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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “opposite end face 32” in paragraph 0024.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “20” and “22” in Fig. 1.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the limitations” in claim 6 should read --limitations--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 4, 6 and 9-13 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 “relatively small” in “a relatively small angle” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.
The terms “narrow” and “closely” in “wherein the fins are narrow and closely spaced” in claim 6 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite.
The term “relatively small”, “narrow” and “closely” are 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.
For examination purposes, “a relatively small angle” in claim 3 is construed as --an angle--; and “wherein the fins are narrow and closely spaced” in claim 6 is construed as -- wherein the fins are spaced--.
Claim 4 is also rejected because it is dependent from claim 3.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the fins extend between the fluid tubes within rows”. “within rows” is unclear if it is different rows (of tubes or fins), or referring to “a plurality of rows” of “the fluid tubes” in parent claim 8.
For examination purposes, “within rows” is construed as –within the plurality of rows--.
Claims 10-13 are also rejected because they are dependent from claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakanishi (WO 2023/233725 A1, effectively filed on 5/31/2022 before the effective filing date 8/12/2022 of the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 1, Nakanishi (Figs. 1-5) discloses a crossflow heat exchanger (101) constructed by an additive manufacturing process defining a build direction axis (noted that the “constructed by an additive manufacturing process defining a build direction axis” is product-by-process limitation, and the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production, see MPEP 2113. The “additive manufacturing process defining a build direction axis” does not imply a distinct structure to the “crossflow heat exchanger” itself. The BRI is directed to the claimed structure of the crossflow heat exchanger), the heat exchanger having a heat exchanger core (Fig. 1) with fluid tubes (102) extending in a first direction (D2, Fig. 1) therethrough for carrying a first working fluid (refrigerant R), the heat exchanger core having a plurality of heat exchange fins (103) extending from the fluid tubes (extending transversely from the tubes 102), the fins being substantially planar, parallel to one another (the fins 103 are parallel flat plates, Fig. 1) and transverse to the first direction (transverse to the direction D2), wherein spaces between the fins allow for a second working fluid to flow therebetween (gas G flows between spaces between the fins, Fig. 1), in use, in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (the gas G flows in direction D1 perpendicular to the direction D2).
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “wherein substantially all surfaces of the heat exchanger have an angle relative to the build direction axis that allows the heat exchanger to be built upright (vertical orientation)” further specifies an angle between the heat exchanger core and the build direction axis identified as the product-by-process limitation in claim 1 above.
Therefore, it does not imply a further, distinct structure in the heat exchanger itself. The required structure in claim 2 is only the heat exchanger having surfaces. Nakanishi discloses that the heat exchanger 101 has surfaces on tubes 102 and fins 103.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “wherein substantially all surfaces of the heat exchanger core have an angle with respect to the build direction axis” further specifies an angle between the heat exchanger core and the build direction axis identified as the product-by-process limitation in claim 1 above.
Therefore, it does not imply a further, distinct structure in the heat exchanger itself. The required structure in claim 3 is only the heat exchanger having surfaces. Nakanishi discloses that the heat exchanger 101 has surfaces on tubes 102 and fins 103.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “wherein substantially all of the surfaces of the heat exchanger core have an angle relative to the build direction axis that is less than or equal to a predetermined angle” further specifies an angle less than or equal to a predetermined angle relative to the build direction axis identified as the product-by-process limitation in claim 1 above and does not imply a distinct structure. The required structure in claim 4 is only surfaces of the heat exchanger and disclosed in Nakanishi as noted above.
Regarding claim 5, Nakanishi in claim 1 further discloses wherein the fluid tubes have a cross section (a circular cross-section, Fig. 3) with an elongate dimension parallel to the second direction (the circular cross-section elongate along a diameter parallel to the direction D1).
Regarding claim 6, Nakanishi in claim 1 further discloses wherein the fins are spaced (the fins 103 are spaced from each other in at least the direction D2) having regard to limitations of the additive manufacturing process (such limitation is product-by-process limitation and does not imply a distinct structure).
Regarding claim 7, Nakanishi in claim 1 further discloses wherein the fins have a chevron shape (the fins between axes C2 have a chevron shape, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Nakanishi in claim 1 further discloses wherein the fluid tubes are arranged in a plurality of rows (rows of tubes 102 along axes C1 and rows of tubes 102 along axes C2, Fig. 3), with the positions of the fluid tubes in adjacent rows being staggered (the rows of tubes 102 along C1 and C2 are staggered, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Nakanishi in claim 8 further discloses wherein the fins extend between the fluid tubes within the plurality of rows (the fins 103 extend in direction D3 within the rows of tubes 102 along axes C1 and C2, Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 10, Nakanishi in claim 9 further discloses wherein each row of the fluid tubes has a plurality of rows of fins (each row of tubes 102 along axes C1 and C2 has at least three rows of fins 103 in the direction D1, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Nakanishi in claim 9 further discloses wherein micro-fins (folded fin projections 110 of fins 103) are provided to extend between adjacent rows of fins (the fin projections 110 extend in a space between adjacent two fins 103 stacked in the D2 direction), the micro-fins being oriented with a planar dimension transverse to the fins (the projections 110 extend transversely on the planar surface of the fins 103).
Regarding claim 15, Nakanishi in claim 1 further discloses wherein the fins are formed with a pattern or mesh of apertures therethrough (the fins 103 are formed with a pattern of openings when projections 110 are formed on the fins 103, see Fig. 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi (WO 2023/233725 A1) in view of Aoki (JP 2018-54133 A).
Regarding claim 11, Nakanishi in claim 9 fails to disclose wherein the fins extending between the fluid tubes in adjacent rows (a row of fins 103 stacked in the direction D2; and another adjacent row of fins 103 stacked in the direction D2) are staggered with respect to one another in the first direction.
Aoki discloses wherein the fins (22) extending between the fluid tubes in adjacent rows (fins 22 extending between tubes 21 in adjacent rows in up-down direction) are staggered with respect to one another in the first direction (the fins 22 of the adjacent rows of tubes 21 are staggered in left-right direction Fig. 5, and see paragraph 53 of the translation).
Therefore, the row of fins 103 stacked in the direction D2 (first direction) may be staggered with another adjacent row of fins 103 stacked in the direction D2 in view of Aoki.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the fins extending between the fluid tubes in adjacent rows are staggered with respect to one another in the first direction in Nakanishi as taught by Aoki in order to increase heat transfer coefficient by (re)distributing air flow between stages of the fins (paragraph 0054 of the translation of Aoki).
Regarding claim 12, Nakanishi as modified in claim 11 further discloses wherein adjacent rows of fins are staggered with respect to one another in the first direction (the row of fins 103 and the another adjacent row of fins 103 are staggered in the direction D2).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi (WO 2023/233725 A1) in view of Kleppe (US Patent No. 3,870,081).
Regarding claim 14, Nakanishi in claim 1 fails to disclose wherein the fluid tubes have turbulence-inducing interior structure.
Kleppe discloses wherein the fluid tubes have turbulence-inducing interior structure (ribs 2 and twisted strip 3, Figs. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the fluid tubes have turbulence-inducing interior structure in Nakanishi in view of Kleppe in order to increase heat flow through the wall of the conduit (col. 2, lines 1-6 of Kleppe).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FOR K LING whose telephone number is (571)272-8752. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10 am to 6 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/F.K.L/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights