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 Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“these longitudinal edges and lateral edges” in claims 1 and 8 should read --the longitudinal edges and lateral edges--.
“this bottom wall” in claims 1 and 8 should read --the bottom wall--.
“at least one of these fluid-flow-disturbing elements” in claims 1 and 8 should read --at least one of the fluid-flow-disturbing elements--.
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.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “with each of the at least four fluid distribution openings being disposed in the vicinity of a junction between a longitudinal edge and a lateral edge”. “the vicinity” lacks a proper antecedent basis. “a longitudinal edge and a lateral edge” is unclear if they are related to the “two opposite longitudinal edges” and “two lateral edges” in parent claim 1.
For examination purposes, the recitation in claim 4 is construed as -- with each of the at least four fluid distribution openings being disposed in a vicinity of a junction between one of the two longitudinal edges and one of the two lateral edges--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tissot (WO 2020065222 A1) in view of Kun (US Patent No. 3,757,855).
Regarding claim 1, Tissot discloses a plate (105. Figs. 4 and 5) for a heat exchanger having a tub-like form (U shape form) with two opposite longitudinal edges (108a and 108b) connected to one another by two lateral edges (109a and 109b), the longitudinal edges and lateral edges surrounding a bottom wall of the plate (the edges 108a/b and 109a/b surrounding a bottom 106 of the plate 105, Fig. 4), an angle (α) measured between the bottom wall (106) and any one of the edges (108b) ranging between 103.5° and 109.5° (α is between 91° and 140°, paragraph 0107 of the translation, overlaps the claimed range) , the bottom wall (106) being equipped with fluid-flow-disturbing elements (protuberances 112a, Fig. 5), at least one of the fluid-flow-disturbing elements having a vertical dimension (H1, H2) measured inside a volume delimited by the bottom wall and the edges (the heights H1 and H2 are measured in a volume between bottom 106 and top tips of the edges 108b).
Tissot fails to disclose a thickness of the bottom wall ranging between 0.20 mm and 0.45 mm; and
at least one of the fluid-flow-disturbing elements having a vertical dimension measured inside a volume delimited by the bottom wall and the edges that ranges between 0.75 mm and 1.15 mm.
Kun discloses a thickness of the bottom wall (24) ranging between 0.20 mm and 0.45 mm (sheet or wall thickness between 0.003 and 0.02 inch, col. 8, lines 5-6, or between 0.0762 and 0.508 mm)
Kun further discloses a material thickness t about 0.003 inch would be unsuitable due to local imperfections in the metal, produced during rolling or as a result of pitting (corrosion) or erosion. A material thickness to above 0.25 inch is not suited to this invention when employed within the imposed limits of D, H and d, because full or near-full utilization of the material strength implies extremely high pressure differentials (col. 7, lines 50-57). Therefore, the claimed thickness of the bottom wall is a result effective variable that at least effects the corrosion resistance and material strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would perform routine optimization of the bottom wall thickness including the claimed range in order for proper corrosion resistance and material strength. Therefore, specifying the thickness in the claim is not novel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a thickness of the bottom wall ranging between 0.20 mm and 0.45 mm in Tissot as taught by Kun through routine optimization of the thickness to obtain a required corrosion resistance and material strength of the bottom wall.
Kun further discloses a vertical dimension (H, Fig. 1) of the fluid-flow-disturbing elements (contacting buttons 17, Fig. 2) that ranges between 0.75 mm and 1.15 mm (a height H of about 0.035 inch, col. 8, line 9, or 0.889 mm). Kun further discloses a H/D ratio less than 0.05 would be susceptible to fouling and have a high external fluid pressure drop per unit length of fluid flow path. For a H/D ratio of greater than 0.2, a small heat exchange area per cubic foot of heat exchange volume would result thereby resulting in excessive manufacturing cost and decreased efficiency (col. 7, lines 26-33). The height H is a numerator of the ratio and therefore a result effective variable that effects the fluid pressure drop, manufacturing cost and efficiency of the fluid-flow-disturbing elements. One of ordinary skill in the art would perform routine optimization of the height H1 and/or H2 in Tissot including the claimed range in order for proper pressure drop, manufacturing cost and efficiency of the protuberances 112a. Therefore, specifying the vertical dimension or height in the claim is not novel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided at least one of the fluid-flow-disturbing elements having a vertical dimension measured inside a volume delimited by the bottom wall and the edges that ranges between 0.75 mm and 1.15 mm in Tissot as taught by Kun through routine optimization of the height of the protuberances 112a to obtain a required pressure drop, manufacturing cost and efficiency of the protuberances 112a.
Regarding claim 2, Tissot as modified in claim 1 further discloses wherein the vertical dimension of the fluid-flow-disturbing elements is a first vertical dimension ranging between 0.75 mm and 0.85 mm (the height H1 in Tissot may be the first vertical dimension as claimed, and the routine optimization of the height H1 may include the claimed range between 0.75 mm and 0.85 mm for proper pressure drop, manufacturing cost and efficiency the protuberances 112a).
Regarding claim 3, Tissot as modified in claim 1 further discloses wherein the vertical dimension of the fluid-flow-disturbing elements is a second vertical dimension ranging between 1.05 mm and 1.15 mm (the height H1 in Tissot may be the second vertical dimension as claimed, and the routine optimization of the height H1 may include the claimed range between 1.05 mm and 1.15 mm for proper pressure drop, manufacturing cost and efficiency the protuberances 112a).
Regarding claim 4, Tissot as modified in claim 1 further discloses wherein the bottom wall (106) is equipped with at least four fluid distribution openings (four openings 110, Fig. 4), with each of the at least four fluid distribution openings being disposed in a vicinity of a junction between one of the two longitudinal edges and one of the two lateral edges (each of the opening 110 is disposed at respective corner or junction between one of the two edges 108a/108b and one of the two edges 109a/109b).
Regarding claim 5, Tissot as modified in claim 1 further discloses wherein the fluid-flow-disturbing elements (protuberances 112a) include at least one truncated dome (The protuberances 112a are round in a top view in Fig. 4 with a truncated top 116a) extending between a base (117) and a top (116a).
Regarding claim 6, Tissot in claim 5 fails to explicitly disclose wherein a maximum diameter of the at least one truncated dome measured at its base is 4.5 mm.
Kun further discloses a vertical dimension a heat exchange wall having truncated conical projections with a cone angle of greater than 35° would result in excessive deflections of the unsupported areas disposed between the projections when pressure is applied to the wall. If such deflections are imposed repeatedly in service, then the material may be fatigued and crack after a relatively short service life. Additionally, deflections reduce the available space between heat exchange walls in the lower pressure passages, and result either in higher fluid pressure drop or in reduced rate of fluid flow (col. 7, lines 39-49). Based on the geometry of the cone shown in Fig. 1 of Kun, the maximum diameter of the at least one truncated dome is also a result effective variable because changing the maximum diameter effectively changes the angle θ of the cone, and subsequently effects deflections, available heat exchange space and pressure drop of the projections as taught by Kun. Although Kun does not disclose specific value of the maximum diameter, one of ordinary skill in the art would perform routine optimization of the maximum diameter of the protuberances 112a in Tissot including the claimed diameter value in order for proper cone angle for proper deflections, available heat exchange space and pressure drop of the protuberances 112a. Therefore, specifying the maximum diameter in the claim is not novel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein a maximum diameter of the at least one truncated dome measured at its base is 4.5 mm in Tissot as taught by Kun through routine optimization of the cone angle of the protuberances 112a to obtain required deflections, available heat exchange space and pressure drop of the protuberances 112a.
Regarding claim 7, Tissot in claim 5 fails to explicitly disclose wherein a minimum diameter of the at least one truncated dome measured at its top is 2 mm.
Following the teaching of col. 7, lines 39-49 of Kun discussed in claim 6 above, the minimum diameter of the at least one truncated dome is also a result effective variable because changing the maximum diameter (or diameter d in Kun) effectively changes the angle θ of the cone, and also subsequently effects deflections, available heat exchange space and pressure drop of the projections as taught by Kun. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would also perform routine optimization of the minimum diameter of the protuberances 112a in Tissot including the claimed diameter value in order for proper cone angle for proper deflections, available heat exchange space and pressure drop of the protuberances 112a. Therefore, specifying the minimum diameter in the claim is not novel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein a minimum diameter of the at least one truncated dome measured at its top is 2 mm in Tissot as taught by Kun through routine optimization of the cone angle of the protuberances 112a to obtain required deflections, available heat exchange space and pressure drop of the protuberances 112a.
Regarding claim 8, Tissot discloses a heat exchanger (11, Figs. 1, 3 and 6) configured to bring about an exchange of heat between a first fluid (refrigerant 4, Fig. 1) and a second fluid (coolant 6, Fig. 1), comprising plates (plates 105) having a tub-like form (U shape form) with two opposite longitudinal edges (108a and 108b) connected to one another by two lateral edges (109a and 109b), the longitudinal edges and lateral edges surrounding a bottom wall of the plate (the edges 108a/b and 109a/b surrounding a bottom 106 of the plate 105, Fig. 4), an angle (α) measured between the bottom wall (106) and any one of the edges (108b) ranging between 103.5° and 109.5° (α is between 91° and 140°, paragraph 0107 of the translation, overlaps the claimed range), the bottom wall (106) being equipped with fluid-flow-disturbing elements (protuberances 112a and 112b, Fig. 5), at least one of the fluid-flow-disturbing elements having a vertical dimension (H1, H2) measured inside a volume delimited by the bottom wall and the edges (the heights H1 and H2 are measured in a volume between bottom 106 and top tips of the edges 108b).
Tissot fails to disclose a thickness of the bottom wall ranging between 0.20 mm and 0.45 mm; and
at least one of the fluid-flow-disturbing elements having a vertical dimension measured inside a volume delimited by the bottom wall and the edges that ranges between 0.75 mm and 1.15 mm.
Kun discloses a thickness of the bottom wall (24) ranging between 0.20 mm and 0.45 mm (sheet or wall thickness between 0.003 and 0.02 inch, col. 8, lines 5-6, or between 0.0762 and 0.508 mm)
Kun further discloses a material thickness t about 0.003 inch would be unsuitable due to local imperfections in the metal, produced during rolling or as a result of pitting (corrosion) or erosion. A material thickness to above 0.25 inch is not suited to this invention when employed within the imposed limits of D, H and d, because full or near-full utilization of the material strength implies extremely high pressure differentials (col. 7, lines 50-57). Therefore, the claimed thickness of the bottom wall is a result effective variable that at least effects the corrosion resistance and material strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would perform routine optimization of the bottom wall thickness including the claimed range in order for proper corrosion resistance and material strength. Therefore, specifying the thickness in the claim is not novel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a thickness of the bottom wall ranging between 0.20 mm and 0.45 mm in Tissot as taught by Kun through routine optimization of the thickness to obtain a required corrosion resistance and material strength of the bottom wall.
Kun further discloses a vertical dimension (H, Fig. 1) of the fluid-flow-disturbing elements (contacting buttons 17, Fig. 2) that ranges between 0.75 mm and 1.15 mm (a height H of about 0.035 inch, col. 8, line 9, or 0.889 mm). Kun further discloses a H/D ratio less than 0.05 would be susceptible to fouling and have a high external fluid pressure drop per unit length of fluid flow path. For a H/D ratio of greater than 0.2, a small heat exchange area per cubic foot of heat exchange volume would result thereby resulting in excessive manufacturing cost and decreased efficiency (col. 7, lines 26-33). The height H is a numerator of the ratio and therefore a result effective variable that effects the fluid pressure drop, manufacturing cost and efficiency of the fluid-flow-disturbing elements. One of ordinary skill in the art would perform routine optimization of the height H1 and/or H2 in Tissot including the claimed range in order for proper pressure drop, manufacturing cost and efficiency of the protuberances 112a. Therefore, specifying the vertical dimension or height in the claim is not novel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided at least one of the fluid-flow-disturbing elements having a vertical dimension measured inside a volume delimited by the bottom wall and the edges that ranges between 0.75 mm and 1.15 mm in Tissot as taught by Kun through routine optimization of the height of the protuberances 112a to obtain a required pressure drop, manufacturing cost and efficiency of the protuberances 112a.
Regarding claim 9, Tissot as modified in claim 8 further discloses wherein the angle measured between the bottom wall and any one of the edges ranges between 105° and 108° (α is between 91° and 140° overlaps the claimed range).
Regarding claim 10, Tissot as modified in claim 9 further discloses wherein the fluid-flow-disturbing elements (protuberances 112a) include at least one truncated dome (The protuberances 112a are round in a top view in Fig. 4 with a truncated top 116a) extending between a base (117) and a top (116b having a height H2), wherein the tops (116b) of the fluid-flow-disturbing elements (of the protuberances 112a) of the plates (plates 105 shown in Fig. 6) are in contact with the bottom wall (117) of the plates (105) adjacent to it in the stacking direction (tops 116b of plates 105 are in contact with the bottom 117 of above adjacent plates in a vertical stacking direction).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FOR K LING whose telephone number is (571)272-8752. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 am to 5 pm.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/F.K.L/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights