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 2/28/2025 are as follows:
Claims 1-18 are pending;
Claims 1-18 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brost (DE19517174C1, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 12. Brost teaches a plate and fin heat exchanger (1) comprising a plate package (2, 13) comprising a plurality of flat plates (2a, 2b) and a plurality of fin plates (13), wherein each flat plate (2a) comprises a peripheral flank portion (3, 4) on two opposing longitudinal sides of the respective flat plate, and wherein each flank portion is permanently joined to an adjacent flat plate (2b) such that a longitudinally extending flow channel is formed between the adjacent flat plates (2a, 2b), and wherein each flat plate (2) comprises a heat exchange portion (5), which has a transversal extension between the peripheral flank portions (3, 4,10-12), and wherein the fin plates (13) comprise a plurality of longitudinally extending fins arranged in the heat exchange portion (5) of the flow channels between and in contact with the adjacent flat plates (2), which fins (13) form in a transversal direction parallel guide channels for a first and second heat exchange medium, respectively (Figures 1-3), and wherein the heat exchange portion (5) of the flat plate (2) transitions to the flank portions (3, 4, 10-12) via rounded corner portions (8) on the respective side of the flat plate (2), and wherein the flank portions (3, 4, 10-12) are pressed such that a radius of the rounded corner portion (8) is minimized (Figures 1-3),
wherein the flank portions are pressed such that a radius of the rounded corner portion is minimized and is smaller than the height of the flow channel (Figure 2 illustrates the radius is less than the height of the flow channel), and/or such that and/or so that the radius is smaller than twice the thickness of the flat plate, and/or such that a first distance between the inner surface of the flank and the outermost fin, which is measured at a middle point of height of the flow channel, is smaller than a second distance between two neighboring fins, and/or such that the first distance is smaller than a height of the flow channel (the italicized limitations are recited in the alternative and thus not required if another alternative is taught by the prior art),
wherein a length of a fin wall of the outermost fin is less than the height of the flow channel and the fin is open towards the heat exchange portion of the flat plate (Figure 1 illustrates the fins fit between the walls of the flow channel, thus the length of a fin wall of the outermost fin is less than the height of the flow channel; Figures 1-3).
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 13, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brost (DE19517174C1, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 13. Brost teaches a first hydraulic diameter between an inner surface of the flank portion and an outermost part of the fin closest to the flank portion and a second hydraulic diameter between two neighboring fins measured at a point where the hydraulic diameter is smallest along the longitudinal extension of the fins (Figures 1-3) but fails to specifically teach the first hydraulic diameter is equal or smaller than twice the second hydraulic diameter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to a first hydraulic diameter between an inner surface of the flank portion and an outermost part of the fin closest to the flank portion is equal or smaller than twice a second hydraulic diameter between two neighboring fins measured at a point where the hydraulic diameter is smallest along the longitudinal extension of the fins, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II). In this instance, the variable is the hydraulic diameter and the result is the flow resistance through the fins. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make a first hydraulic diameter between an inner surface of the flank portion and an outermost part of the fin closest to the flank portion is equal or smaller than twice a second hydraulic diameter between two neighboring fins measured at a point where the hydraulic diameter is smallest along the longitudinal extension of the fins, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV, A).
Re Claims 17 & 18. Brost teaches the radius of the rounded corner portion (Figures 1-3) but fails to specifically teach the radius of the rounded corner portion is less than 0.5 h and the radius of the rounded corner portion is less than 1.1 times the thickness of the flat plate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the radius of the rounded corner portion is less than 0.5 h and the radius of the rounded corner portion is less than 1.1 times the thickness of the flat plate, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the radius of the rounded corner portion is less than 0.5 h and the radius of the rounded corner portion is less than 1.1 times the thickness of the flat plate, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV, A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 and 14-16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 1 recites a method for assembling a plate package of a plate and fin heat exchanger that comprises the method steps of ii. providing a fin plate with longitudinally extending fins, the fin plate having a transversal extension which is larger than a transversal extension of the heat exchange portion of the flat plate; iii. pressing opposing sides of the fin plate towards each other in the transversal direction so that the fin plate fits between the flank portions and on the heat exchange portion of the flat plate. The closest prior art of record Brost (DE19517174C1, as cited in the IDS) teaches a plate and fin heat exchanger (1) comprising a plate package (2, 13) comprising a plurality of flat plates (2a, 2b) and a plurality of fin plates (13), wherein each flat plate (2a) comprises a peripheral flank portion (3, 4) on two opposing longitudinal sides of the respective flat plate, and wherein each flank portion is permanently joined to an adjacent flat plate (2b) such that a longitudinally extending flow channel is formed between the adjacent flat plates (2a, 2b), and wherein each flat plate (2) comprises a heat exchange portion (5), which has a transversal extension between the peripheral flank portions (3, 4,10-12), and wherein the fin plates (13) comprise a plurality of longitudinally extending fins arranged in the heat exchange portion (5) of the flow channels between and in contact with the adjacent flat plates (2), which fins (13) form in a transversal direction parallel guide channels for a first and second heat exchange medium, respectively. Brost is silent with regards to the method of manufacturing and in particular the pressing the fin plates in the transversal direction to fit between the flank portions. The next closest prior art of record Katou (US2018/0031325A1) teaches a method of assembling a fin (12) and tube (11) heat exchanger, wherein the fins (12) are compressed in a horizontal jig after stacking all the layers of the heat exchanger (Figure 4A, Paragraph 55). However, this method of assembling is distinct from the applicants method in that the applicants method requires placing a plate, compressing individual fin plates, placing the compressed fin plate, and then adding another plate. Further, due to the flanged ends of Brost’s and the applicants heat exchange plates, it would not be possible to compress the fins after stacking all the layers. There would be no motivation to further modify the prior art without utilizing impermissible hindsight reasoning or without changing the principle of operation of the prior art. Therefore, the invention is novel and non-obvious in view of the prior art.
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