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 .
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 11/22/2024 are as follows:
Claims 1-20 are pending and are being examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Currently, no claim limitations invoke 112(f).
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hallbauer (DE2342787, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 1. Hallbauer teaches an aftercooler (1) for an internal combustion engine (abstract) comprising (Figures 1-4; Abstract):
a first side sheet (6) (Figures 1-4; Abstract);
a first header plate (3) coupled with the first side sheet (Figures 1-4; Abstract);
a manifold assembly (left of 3 in Figure 1) coupled to a first side of the first header plate and positioned adjacent the first side sheet, wherein the manifold assembly is configured to receive a cooling fluid (Figures 1-4; Abstract); and
a core assembly (central portion of 1) positioned adjacent a second side of the first header plate, the core assembly is configured to receive and cool a charge air for the internal combustion engine, the core assembly comprising (Figures 1-4; Abstract):
a plurality of tubes (2) coupled to the first header plate and receiving the cooling fluid from the manifold assembly (Figures 1-4; Abstract); and
a plurality of fins (5) coupled to the plurality of tubes (Figures 1-4; Abstract);
wherein at least a first tube (top tube in Figure 1) of the plurality of tubes closest to an initial intake (at 4) of the charge air and closest to the first side sheet is exposed and free of the plurality of fins for a first distance from the first header plate, and wherein at least a majority of the plurality of tubes (lower tube in Figure 1) including up to all but the at least the first tube are exposed and free of the plurality of fins for a second distance from the first header plate, and wherein the second distance is less than the first distance (Figures 1-4; Abstract; Figure 1 illustrates the top tube has fins spaced apart from 3 at a greater distance than the lower tube fins spaced apart from 3).
Re Claim 15. Hallbauer teaches a method of assembling an aftercooler (1) of an internal combustion engine comprising (Figures 1-2):
providing a first header plate (3) and a first side sheet (6) (Figures 1-4; Abstract));
coupling a plurality of tubes (2) to the first header plate (Figures 1-4; Abstract);
coupling at least a first tube (top tube in Figure 1) of the plurality of tubes to a first plurality of fins (5) while leaving the at least the first tube exposed and free of the first plurality of fins for a first distance from the header plate (Figures 1-4; Abstract);
coupling a second number of the plurality of tubes (lower tubes in Figure 1) to a second plurality of fins (5) while leaving the second number of the plurality of tubes exposed and free of the second plurality of fins for a second distance from the header plate, wherein the second distance is less than the first distance (Figures 1-4; Abstract; Figure 1 illustrates the top tube has fins spaced apart from 3 at a greater distance than the lower tube fins spaced apart from 3); and
positioning the at least the first tube of the plurality of tubes to be a most adjacent of the plurality of tubes to the first side sheet (Figures 1-4; Abstract).
Re Claim 3 & 17. Hallbauer teaches the at least the first tube is between one and three tubes (Figures 1-4; Abstract).
Re Claim 4. Hallbauer teaches the at least the first tube is at least one of: a three tubes closest to the first side sheet and three rows of tubes closest to the initial intake of the charge air (Figures 1-4; Abstract).
Re Claim 5. Hallbauer teaches the at least a majority of the plurality of tubes are positioned at an inner region of the core assembly inward of the at least the first tube relative to at least one of: the initial intake of the charge air and the first side sheet (Figures 1-4; Abstract).
Re Claim 6. Hallbauer teaches the core assembly further includes: a second header plate (other side not illustrated); wherein the at least the first tube is exposed and free of the plurality of fins for the first distance from the second header plate, and wherein the at least the majority of the plurality of tubes including up to all but the at least the first tube are exposed and free of the plurality of fins for the second distance from the second header plate, and wherein the second distance is less than the first distance (Figures 1-4; Abstract).
Re Claim 7. Hallbauer teaches the at least the first tube has a first plurality of rows of the plurality of fins coupled thereto, wherein the at least the majority of the plurality of tubes including up to all but the at least the first tube include a second plurality of rows of the plurality of fins, wherein the first plurality of rows is less than the second plurality of rows (Figures 1-4; Abstract).
Re Claim 8 & 19. Hallbauer teaches the at least the first tube being exposed and free of the plurality of fins for the first distance reduces a thermal stress at a joint between the at least the first tube and the first header plate (Figures 1-4; Abstract).
Re Claim 18. Hallbauer teaches the second number of the plurality of tubes include at least a majority of the plurality of tubes including up to all but the at least the first tube, and wherein the second number of the plurality of tubes are positioned at an inner region of a core assembly inward of the at least the first tube relative to an initial intake of a charge air and the first side sheet (Figures 1-4; Abstract).
Re Claim 20. Hallbauer teaches the first plurality of fins is less than the second plurality of fins (Figures 1-4; Abstract).
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.
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 2, 9-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hallbauer (DE2342787, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claims 2 & 16. Hallbauer teaches the fist and second distance (Figures 1-2) but fails to specifically teach the first distance is between 25 mm and 75 mm, inclusive, and wherein the second distance is less than 15 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the first distance is between 25 mm and 75 mm, inclusive, and wherein the second distance is less than 15 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II). In this instance, the variable is the fin spacing, and the result is the effective heat transfer through the heat exchanger.
Re Claim 9. Hallbauer teaches aftercooler (1) for cooling a charge air of an internal combustion engine, (Figures 1-2; abstract) the aftercooler comprising:
a first side sheet (6) (Figures 1-4; Abstract);
a first header plate (3) (Figures 1-4; Abstract); and
a core assembly (central portion of 1) positioned adjacent the first header plate and the first side sheet, the core assembly comprising: a plurality of tubes (2) coupled to the first header plate (Figures 1-4; Abstract); and
a plurality of rows of fins (5) coupled to the plurality of tubes, wherein a first fin (left fin of the top tube 2 in Figure 1) of the plurality of rows of fins coupled to at least a first tube (top tube in Figure 1) of the plurality of tubes closest to the first side sheet has a first distance from the first header plate (Figures 1-4; Abstract; Figure 1 illustrates the top tube has fins spaced apart from 3 at a greater distance than the lower tube fins spaced apart from 3).
Hallbauer teaches the first and second distance (Figures 1-2) but fails to specifically teach the first distance is between 25 mm and 75 mm, inclusive. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the first distance is between 25 mm and 75 mm, inclusive, and wherein the second distance is less than 15 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II). In this instance, the variable is the fin spacing, and the result is the effective heat transfer through the heat exchanger.
Re Claim 10. Hallbauer teaches at least the first tube has relatively less of the plurality of rows of fins coupled thereto compared with others of the plurality of tubes as a result of the at least the first tube being exposed and free of the plurality of rows of fins for a first distance from the first header plate (Figures 1-4; Abstract).
Re Claim 11. Hallbauer teaches the others of the plurality of tubes include at least a majority of the plurality of tubes including up to all but the at least the first tube (Figures 1-4; Abstract).
Re Claim 12. Hallbauer teaches the others of the plurality of tubes are positioned at an inner region of the core assembly inward of the at least the first tube relative to an initial intake of the charge air and the first side sheet (Figures 1-4; Abstract).
Re Claim 13. Hallbauer teaches the at least the first tube is between one tube and up to three rows of tubes, inclusive (Figures 1-4; Abstract).
Re Claim 14. Hallbauer teaches the at least the first tube is exposed and free of the plurality of rows of fins for the first distance (Figures 1-4; Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 for other relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights