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 § 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 1-13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “approximately” in claims 1, 7, and 8 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined in each claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as any degree of approximation.
The term “substantially” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as any degree of substantiality.
Claim(s) 2, 4-6, and 9-13 are rejected at least insofar as they are dependent on rejected claim(s), and therefore include the same error(s).
Claims 18-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “approximately” in claims 18-20 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined in each claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as any degree of approximation.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Yoshimura (US20140144611: cited by Applicant) in view of Sennoun (US20180245853A1: cited by Applicant), Kollar (WO2018236076A1), and Bhatti (US7080683B2: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshimura teaches a heat exchanger (8b: see Figures 3a-3c) adapted to receive high temperature, high pressure, and corrosive fluids (see ¶ [0057]), the heat exchanger comprising:
a body (10) having an interior volume (interior volume where channels 1 and 2 are formed);
a first set of channels (1a and 1b) extending through the body (see Figures 3a-3c), each channel in the first set of channels having:
a first inlet aperture (opening at longitudinal end which communicates with 3a and 3b);
a first inlet portion (any portion between the inlet opening and a quarter of the length of the channel in the direction towards its outlet);
a first outlet aperture (opening at the other longitudinal end which communicates
with 4a & 4b);
a first outlet portion (any portion between the outlet opening and a quarter of the length of the channel in the direction towards its inlet); and
a first conduit (portion of the channel between the first inlet and outlet portions) extending between the first inlet portion and the first outlet portion (see Figures 3a-3c);
wherein the first conduit (portion of the channel between the first inlet and outlet portions) has a first cross-sectional shape that is constant as the first conduit extends between the first inlet portion and the first outlet portion (see Figures 3a-3c);
wherein the first cross-sectional shape is defined by a rectangular flow area (see in Figures 3a-3c where the cross-sectional shape of first conduit ,i.e. portion of the channel between the first inlet and outlet portions, includes rectangular mid-section),
a second set of channels (2a and 2b) extending through the body such that the second set of channels is spaced from the first set of channels (see Figures 3a-3c) by a distance (distance in the vertical direction in Figure 3c), each channel in the second set of channels having:
a second inlet aperture (opening at the longitudinal end which communicates with 5a and 5b);
a second inlet portion (any portion between the inlet opening and a quarter of the length of the channel in the direction towards its outlet);
a second outlet aperture (opening at the other longitudinal end which communicates with 6a and 6b);
a second outlet portion (any portion between the outlet opening and a quarter of the
length of the channel in the direction towards its inlet); and
a second conduit (portion of the channel between the first inlet and outlet portions) extending between the second inlet portion and the second outlet portion (see Figures 3a-3c);
wherein the second conduit (portion of the channel between the first inlet and outlet portions) has a second cross-sectional shape that is constant as the second conduit extends between the second inlet portion and the second outlet portion (see in Figures 3a-3c where the cross-sectional shape of second conduit, i.e. portion of the channel between the first inlet and outlet portions), includes constant rectangular mid-section); and
wherein each channel in the second set of channels is adapted to receive a second fluid at a second pressure different from the first pressure (Examiner notes that the recitations: " wherein each channel in the second set of channels is adapted to receive a second fluid at a second pressure different from the first pressure" is considered to be statement of intended use. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114(II));
a first set of headers (31, 3a, 3b, 41, 4a, 4b) including both horizontal (3a, 3b, 4a, 4b) and vertical (31 and 41) components and formed with the body (see ¶ [0072]), the first set of headers in fluid communication with each channel in the first set of channels (see ¶ [0069] and Figures 3a & 3c); and
a second set of headers (51, 5a, 5b, 61, 6a, 6b) including both horizontal (5a, 5b, 6a, 6b) and vertical (51 and 61) components and formed with the body (see ¶ [0072]), the second set of headers in fluid communication with each channel in the second set of channels (see ¶ [0070] and Figures 3a & 3c).
Yoshimura does not teach that the heat exchanger seamlessly formed and a first semi-elliptical flow area disposed outward from a first side of the rectangular flow area, and a second semi-elliptical flow area disposed outward from a second side of the rectangular flow area opposite the first side of the rectangular flow area such that the second semi-elliptical flow area is disposed opposite the first semi-elliptical flow area; and wherein the first cross-sectional shape is configured to maintain stress below 65 megapascals (MPa) in the body when a first fluid, at a first pressure between 175 bar and 700 bar, is received in the first set of channels; wherein each channel in one of the first set of channels and second set of channels has a height of approximately 1 to 20 millimeters and a diameter of approximately 1 to 20 millimeters.
However, it’s old and well known in the art to for heat exchangers to be additively manufactured as a single, integral piece, as evidenced by Sennoun, see Sennoun’s ¶ ¶ [0044-0046]) and Figure 1.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the heat exchanger of Yoshimura to be seamlessly formed, since as evidenced by Sennoun, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of improving the overall assembly process of the heat exchanger, see Sennoun’s ¶ [0055].
Moreover, Kollar teaches a heat exchanger (see Figure 1) comprising a conduit (3) that includes a cross-section having a flat mid-section (10) and semi-elliptical ends (11: see Figure 4A).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the invention to provide the cross-sectional shape of Yoshimura's first
conduit with semi-elliptical ends, as taught by Kollar. Such combination will provide the benefits of increasing the support against the external pressure, (see Kollar's ¶ [103]).
Additionally, regarding the recitation of "wherein the first cross-sectional shape is configured to maintain stress below 65 megapascals (MPa) in the body when a first fluid, at a first pressure between 175 bar and 700 bar, is received in the first set of channels", Examiner notes that to the extent that Applicant's cross-sectional shape is" configured to maintain stress below 65 megapascals (MPa) in the body when a first fluid, at a first pressure between 175 bar and 700 bar, is received in the first set of channels; ", so too is the cross-sectional shape of Yoshimura in view of Kollar.
Furthermore, each channel in one of the first set of channels and second set of channels has a height of approximately 1 to 20 millimeters and a diameter of approximately 1 to 20 millimeters is a results effective variable, as recognized by Bhatti, see Bhatti's Figure 29, Col. 4 lines [4-8] and Col. 9 line [36]- Col. 10 line [33] where Bhatti recognized the aspect ratio of the channel is a results effective variable by the relationship between the optimal hydraulic diameter (d) and the optimal hydraulic diameter (
d
0
). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Yoshimura's each channel in one of the first set of channels and second set of channels to have the height and the diameter within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the workable ranges of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshimura's each channel in one of the first set of channels and second set of channels to have a height of approximately 1 to 20 millimeters and a diameter of approximately 1 to 20 millimeters as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshimura as modified further teaches wherein a shape of the first inlet portion and a shape of the first outlet portion are substantially similar to the shape of the first conduit (consistent with what is shown in Figures 3a-3c), and a shape of the second inlet portion and a shape of the second outlet portion are substantially similar to the shape of the second conduit (consistent with what is shown in Figures 3a-3c), wherein, the shape of at least one of the first inlet portion or the second inlet portion includes a semi-elliptical cross-section (as modified by Kollar's semi-elliptical ends (11): also see Yoshimura’s ¶ [0035]).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshimura as modified further teaches wherein the first set of channels is adapted to receive a first fluid (first refrigerant: see ¶ [0057]) having a temperature between 500°C and 800°C, and the second set of channels is adapted to receive a second fluid (second refrigerant: see ¶ [0057]) having a temperature between 500°C and 800°C, the first fluid being a corrosive fluid ( Examiner notes that the recitation of “a first fluid having a temperature between 500°C and 800°C, and the second set of channels is adapted to receive a second fluid having a temperature between 500°C and 800°C, the first fluid being a corrosive fluid” is considered to be a statement of intended use. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114(II). In the instant case, Yoshimura in view of Sennoun, Kollar, and Bhatti discloses all of the structural limitations as claimed and is thus capable of being employed in the manner claimed).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshimura as modified further teaches wherein the horizontal and vertical components of the first set of headers includes a first vertical portion (31 & 41) and at least one first horizontal portion (3a, 3b, 4a, 4b), each horizontal portion of the at least one first horizontal portion being in fluid communication with the first vertical portion (see ¶ [0069] and Figures 3a-3c); and wherein, the horizontal and vertical components of the second set of headers includes a second vertical portion (51 & 61) and at least one second horizontal portion (5a, 5b, 6a, 6b), each horizontal portion of the at least one second horizontal portion being in fluid communication with the second vertical portion (see ¶ [0070] and Figures 3a-3c).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshimura as modified further teaches wherein the first set of channels and the second set of channels are arranged in a channel matrix through the body (matrix arrangement of channels 1 & 2: see Figures 3a-3c), the channel matrix having alternating rows of the first set of channels and the second set of channels (see ¶ [0057] and Figures 3a-3c).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshimura as modified further teaches wherein each channel in the first set of channels and each channel in the second set of channels has a diameter of approximately 10 millimeters ( Examiner notes that each channel in the first set of channels and each channel in the second set of channels has a diameter of approximately 10 millimeters is a results effective variable, as recognized by Bhatti in the rejection of claim 1, see Bhatti's Figure 29, Col. 4 lines [4-8] and Col. 9 line [36]- Col. 10 line [33] where Bhatti recognized the aspect ratio of the channel is a results effective variable by the relationship between the optimal hydraulic diameter (d) and the optimal hydraulic diameter (
d
0
)).
Regarding claim 9, Yoshimura as modified further teaches wherein the heat exchanger is formed using an additive manufacturing technique (see Sennoun’s ¶ ¶ [0044-0046]. Moreover, Examiner notes that the recitation of " the heat exchanger is formed using an additive manufacturing technique " is considered product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113)).
Regarding claim 10, Yoshimura does not teach wherein the heat exchanger is formed of ceramic.
Sennoun teaches a heat exchanger (see Figure 1) that is formed of ceramic (see ¶ [0047]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teaching of Yoshimura with the teaching of Sennoun to provide the heat exchanger is formed of ceramic, as taught by Sennoun. Such combination will provide the benefit of providing the heat exchanger of Yoshimura with the high temperature characteristics of the ceramic material. Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. V. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 11, Yoshimura as modified further teaches wherein the second pressure is between 0 bar and 20 bar (Yoshimura discloses in 1 [0119-0120] that the heat exchanger is capable of receiving a high-pressure refrigerant which is an indication that the heat exchanger is capable of operating with/containing fluids that each have a pressure more than 0 bar).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshimura does not teach wherein the first set of headers extends from a top side of the body and the second set of headers extends from a bottom side of the body.
However, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the location of the first set of headers and the second set of headers would result in a difference in function of Yoshimura’s device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the location of Yoshimura’s first set of headers and second set of headers, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed location. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed locations solve any stated problem, indicating that the location of the first set of headers and the second set of headers may on the same side or different sides (see Figures 1A and 1B) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the location of the first set of headers and the second set of headers as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the first set of headers and the second set of headers of Yoshimura’s device to have the first set of headers extends from a top side of the body and the second set of headers extends from a bottom side of the body as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Yoshimura (US20140144611: cited by Applicant) in view of Sennoun (US20180245853A1: cited by Applicant), Kollar (WO2018236076A1), and Bhatti (US7080683B2: cited by Applicant), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Soukhojak (US20120168111: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshimura does not teach further comprising a set of storage channels integrally formed with and extending through the body, each storage channel in the set of storage channels being adapted to receive a thermal storage material, the set of storage channels being disposed between the first set of channels and the second set of channels.
However, Soukhojak teaches a heat exchanger (10: Figure 1-2B) adapted to receive fluids (working fluid, i.e. fluid entering at 14 and heat transfer fluid, i.e. fluid entering at 18), comprising a body (12), a first set of channels (22), and a second set of channels (26). In particular, Soukhojak teaches a set of storage channels (32) extending through the body (see Figure 1-2B), each storage channel in the set of storage channels being adapted to receive a thermal storage material (30), the set of storage channels being disposed between the first set of channels and the second set of channels (see Figures 1-2B and ¶ [0092]) for the purpose of storing thermal energy such that the stored thermal energy can be later utilized (see ¶ [0021]), ultimately enhancing system efficiency.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yoshimura in view of Sennoun, Kollar,
and Bhatti by employing a set of storage channels integrally formed with and extending through
the body, each storage channel in the set of storage channels being adapted to receive a
thermal storage material, the set of storage channels being disposed between the first set of
channels and the second set of channels, as taught by Soukhojak, for the purpose of storing
thermal energy such that the stored thermal energy can be later utilized, ultimately enhancing
system efficiency.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Yoshimura (US20140144611: cited by Applicant) in view of Sennoun (US20180245853A1: cited by Applicant), Kollar (WO2018236076A1), and Bhatti (US7080683B2: cited by Applicant), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Musso (US20030173720: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 7, Yoshimura as modified further teaches wherein a center of each channel in the first set of channels is spaced from a center of each channel in the second set of channels by a distance (see in Figures 3a & 3c where the center of channels 1a and the center of channels 2a and/or the center of channels 1b and the center of channels 2b are spaced by a distance in the vertical direction).
Yoshimura does not teach that the distance is approximately 7.2 millimeters.
However, the distance between the center of each channel in the first set of channels and the center of each channel in the second set of channels is recognized as a result-effective variable, as recognized by Musso, see Musso's Figure (Figures 7-8) and ¶¶ [0103-0104] where Musso recognized the distance ("r") between the center of each channel in the first set of channels (226/326) and the center of each channel in the second set of channels (228/328), is a results effective variable and selected based on the level of compactness of the heat exchanger. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Yoshimura's distance between the center of each channel in the first set of channels and the center of each channel in the second set of channels to have the claimed distance, as it involves only adjusting the workable ranges of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshimura's distance between the center of each channel in the first set of channels and the center of each channel in the second set of channels to have 7.2 millimeters as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Yoshimura (US20140144611: cited by Applicant) in view of Sennoun (US20180245853A1: cited by Applicant), Kollar (WO2018236076A1), and Bhatti (US7080683B2: cited by Applicant), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rubak (US7340899: cited by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 13, Rubak discloses (Figure 1) a solar powered energy generation system (100, Column 5, lines 36-43) comprising a heat exchanger (172), the heat exchanger adapted to receive fluids (fluids in circuits 180 and 182, respectively, per Column 9, lines 64- 67).
Yoshimura in view of Sennoun, Kollar and Bhatti teaches the heat exchanger of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1, above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rubak, by substituting the heat exchanger of Yoshimura in view of Sennoun, Kollar and Bhatti for Rubak's heat exchanger, since it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is within the abilities of one having ordinary skilled in the art, see MPEP 2143 (I)(B). In the instant case, a skilled artisan would have reasonably expected the simple substitution to successfully achieve the suppression of the thermal resistance as a result the integral structure of the heat exchanger thus enhancing heat transfer performance while at the same time reducing the size and simplifying the manufacturing process of the heat exchanger, ultimately reducing cost associated with the manufacturing of the heat exchanger.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Yoshimura (US20140144611: cited by Applicant) in view of Sennoun (US20180245853A1: cited by Applicant), Kollar (WO2018236076A1), and Soukhojak (US20120168111: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 17, Yoshimura teaches a heat exchanger (8b: see Figures 3a-3c), comprising:
a body (10) having an interior volume (interior volume where channels 1 and 2 are formed);
a first set of channels (1a and 1b) extending through the body (see Figures 3a-3c), each channel in the first set of channels having:
a first inlet aperture (opening at longitudinal end which communicates with 3a and 3b);
a first inlet portion (any portion between the inlet opening and a quarter of the length of the channel in the direction towards its outlet);
a first outlet aperture (opening at the other longitudinal end which communicates
with 4a & 4b);
a first outlet portion (any portion between the outlet opening and a quarter of the length of the channel in the direction towards its inlet); and
a first conduit (portion of the channel between the first inlet and outlet portions) extending between the first inlet portion and the first outlet portion (see Figures 3a-3c), the first conduit (portion of the channel between the first inlet and outlet portions) includes a first cross-sectional shape having a rectangular flow area (see in Figures 3a-3c where the cross-sectional shape of first conduit ,i.e. portion of the channel between the first inlet and outlet portions, includes rectangular mid-section),
a second set of channels (2a and 2b) extending through the body such that the second set of channels is spaced from the first set of channels (see Figures 3a-3c) by a distance (distance in the vertical direction in Figure 3c), each channel in the second set of channels having:
a second inlet aperture (opening at the longitudinal end which communicates with 5a and 5b);
a second inlet portion (any portion between the inlet opening and a quarter of the length of the channel in the direction towards its outlet);
a second outlet aperture (opening at the other longitudinal end which communicates with 6a and 6b);
a second outlet portion (any portion between the outlet opening and a quarter of the
length of the channel in the direction towards its inlet); and
a second conduit (portion of the channel between the first inlet and outlet portions) extending between the second inlet portion and the second outlet portion (see Figures 3a-3c), the second conduit (portion of the channel between the first inlet and outlet portions) includes a second cross-sectional shape having a rectangular flow area (see in Figures 3a-3c where the cross-sectional shape of second conduit, i.e. portion of the channel between the first inlet and outlet portions, includes constant rectangular mid-section),
wherein each channel in the second set of channels is adapted to receive a second fluid at a second pressure different than the first pressure (Examiner notes that the recitations: " wherein each channel in the second set of channels is adapted to receive a second fluid at a second pressure different from the first pressure" is considered to be statement of intended use. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114(II));
a first set of headers (31, 3a, 3b, 41, 4a, 4b) including both horizontal (3a, 3b, 4a, 4b) and vertical (31 and 41) components and seamlessly formed with the body (see ¶ [0072]), the first set of headers in fluid communication with each channel in the first set of channels (see ¶ [0069] and Figures 3a & 3c); and
a second set of headers (51, 5a, 5b, 61, 6a, 6b) including both horizontal (5a, 5b, 6a, 6b) and vertical (51 and 61) components and seamlessly formed with the body (see ¶ [0072]), the second set of headers in fluid communication with each channel in the second set of channels (see ¶ [0070] and Figures 3a & 3c).
Yoshimura does not teach that the heat exchanger is ceramic and seamlessly formed and a first semi-elliptical flow area disposed outward from a first side of the rectangular flow area, and a second semi-elliptical flow area disposed outward from a second side of the rectangular flow area opposite the first side of the rectangular flow area such that the second semi-elliptical flow area is disposed opposite the first semi-elliptical flow area, the cross-sectional shape configured to maintain stress below 65 megapascals (MPa) a first fluid at a first pressure between 175 bar and 700 bar, a first semi-elliptical flow area enclosing a first side of the rectangular flow area, and a second semi-elliptical flow area enclosing a second side of the rectangular flow area and the second semi-elliptical flow area disposed opposite the first semi-elliptical flow area, a set of storage channels seamlessly formed with and extending through the body, each storage channel in the set of storage channels being adapted to receive a thermal storage material, the set of storage channels being disposed between the first set of channels and the second set of channels.
However, it’s old and well known in the art to for heat exchangers to be additively manufactured as a single, integral piece out of ceramic, as evidenced by Sennoun, see Sennoun’s ¶ ¶ [0044-0047]) and Figure 1.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the heat exchanger of Yoshimura to be seamlessly formed out of ceramic, since as evidenced by Sennoun, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of improving the overall assembly process of the heat exchanger, see Sennoun’s ¶ [0055].
Moreover, Kollar teaches a heat exchanger (see Figure 1) comprising a conduit (3) that includes a cross-section having a flat mid-section (10) and semi-elliptical ends (11: see Figure 4A).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the invention to provide the cross-sectional shape of Yoshimura's first conduit with semi-elliptical ends, as taught by Kollar. Such combination will provide the benefits of increasing the support against the external pressure, (see Kollar's ¶ [103]).
Additionally, regarding the recitation of " the cross-sectional shape configured to maintain stress below 65 megapascals (MPa) a first fluid at a first pressure between 175 bar and 700 bar, is received in the first set of channels", Examiner notes that to the extent that Applicant's cross-sectional shape is" configured to maintain stress below 65 megapascals (MPa) in the body when a first fluid, at a first pressure between 175 bar and 700 bar, is received in the first set of channels; ", so too is the cross-sectional shape of Yoshimura in view of Kollar.
Furthermore, Soukhojak teaches a heat exchanger (10: Figure 1-2B) adapted to receive fluids (working fluid, i.e. fluid entering at 14 and heat transfer fluid, i.e. fluid entering at 18), comprising a body (12), a first set of channels (22), and a second set of channels (26). In particular, Soukhojak teaches a set of storage channels (32) extending through the body (see Figure 1-2B), each storage channel in the set of storage channels being adapted to receive a thermal storage material (30), the set of storage channels being disposed between the first set of channels and the second set of channels (see Figures 1-2B and ¶ [0092]) for the purpose of storing thermal energy such that the stored thermal energy can be later utilized (see ¶ [0021]), ultimately enhancing system efficiency.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yoshimura in view of Sennoun, and Kollar, by employing a set of storage channels integrally formed with and extending through
the body, each storage channel in the set of storage channels being adapted to receive a
thermal storage material, the set of storage channels being disposed between the first set of
channels and the second set of channels, as taught by Soukhojak, for the purpose of storing
thermal energy such that the stored thermal energy can be later utilized, ultimately enhancing
system efficiency.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Yoshimura (US20140144611: cited by Applicant) in view of Sennoun (US20180245853A1: cited by Applicant), Kollar (WO2018236076A1), and Soukhojak (US20120168111: cited by Applicant), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Bhatti (US7080683B2: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Yoshimura does not teach wherein each channel in the first set of channels and each channel in the second set of channels has a diameter of between approximately 5 millimeters (mm) and 10 mm, wherein each channel in the first set of channels and each channel in the second set of channels has a diameter of between approximately 5 millimeters (mm) and 7 mm.
Furthermore, each channel in the first set of channels and each channel in the second set of channels has a diameter of between approximately 5 millimeters (mm) and 10 mm is a results effective variable, as recognized by Bhatti, see Bhatti's Figure 29, Col. 4 lines [4-8] and Col. 9 line [36]- Col. 10 line [33] where Bhatti recognized the aspect ratio of the channel is a results effective variable by the relationship between the optimal hydraulic diameter (d) and the optimal hydraulic diameter (
d
0
). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Yoshimura's each channel in one of the first set of channels and second set of channels to have the height and the diameter within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the workable ranges of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshimura's each channel in the first set of channels and each channel in the second set of channels has a diameter of between approximately 5 millimeters (mm) and 10 mm or 5 millimeters (mm) and 7 mm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 20, Yoshimura does not teach wherein each channel in the first set of channels and each channel in the second set of channels has a height of between approximately 1 millimeter (mm) and 3 mm.
Furthermore, each channel in the first set of channels and each channel in the second set of channels has a height of between approximately 1 millimeter (mm) and 3 mm is a results effective variable, as recognized by Bhatti, see Bhatti's Figure 29, Col. 4 lines [4-8] and Col. 9 line [36]- Col. 10 line [33] where Bhatti recognized the aspect ratio of the channel is a results effective variable by the relationship between the optimal hydraulic diameter (d) and the optimal hydraulic diameter (
d
0
). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Yoshimura's each channel in one of the first set of channels and second set of channels to have the height and the diameter within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the workable ranges of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshimura's each channel in the first set of channels and each channel in the second set of channels has a height of between approximately 1 millimeter (mm) and 3 mm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 14-16 are allowed over prior art since the prior art taken individually or in combination fails to particularly disclose, fairly suggest, or render obvious “heat exchanger module comprising: a plurality of heat exchangers” and “wherein a first heat exchanger of the plurality of heat exchangers is fluidly coupled to a second heat exchanger of the plurality of heat exchangers (a) in series, (b) in parallel, or (c) in series and parallel”, in combination with the other limitations recited as specified in the independent claim(s). There is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the prior art to incorporate the above claimed features.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALED AL SAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-8685. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM~3:30PM, M-F (E.S.T.).
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.
/KHALED AHMED ALI AL SAMIRI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights