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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of legal phraseology Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means”, “said” and “comprising” should be avoided.
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 1-13 and 15 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, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “is designed as a leak detection structure” in ll. 8 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned what structural attributes of the separating structures make up the leak detection structure or rather what specific structure the leak detection structure comprises. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “is designed as a leak detection structure” will be interpreted as – contains a leak detection structure --.
A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 97 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to "[a] system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data" was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim that recited "an input means" and required a user to use the input means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear "whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means."); Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph). In the present case, Claim 6 puts forth using an additive manufacturing method. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “using an additive manufacturing method” will be interpreted as – using additive manufacturing--.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorsten et al. (WO9703281A1) in view of Wagner (Translation of FR2935473A1) hereinafter referred to as Thorsten and Wagner, respectively.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Separating Structure)][AltContent: textbox (First Material Layer)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second Material Layer)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
203
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thorsten Figure 3
Regarding Claim 1, Thorsten discloses a plate heat exchanger (53, “The heat exchanger is of the printed circuit type and has core formed by a number of plates”) having a heat exchanger block (54), wherein
heat exchanger passages (41) which each have distribution and collecting structures (shown in figure 4, being the angled passage portions (41) immediately adjacent chambers 32 or 35, respectively) and one or more central structured portions (shown in figure 4, being the straight passage portion of the passages (41)) arranged between the distribution and collecting structures (shown in figure 4) are arranged in the heat exchanger block (shown in figure 4), wherein
separating structures (shown in annotated figure 3 above, being the portions of the core situated between passages (41) and passages (42)) are arranged between the heat exchanger passages, and
the heat exchanger block (54) is covered on a first side (shown in figure 2, being the top side of the housing (55) that encloses the core (54)) and on a second side (shown in figure 2, being the bottom side of the housing (55) that encloses the core (54)) by covering structures (shown in figure 2) wherein
at least one of the separating structures is designed as a leak detection structure which has a cavity (43) formed in the leak detection structure (shown in annotated figure 3) in such a manner that the cavity is delimited in the direction of the first side by a first material layer (shown in annotated figure 3) and in the direction of the second side by a second material layer (shown in annotated figure 3) of the leak detection structure, wherein,
in a region of the leak detection structure not taken up by the cavity (43), the first material layer (shown in annotated figure 3) and the second material layer (shown in annotated figure 3) are connected to each other (shown in annotated figure 3), in that a width of the cavity (43) in a direction parallel to the first material layer and the second material layer (being the height of the passage (43) in the vertical direction of figure 3) is smaller than a width of the central structured portions (shown in figure 3, wherein the height of the passage (43) is less than the height of the passage (41)) of the heat exchanger passages in this direction (shown in figure 3), and
in that a measuring device (57) is provided which is designed to detect a variable (“pressure sensor”) correlating to a rupture of a wall of the cavity (43) or of an element arranged in the cavity (“Consequently, the pressurized inert gas in the sentinel passage 43 will enter the compromised fuel passage "41, resulting in a drop in pressure in the manifold 65. Similarly, deterioration of a compressed air passage 42 will also cause a drop in pressure in the manifold 65. In either event, a pressure sensor 57' installed in the manifold 65 will alert operating personnel of the situation”). Although Thorsten discloses a printed circuit type heat exchanger having stacked plates with channels providing heat exchange, Thorsten fails to disclose the heat exchanger is a plate fin heat exchanger, with heat exchanger passages formed with sheets.
Wagner, also drawn to a heat exchanger having leak identification, teaches the heat exchanger is a plate fin heat exchanger (shown in figure 4) with heat exchanger passages formed with sheets (106, shown in figures 4B and 4C).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting a printed circuit type heat exchanger core with a plate fin heat exchanger core; further the prior art to Wagner teaches a plate fin heat exchanger core (shown in figure 4) is known for exchanging heat between working fluids and is a recognized equivalent to a printed circuit type exchanger core (“Figures 2 and 3 show PCHE type exchangers and Figures 4 and 5 show plate and fin exchangers (diffusion welded or brazed)”). Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Thorsten with having a plate fin heat exchanger core for exchanging heat between working fluids while monitoring leaks within said heat exchanger, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat exchanger device; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Wagner there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Thorsten by having a plate fin heat exchanger core.
Alternately, Wagner explicitly discloses that a plate fin heat exchanger core is an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two heat exchanger core configurations were art recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a plate fin heat exchanger core for a printed circuit type exchanger core.
Regarding Claim 2, a modified Thorsten further teaches the variable correlating to a rupture of a wall of the cavity is a variable that characterizes an outflow of fluid from the cavity (“Since the distance between a fuel passage 41 and a sentinel passage 43 is shorter than the distance between a fuel passage and a compressed air passage 42, in the event of cracking or corrosion that compromises the flow containment capability of a fuel passage it is likely that such deterioration will place the compromised passage into the flow communication with a sentinel passage, rather than a compressed air passage. Consequently, the pressurized inert gas in the sentinel passage 43 will enter the compromised fuel passage "41, resulting in a drop in pressure in the manifold 65”).
Regarding Claim 5, a modified Thorsten further teaches the first material layer (shown in annotated figure 3) and the second material layer (shown in annotated figure 3) are parts of an integrally formed metal structure (shown in annotated figure 3) in which the cavity (43) is formed or provided (shown in figure 3 of Thorsten).
Regarding Claim 6, a modified Thorsten further teaches the metal structure is formed (shown in annotated figure 3) using an additive manufacturing method (see product by process analysis below).
In product-by-process claims, as in Claim 6, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). The combination of previous references meets the structural limitations put forth in Claim 6, wherein the final product existing after fabrication is compared to prior art for the purposes of patentability. The limitations regarding “using an additive manufacturing method” are drawn to methods of production and not the structural aspects of the instant invention.
Regarding Claim 7, a modified Thorsten further teaches the variable that correlates with a rupture of a wall of the cavity (43) is a pressure in the cavity (“Since the distance between a fuel passage 41 and a sentinel passage 43 is shorter than the distance between a fuel passage and a compressed air passage 42, in the event of cracking or corrosion that compromises the flow containment capability of a fuel passage it is likely that such deterioration will place the compromised passage into the flow communication with a sentinel passage, rather than a compressed air passage. Consequently, the pressurized inert gas in the sentinel passage 43 will enter the compromised fuel passage "41, resulting in a drop in pressure in the manifold 65”).
[AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Center Line)]
PNG
media_image2.png
181
172
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wagner Figure 2A
Regarding Claim 9, Thorsten fails to disclose the cavity in the leak detection structure runs alternately on two sides of a center line.
Wagner, also drawn to a heat exchanger having leak identification, teaches a cavity (10A) in the leak detection structure runs alternately on two sides of a center line (shown in annotated figure 2A).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting a straight channel with a sinusoidal or zigzag-shaped channel; further the prior art to Wagner teaches straight, sinusoidal and zigzag-shaped channels are known for venting fluids within a heat exchanger and are recognized equivalents (“The channels may be straight, sinusoidal or zigzag-shaped”). Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Thorsten with having a sinusoidal or zigzag-shaped channel for venting fluid within a heat exchanger, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat exchanger device; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Wagner there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Thorsten by having sinusoidal or zigzag-shaped channels for an increase in heat exchange or flow resistance with the vented working fluid.
Alternately, Wagner explicitly discloses that straight, sinusoidal or zigzag-shaped channels are equivalent structures known in the art. Therefore, because these channel configurations were art recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a sinusoidal or zigzag-shaped channel for a straight channel.
Regarding Claim 10, a modified Thorsten further teaches the center line (see annotated figure 2A of Wagner) runs in a predetermined arrangement to a side edge of the leak detection structure (shown in annotated figure 2A of Wagner, wherein the annotated “Center Line” extends in a plane relative to a side edge of the structure).
Regarding Claim 11, a modified Thorsten further teaches the center line runs in a predetermined orientation (shown in annotated figure 2A of Wagner) to a predicted crack propagation line and/or an expected region of crack formation (Thorsten discloses the location of the channel (“because of the formation of fatigue cracks that extend from a fuel passage 41 to a compressed air passage”), wherein Wagner teaches the zigzag or sinusoidal shape of the channel), and/or wherein the cavity, which runs alternately on two sides of a center line at least in one section, runs in a sinusoidal or zigzag-shaped manner (shown in figure 2A of Wagner).
Regarding Claim 13, a modified Thorsten further teaches the cavity (43) is connected to a drainage device (65).
Regarding Claim 14, Thorsten discloses a method for producing a plate heat exchanger (53, “The heat exchanger is of the printed circuit type and has core formed by a number of plates”), comprising the steps of:
a) forming a stack assembly (“The heat exchanger is of the printed circuit type and has core formed by a number of plates diffusion bonded together along their planar surfaces”, see abstract) that comprises a number of heat exchanger passages (41), wherein the heat exchanger passages are each formed by arranging a number of distribution and collecting structures (shown in figure 4, being the angled passage portions immediately adjacent chambers 32 or 35, respectively) and central structured portions (shown in figure 4, being the straight passage portion of the passages (41)), wherein separating structures (shown in annotated figure 3 above, being the portions of the core situated between passages (41) and passages (42)) are each arranged between the heat exchanger passages (41), and wherein
a covering structure (55) each is arranged on a first side (shown in figure 2, being the top side of the housing (55) that encloses the core (54)) and a second side (shown in figure 2, being the bottom side of the housing (55) that encloses the core (54)) of the stack assembly (shown in figure 2), and
b) connecting the stack assembly to form a heat exchanger block (shown in figure 2) wherein the steps of:
c) providing at least one of the separating structures as a leak detection structure with a cavity (43) that is arranged in the leak detection structure (shown in figure 3) in such a manner that the cavity (43) is delimited in the direction of the first side by a first material layer (shown in annotated figure 3) and in the direction of the second side by a second material layer (shown in annotated figure 3) of the leak detection structure, wherein,
in a region of the leak detection structure not taken up by the cavity (43), the first material layer and the second material layer are connected to each other (shown in annotated figure 3), and
a width of the cavity (43) in a direction parallel to the first material layer and the second material layer (being the height of the passage (43) in the vertical direction of figure 3) is smaller than a width of the central structured portions of the heat exchanger passages in that same direction (shown in figure 3, wherein the height of the passage (43) is less than the height of the passage (41)), and
d) providing a measuring device (57) which is designed to detect a variable (“pressure sensor”) that correlates with a rupture of a wall of the cavity (“Consequently, the pressurized inert gas in the sentinel passage 43 will enter the compromised fuel passage "41, resulting in a drop in pressure in the manifold 65. Similarly, deterioration of a compressed air passage 42 will also cause a drop in pressure in the manifold 65. In either event, a pressure sensor 57' installed in the manifold 65 will alert operating personnel of the situation”), which characterizes an outflow of fluid from the cavity (“Since the distance between a fuel passage 41 and a sentinel passage 43 is shorter than the distance between a fuel passage and a compressed air passage 42, in the event of cracking or corrosion that compromises the flow containment capability of a fuel passage it is likely that such deterioration will place the compromised passage into the flow communication with a sentinel passage, rather than a compressed air passage. Consequently, the pressurized inert gas in the sentinel passage 43 will enter the compromised fuel passage "41, resulting in a drop in pressure in the manifold 65”).
Regarding Claim 15, a modified Thorsten further teaches a method for controlling the temperature of at least one fluid (“A gas turbine is provided having a heat exchanger (53) in which heat is removed from compressed air, bled (30) from the compressor section”, see abstract), wherein a plate-fin heat exchanger according to claim l is used (see rejection of Claim 1 above).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorsten et al. (WO9703281A1) in view of Wagner (Translation of FR2935473A1) as applied in Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-11 and 13-15 above and in further view of Chainer et al. (US PG Pub. 2016/0091262A1), hereinafter referred to as Chainer.
Regarding Claim 8, although Thorsten discloses the measuring device (57) captures a variable that correlates with a rupture of a wall of the cavity (“Since the distance between a fuel passage 41 and a sentinel passage 43 is shorter than the distance between a fuel passage and a compressed air passage 42, in the event of cracking or corrosion that compromises the flow containment capability of a fuel passage it is likely that such deterioration will place the compromised passage into the flow communication with a sentinel passage, rather than a compressed air passage. Consequently, the pressurized inert gas in the sentinel passage 43 will enter the compromised fuel passage "41, resulting in a drop in pressure in the manifold 65”) and is designed to detect a leak in the heat exchanger block on the basis of the monitored variable (see previous annotation), Thorsten fails to disclose the measuring device has a computing unit or is connected or connectable to a computing unit, wherein the computing unit is designed to monitor the variable, and which is further designed to detect a leak on the basis of the monitored variable.
Chainer, also drawn to a heat exchanger having a pressure sensor for detecting leakage, teaches the measuring device (“The leak detector apparatus can include pressure measurements from sensors 111a and 111b and flow-rate measurements to detect leaks” ¶23) is connected or connectable to a computing unit (“leak detector apparatus 120 may be controlled electronically by one or more controllers” ¶24), wherein the computing unit is designed to monitor the variable (see ¶23), and which is further designed to detect a leak on the basis of the monitored variable (see ¶23, wherein the leak detector utilizes pressure measurements to detect a leak). It is noted that Thorsten teaches the pressure sensor taking measurements to determine if a leak has taken place in the heat exchanger, wherein Chainer teaches it is old and well known to have a computing unit in communication with a pressure sensor utilized for detecting leaks.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Thorsten with the measuring device having a computing unit or is connected or connectable to a computing unit, wherein the computing unit is designed to monitor the variable, and which is further designed to detect a leak on the basis of the monitored variable, as taught by Chainer, the motivation being to provide real time analysis of the system that expedites required maintenance or repairs, thereby minimizing downtime or degradation of said system caused by continuous leakage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 12 are 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.
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