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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/23/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 8/23/2026 is acknowledged.
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 4, 7- 9, 14-15 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 4 recites the limitation " the first common wall “. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation " the wall side facing away from the first low-temperature channel". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation " the common wall in the main region". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7 and 8 recite the limitation " the inflow surface". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation of “it”, wherein it is unclear what “it” is referring to. Specifically, it is unclear as to what the exact relationship the “it” have with the previous recoted structure, since the term “it” is vague. Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite , the claim is rendered indefinite and determined to be an antecedent basis issue. For examination purposes, the phrase has been interpreted as -- the heat exchanger -- for clarity.
Claim 8 recites the limitation of “wherein the direction of the extension axis, a direction of a wall extension of the common wall in the main region, forms a main slope angle between 0 and 60 degrees, between 30 and 55 degrees, and to the inflow surface of the heat exchanger”, wherein it is unclear what “a main slope angle” is referring to. Specifically, it is unclear as to what the exact relationship the “a main slope angle” have with the “the direction of the extension axis”, “a direction of a wall extension of the common wall in the main region”, “the inflow surface of the heat exchanger” have with each other. Three structures are recited with the ”main slope angle”. Which items have the relative “main slope angle” between them? Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite and the claim is rendered indefinite. For examination purposes, the phrase has been interpreted as -- wherein the direction of the extension axis, a direction of a wall extension of the common wall in the main region, forms a main slope angle between 0 and 60 degrees, between 30 and 55 degrees -- for clarity.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites “wherein the inflow surface has a flow angle between 0 and 45 degrees, and advantageously between 3 and 15 degrees “ which is a broad recitation followed by a narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 87 recites “0 and 60 degrees, between 30 and 55 degrees“ which is a broad recitation followed by a narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency from a claim that has been rejected.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WALSH et al. US 2021/0041188 Al.
Re claim 1, WALSH et al. teach a heat exchanger (30) for cooling an exhaust gas or a fuel-cell cooling fluid, by a cooling fluid which is at a lower temperature than the hot fluid and which has a high flow velocity, comprising: a high-temperature grille (44) for guiding the hot fluid, a low temperature grille (annotated fig) for guiding the cooling fluid, and wherein, in at least one of the low-temperature channels of the low-temperature grille through which the cooling fluid flows, a diffusor region (39) is arranged to slow down the cooling fluid, and wherein the diffusor region and a first high-temperature channel of the high- temperature grille through which the hot fluid flows has at least one common wall (annotated fig, 36) for heat transfer.
PNG
media_image1.png
633
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, WALSH et al. teach wherein the at least one common wall for forming the diffuser range in the first low-temperature channel has a first planar or convexly curved diffuser section (fig 7).
Re claim 3, WALSH et al. teach wherein the low-temperature channel has a deflection region (inlet area) which is arranged upstream of the diffuser region and in which the cooling fluid is deflected but still not slowed down, is accelerated.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “the cooling fluid is deflected but still not slowed down, is accelerated” 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 4, WALSH et al. teach wherein, in the low-temperature channel a second common wall (noting fig 7 showing 6 common walls) is arranged opposite the first common wall, which, on the wall side facing away from the first low-temperature channel adjoins a second high-temperature channel of the high-temperature grille in the diffuser region, wherein the second common wall in the diffuser region has a planar or concavely curved diffuser section (fig 7).
Re claim 5, WALSH et al. teach wherein an inlet (annotated fig) for diverting the cooling fluid into the diffuser region is arranged in front of the diffuser region in the flow direction of the cooling fluid.
PNG
media_image2.png
399
328
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 6, WALSH et al. teach wherein downstream of the diffuser region is a discharge region with a discharge nozzle for accelerating the cooling fluid (fig 7).
Noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘nozzle’ is a projecting vent of something.
Re claim 7, WALSH et al. teach a heat exchanger arrangement with a heat exchanger according to claim 1, comprising a flow channel (multiple channels in between 32, 36) for the inflow of the cooling fluid to the heat exchanger, wherein the heat exchanger is arranged in the flow channel for guiding the cooling fluid, and wherein the low-temperature grille and the high-temperature grille form a first heat exchanger module of the heat exchanger (fig 5), wherein a plurality of common walls (noting fig 7 showing 6 common walls) together form a first inflow surface in the flow channel which borders the first heat exchanger module and is spanned by the common walls, wherein the inflow surface has a flow angle between 0 and 45 degrees, and advantageously between 3 and 15 degrees, to a main channel direction of the flow channel (fig 5).
Re claim 8, WALSH et al. teach wherein a main region of the low-temperature channel with an extension axis adjoins the diffuser region downstream, in particular directly, and wherein the direction of the extension axis, a direction of a wall extension of the common wall in the main region, forms a main slope angle between 0 and 60 degrees, between 30 and 55 degrees, and to the inflow surface of the heat exchanger (see 122 section above, noting the two structures run mostly parallel and thus are close to 0 degrees, fig 7).
Re claim 9, WALSH et al. teach wherein a plurality of common walls together form a first outflow surface in the flow channel which delimits the first heat exchanger module and is spanned by the common walls and borders it downstream (figs 5, 7), wherein the first outflow surface forms a first outflow angle between 0 and 45 degrees to a main channel direction (inlet duct, outlet duct, or bypass channel) in the flow channel (fig 5).
Re claim 14, WALSH et al. teach a turbomachine (para 3) comprising a bypass channel (fig 5) and a heat exchanger arrangement according to claim 7 (fig 5, see the rejection of claim 7), wherein the flow channel is a bypass channel and the low-temperature grille is in fluid connection with the bypass channel and/or the high-temperature grille is in fluid connection with the main flow channel (fig 5).
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WALSH et al. in view of Duesler US 20170204787 A1.
Re claim 15, WALSH et al. teach fail to explicitly teach a plurality of heat exchanger arrangements.
Duesler teach wherein a plurality of heat exchanger arrangements are distributed in the circumferential direction in the bypass channel (para 38, fig 2) to create an array of heat exchangers.
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 heat exchanger arrangements as taught by Duesler in the WALSH et al. teach invention in order to advantageously allow for more surface area for heat exchange,
Additionally, 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 heat exchanger arrangements are distributed in the circumferential direction in the bypass channel to advantageously allow for increased heat exchange, since it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, section VI, part B.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20210041188 A1.
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
