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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “first second” in ll. 3 should be rewritten to be -- first--, and will be interpreted accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the respective distribution structure, respectively the respective collection structure is” in ll. 26 should be rewritten to be -- wherein the respective distribution structure and the respective collection structure is --, and will be interpreted accordingly. 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.
Claims 5 and 16-17 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 5, the limitation “wherein a minor portion of the flow from the respective inlet port is transferred to the fin structure via said gap, respectively a minor portion of the flow from the fin structure is transferred to the respective outlet port via said gap.” in ll. 6 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned what constitutes the minor portions. Are the minor portions referring to multiple portions of flow or rather is there one minor flow portion that travels through multiple portions of the heat exchanger. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “wherein a minor portion of the flow from the respective inlet port is transferred to the fin structure via said gap, respectively a minor portion of the flow from the fin structure is transferred to the respective outlet port via said gap” will be interpreted as –wherein a minor portion of the flow from the respective inlet port is transferred to the fin structure via said gap and said minor portion of the flow from the fin structure is transferred to the respective outlet port--.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the angle" in ll. 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the angle" in ll. 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-3, 7-9, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morioka (Translation of JP58205090A) in view of Rosman et al. (USP 4535840A), hereinafter referred to as Morioka and Rosman, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Morioka discloses a heat exchanger comprising a stack of heat exchanger plates (2) stacked one on top of the other along a stacking direction (shown at least in figures 2 and 5),
a first set of channels (channels formed through fins (1b)) formed in every first second interspace between the heat exchanger plates (shown in figure 2),
a second set of channels (channels formed through fins (1a)) formed in every second interspace between the heat exchanger plates (shown in figure 2), wherein,
in each of the channels in the first and second set of channels fin structures (1a, 1b) formed of sheets being folded back and forth (shown at least in figure 2) are positioned between the heat exchanger plates (2) such that the respective fin structure abuts the heat exchanger plates (shown at least in figure 2) along a plurality of contact lines having a main extension extending in parallel with a longitudinally extending fin direction thereby defining plurality of fluid channels forming said first and second set of channels (shown in figure 3, wherein the main body fins (1a, 1b) extend from the distributor fin (19) to the collector fin (20)), wherein
each heat exchanger plate (2) comprises four ports (shown in figure 6, being the four corners of the heat exchanger plate that allows for the delivery and removal of working fluid from the heat exchanger) formed at a respective corner portion of the respective heat exchanger plate (shown in figure 6) and configured to form a first inlet port (shown at least in figures 3 and 6, being the lower right port) extending through the stack along the stacking direction (shown at least in figure 5), a first outlet port (shown at least in figures 3 and 6, being the top left port) extending through the stack along the stacking direction (shown at least in figure 5), a second inlet port (shown at least in figures 3 and 6, being the top right port) extending through the stack along the stacking direction (shown at least in figure 5), and a second outlet port (shown at least in figures 3 and 6, being the lower left port) extending through the stack along the stacking direction (shown at least in figure 5),
the first inlet port (shown at least in figures 3 and 6, being the lower right port) and first outlet port (shown at least in figures 3 and 6, being the top left port) being in fluid connection with each other via the first set of channels (1b) and the second inlet port (shown at least in figures 3 and 6, being the top right port) and second outlet port (shown at least in figures 3 and 6, being the lower left port) being in fluid connection with each other via the second set of channels (1a), wherein
the heat exchanger further comprises, in each interspace between the heat exchanger plates, a distribution structure (19) at the respective inlet port (shown in figure 5, being the single distribution structure at the inlet port) and a collection structure (20) at the respective outlet port (shown in figure 5, being the single collection structure at the outlet port), wherein the respective distribution structure, respectively the respective collection structure is positioned between the respective port (shown in figure 5) and the respective fin structure in the respective first and second set of channels (shown in figure 5, wherein the respective distribution/collection structure is situated within the heat exchanger between the inlet/outlet and the main body fins that extend in a straight manner along the longitudinal direction of the heat exchanger), wherein
a port interface (17, 18) between the respective inlet port and the respective distribution structure (shown at least in figure 5), respectively a port interface between the respective outlet port and the collection structure is inclined relative to the fin direction such that a distance between the port interface and the fin structure (shown at least in figures 5-6), as measured along the fin direction, increases with increasing distance, as seen along an imaginary line extending transversally across the fin direction, from an edge of the respective heat exchanger plate which is closest to the respective port and which extends along the longitudinally extending fin direction (shown at least in figures 5-6). Although the heat exchanger plates of Morioka comprise corner cut outs that form the ports, Morioka fails to disclose four through-going openings forming the ports.
Rosman, also drawn to a stacked plate heat exchanger, teaches plates (shown in figure 6c) comprising four through-going openings (71, 73, 81, 85) forming the ports (shown in figure 6c).
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 inlet/outlet ports formed between an edge of a respective plate and a housing with inlet/outlet ports formed by four through-going openings in the respective plate; further the prior art to Rosman teaches that it is old and well known to form the ports within the respective plate. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Morioka with having ports formed by four through-going openings, 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 Rosman there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Morioka by having the ports formed by four through-going openings. Rosman shows that ports formed by four through-going openings (shown in figure 6c) is an equivalent structure known in the art, when compared to ports formed between an edge of a respective plate and a housing (shown in figure 6a). Therefore, because these two port forming 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 ports formed by four through-going openings for ports formed between an edge of a respective plate and a housing.
Regarding Claim 2, a modified Morioka further teaches the respective port interface (17, 18 of Morioka) forms an angle α with the fin direction the angle α is between 110° and 160° (“To reduce flow resistance and miniaturize the device by a method wherein the end faces of the inlet and outlet ports of fluid in a distributing core are slanted by an angle smaller than a right angle with respect to the direction of the flow of fluid in the core of the heat exchanger”, overview section of Morioka).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I)
Regarding Claim 3, a modified Morioka further teaches the respective port interface (17, 18 of Morioka) extends along a substantially straight line (shown in figures 5-6).
Regarding Claim 7, a modified Morioka further teaches the distribution structure
Regarding Claim 8, a modified Morioka further teaches the collection structure (20 of Morioka) is formed by a basically triangular or truncated triangular fin structure (shown at least in figures 5-6).
Regarding Claim 9, a modified Morioka further teaches the respective ports (shown in figure 6, being the four corners of the heat exchanger plate that allows for the delivery and removal of working fluid from the heat exchanger) are formed as substantially triangular ports (shown in figure 6).
Regarding Claim 14, a modified Morioka further teaches first inlet port (shown at least in figures 3 and 6, being the lower right port) is arranged on a first longitudinally extending side (shown at least in figures 3 and 6) of the stack of heat exchanger plates and the first outlet port (shown at least in figures 3 and 6, being the top left port) is arranged on a second longitudinally extending side (shown in figures 3 and 6) of the stack of heat exchanger plates,
the second longitudinally extending side being opposite the first longitudinally extending side (shown in figures 3 and 6), and wherein the second inlet port (shown at least in figures 3 and 6, being the top right port) is arranged on the first longitudinally extending side (shown at least in figures 3 and 6) of the stack of heat exchanger plates and the second outlet port (shown at least in figures 3 and 6, being the lower left port) is arranged on the second longitudinally extending side (shown in figures 3 and 6) of the stack of heat exchanger plates, the first longitudinally extending side being opposite the second longitudinally extending side (shown in figures 3 and 6).
Regarding Claim 16, a modified Morioka further teaches an angle α (the angle formed by the end faces (17, 18) of Morioka and the respective longitudinal edge of the plate adjacent the port) is between 120° and 150° (“To reduce flow resistance and miniaturize the device by a method wherein the end faces of the inlet and outlet ports of fluid in a distributing core are slanted by an angle smaller than a right angle with respect to the direction of the flow of fluid in the core of the heat exchanger”, overview section of Morioka).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morioka (Translation of JP58205090A) in view of Rosman et al. (USP 4535840A) as applied in Claims 1-3, 7-9, 14 and 16 above and in further view of Ekelund et al. (USP 6199626A), hereinafter referred to as Wu.
Regarding Claim 4, although Morioka further discloses the respective distribution structure (19), and/or the respective collection structure (20), extends from a first, transversally central, corner of the respective port towards a second, transversally outer, corner of the respective port (shown in figures 5-6), Morioka fails to disclose a transversally extending gap at the longitudinally extending edge being closest to the respective port.
Ekelund, also drawn to a stacked plate heat exchanger, teaches a transversally extending gap (41, 42) at the longitudinally extending edge being closest to the respective port (shown in figures 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Morioka with a transversally extending gap at the longitudinally extending edge being closest to the respective port, as taught by Ekelund, the motivation being to provide “such an efficient separation of liquid and gas already in the plate heat exchanger that the liquid separator used in accordance to the prior art is not any longer necessary. The combined cooling and a separating function may thus be obtained by merely one plate heat exchanger device of the type defined in claim 1 The device is thus very compact”, ¶7.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morioka (Translation of JP58205090A) in view of Rosman et al. (USP 4535840A) as applied in Claims 1-3, 7-9, 14 and 16 above and in further view of Tanaka et al. (Translation of JP2007205634A), hereinafter referred to as Tanaka.
Regarding Claim 4, although Morioka further teaches the respective distribution structure (19), and/or the respective collection structure (20), extends from a first, transversally central, corner of the respective port towards a second, transversally outer, corner of the respective port (shown in figures 5-6), Morioka fails to disclose a transversally extending gap at the longitudinally extending edge being closest to the respective port.
Tanaka, also drawn to a stacked plate heat exchanger, teaches a transversally extending gap (39) at the longitudinally extending edge being closest to the respective port (shown in figures 5-6, wherein the communication section is formed between the port and the edge of the heat exchanger plate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Morioka with a transversally extending gap at the longitudinally extending edge being closest to the respective port, as taught by Tanaka, the motivation being to “prevent the heat of the heat medium from acting on the outer periphery of the first inflow path. As a result, it is possible to suppress the occurrence of thermal stress in the portion, and it is possible to prevent local cracks from occurring in the heat transfer plat”, ¶7.
Regarding Claim 5, as best understood, a modified Morioka further teaches a major portion of a flow from the respective inlet port is distributed via the distribution structure (19) to the fin structure (1a, 1b), respectively a major portion of a flow from the fin structure is collected via the collection structure (20) to the respective outlet port (shown in figures 5-6); wherein a minor portion of the flow from the respective inlet port is transferred to the fin structure via said gap (shown in figures 5-6 of Tanaka, wherein working fluid is delivered to the fin structure bypassing the distribution fins immediately adjacent the respective port), respectively a minor portion of the flow from the fin structure is transferred to the respective outlet port via said gap (shown in figures 5-6 of Tanaka, wherein the minor portion of working fluid travels from the fin structure to the respective outlet).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morioka (Translation of JP58205090A) in view of Rosman et al. (USP 4535840A) as applied in Claims 1-3, 7-9, 14 and 16 above and in further view of Wu et al. (USP 6199626A), hereinafter referred to as Wu.
Regarding Claim 10, Morioka fails to disclose dimensions of the first inlet and outlet ports are different from dimensions of the second inlet and outlet ports.
Wu, also drawn to a plate heat exchanger, teaches dimensions of the first inlet and outlet ports (84, 85) are different from dimensions of the second inlet and outlet ports (86-97).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Morioka with dimensions of the first inlet and outlet ports are different from dimensions of the second inlet and outlet ports, as taught by Wu, the motivation being to regulate volumetric flow rate of the working fluid and provide a predetermined amount of pressure drop.
Claims 11-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morioka (Translation of JP58205090A) in view of Rosman et al. (USP 4535840A) as applied in Claims 1-3, 7-9, 14 and 16 above and in further view of Lehman (US PG Pub. 6189338B1), hereinafter referred to as Lehman.
[AltContent: textbox (Internal Interface)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Fin Structure)]
[AltContent: textbox (β)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Collection Structure)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
394
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lehman Figure 3
Regarding Claim 11, Morioka fails to disclose an internal interface between the respective distribution structure and the fin structure and/or an internal interface between the respective collection structure and the fin structure in the respective channel of the first set of channels and/or in the respective channel of the second set of channels is inclined relative to the longitudinally extending fin direction and is inclined also relative to a transversal direction.
Lehman, also drawn to a stacked plat heat exchanger, teaches an internal interface (shown in annotated figure 3) between the respective collection structure (shown in annotated figure 3) and the fin structure (shown in annotated figure 3) in the respective channel of the first set of channels (shown in annotated figure 3) is inclined relative to the longitudinally extending fin direction and is inclined also relative to a transversal direction (shown in annotated figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Morioka with an internal interface between the respective collection structure and the fin structure in the respective channel of the first set of channels is inclined relative to the longitudinally extending fin direction and is inclined also relative to a transversal direction, as taught by Lehman, the motivation being to direct the disposal of any liquid condensates that have formed within the heat exchanger thereby mitigating degradation or failure of said heat exchanger thorough corrosion.
Regarding Claim 12, a modified Morioka further teaches the respective internal interface (shown in annotated figure 3 of Lehman) forms an angle β with the fin direction (shown in figure 3 of Lehman), wherein the angle β is between 95° and 130° (“α, for example of the order of 10 to 20°” col. 4 ll. 4, shown in annotated figure 3 of Lehman wherein α is 90° + 10° to 20°).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I)
Regarding Claim 13, a modified Morioka further teaches the respective internal interface (shown in annotated figure 3 of Lehman) extends along a substantially straight line (shown in annotated figure 3 of Lehman).
Regarding Claim 17, a modified Morioka further teaches the angle β is between 95° and 120° (“α, for example of the order of 10 to 20°” col. 4 ll. 4, shown in annotated figure 3 of Lehman wherein α is 90° + 10 to 20°).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 15 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