).
Re claim 10, Chin teaches a heat exchanger, comprising:
a housing (10);
an outlet (outlet for 21) disposed on the housing;
an inlet (inlet for 22) disposed on the housing;
a pipe (22) extending through the inlet into the housing; and
a 13a-b) disposed in the housing, wherein the pipe is embedded in the e.g. Fig 7).
Chin does not teach the limitation of the structure being a three-dimensional (3D) lattice structure.
However, Jeffers teaches a heat exchanger comprising a three-dimensional (3D) lattice structure (21).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Chin and integrated the structure being a lattice structure, as taught by Jeffers, in order to make it possible to build unique product shapes for different applications (see Jeffers ¶ 5-7).
Re claim 11, Chin, as modified, teaches the heat exchanger of claim 1. Chin further teaches the limitation of wherein an end of the pipe structure is disposed in a target region (e.g. 133) in the housing.
Re claim 12, Chin, as modified, teaches the heat exchanger of claim 1. Chin further teaches the limitation of wherein fluid is to pass from the end of the pipe in the target region to absorb heat from the 3D lattice and pass to the outlet (see Fig 7).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chin, in view of Jeffers, in view of Swanson (US Pat No. 5,725,049), hereinafter referred to as Swanson.
Re claim 4, Chin, as modified, teaches the heat exchanger of claim 1. Chis, as modified, does not teach the limitation of further comprising a second pipe structure embedded in the lattice structure, wherein a second end of the second pipe structure is disposed in a second target region of the flow channel. However, Swanson teaches a heat exchanger comprising a second pipe structure (240) embedded in a structure (400), wherein a second end of the second pipe structure is disposed in a second target region of the flow channel (see Fig 4B). Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Chin and integrated a second pipe structure embedded in the lattice structure, wherein a second end of the second pipe structure is disposed in a second target region of the flow channel, as taught by Swanson, in order to better equalize temperature.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (see PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON NIEVES whose telephone number is (571)270-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/NELSON J NIEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 7/24/2026
Prosecution Insights