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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In claim 15, “means for controlling” is interpreted as a valve as discussed in paragraph 70.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original disclosure fails to teach, in combination with the other claim limitations, “the groups of tubes are all the tubes extending from the first manifold to the second manifold”. The specification and drawings teach groups of tubes with the claimed structure (concave or convex turns, etc.), but does not teach all of the tubes extending from the first manifold to the second manifold having the same structure. The specification does not teach “all of the tubes extending from the first manifold to the second manifold”, and the drawings do not show every tube extending from the first manifold to the second manifold.
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.
Claim 10 is 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. Claim 10 claims “The gas turbine of claim 1”. However, claim 1 is drawn to a heat exchanger. It is unclear what gas turbine is being referred to.
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) 1, 3-4, 7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0360698 (Waldman) in view of US 9976815 (Roper).
Regarding claim 1, 3-4, 14, Waldman teaches a heat exchanger for heat transfer between an external first flow along a first flowpath (Fig 10; first flow along first flowpath 1022) and a second flow along an internal second flowpath (second flow along second flowpath inside tubes 1002), the heat exchanger comprising: a first manifold (inlet manifold 1010 or 1012); a second manifold (outlet manifold 1010 or 1012; para 49-50; it is noted that it appears a typographical error in either the drawing or specification makes it unclear whether 1010 or 1012 is the inlet manifold; however, 1010 is either the inlet or the outlet manifold; 1012 is the other of the inlet or the outlet manifold); and a plurality of tubes extending from the first manifold to the second manifold and having respective interiors bounding respective legs of the second flowpath (individual tubes 1002 each defining a respective leg of the second flowpath), wherein: the plurality of tubes comprises a plurality groups of tubes (groups of 2 of the tubes 1002); for each of the groups of the tubes: the tubes of the group have first ends mounted to the first manifold at respective first locations (as noted above, it is unclear if 1010 or 1012 is the inlet manifold; however, Waldman teach two opposite arrangements, one of which reads on the claims; the annotations below represent both arrangements); and the tubes of the group have second ends mounted to the second manifold at respective second locations (annotated below); and the tubes are bent so that an internal pressure increase counters stress caused by a temperature increase (annotated below; para 50: curved tubes enhance thermo-mechanical fatigue strength; furthermore, “so that an internal pressure increase counters stress …” is a statement of intended use; it has been held 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 if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim" see MPEP 2114 [R - II]; in this case, Waldman in view of Roper has the same structure; if Applicant’s bent tubes counter stress caused by a temperature increase, so too does Waldman in view of Roper), the second locations are offset downstream along the first flowpath from the respective first locations (annotated below; as noted above, it is unclear if 1010 or 1012 is the inlet manifold; however, Waldman teach two opposite arrangements of tubes, one of which comprises tubes with the second locations offset downstream along the first flowpath relative to the first locations; the annotated drawing below shows both possibilities), the second locations are streamwise offset by a distance Lo from the respective first locations of at least 10 millimeters or at least 2.0 times a tube outer diameter (Fig 10; second locations are offset a distance greater than 2x the tube outer diameter), each of the tubes has a centerline lying essentially in a respective plane (Fig 10; respective plane extending from the first location to the second location and along the centerline of each tube 1002).
PNG
media_image1.png
592
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Waldman further teaches that the tubes may comprise different curved configurations (para 50) but fails to explicitly teach, from the first manifold to the second manifold, each tube has an upstream concave first turn; an upstream convex second turn; and an upstream concave third turn. However, Roper teaches that heat exchanger tubes may be formed with different curvatures from the first manifold to the second manifold, including an upstream concave first turn; an upstream convex second turn; and an upstream concave third turn (annotated below; col 5 ll. 49-61: “passages having any or no curvature and/or any number of loops (e.g., no loops at all)”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide each tube with an upstream concave first turn; an upstream convex second turn; and an upstream concave third turn, as taught by Roper. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making each tube with an upstream concave first turn; an upstream convex second turn; and an upstream concave third turn yields predictable results (heat exchange). It is noted that Roper also shows the second location being downstream of the first location.
PNG
media_image2.png
500
494
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Waldman in view of Roper as discussed thus far fails to teach each tube has no turn other than the first turn, the second turn, and the third turn. However, Waldman teaches that the tubes may comprise different curved configurations (para 50), and Roper teaches that it was well known in the art that heat exchange tubes may comprise zero curvature to any number of turns (see col 5 ll. 49-61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make each tube having no turn other than the first turn, the second turn, and the third turn, as determining the appropriate number of turns was within the level of ordinary skill in the art, as taught by Waldman and Roper. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making each tube having no turn other than the first turn, the second turn, and the third turn yields predictable results (heat exchange).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0360698 (Waldman) in view of US 9976815 (Roper) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5058663 (Hagemeister) and US 2017/0089643 (Arafat).
Regarding claim 5, Waldman in view of Roper fails to teach, as discussed thus far, measured at centerlines of the respective tubes: the first turns do not extend downstream of the respective first locations by more than 1.0 times a tube nominal outer diameter, if at all; the second turns extend upstream of the respective first locations by a distance Lr of at least 2.0 times the tube nominal outer diameter; and the third turns do not extend downstream of the respective second locations by more than 1.0 times the tube nominal outer diameter, if at all.
However, Hagemeister teaches that the geometry of the turns/curvatures are results-effective variables, affecting flows, spacing, and stresses (col 1 ll. 33-col 2 ll. 3; col 3 l. 51-col 4 l. 15). Arafat teaches that the size and shape of the tubes are a results-effective variable, affecting flow, heat transfer, and thermal and mechanical stresses (para 42, 56, 60-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make, measured at centerlines of the respective tubes: the first turns do not extend downstream of the respective first locations by more than 1.0 times a tube nominal outer diameter, if at all; the second turns extend upstream of the respective first locations by a distance Lr of at least 2.0 times the tube nominal outer diameter; and the third turns do not extend downstream of the respective second locations by more than 1.0 times the tube nominal outer diameter, if at all, in order to achieve desired flows, stresses, spacing, and heat transfer, as taught by Hagemeister and Arafat. 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), MPEP 2144.05 IIA.
Claim(s) 10, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0360698 (Waldman) in view of US 9976815 (Roper) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2024/0011440 (Owoeye).
Regarding claim 10, Waldman in view of Roper fails to teach the second manifold is offset downstream along the first flowpath from the first manifold. However, Owoeye teaches a heat exchanger having a second manifold that is offset downstream along the first flowpath from the first manifold (Fig 4, para 40-41; second manifold 212 is offset downstream along a first flowpath -HSF from 204 to 206 – from first manifold 210). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the second manifold offset downstream along the first flowpath from the first manifold, as taught by Owoeye. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making the second manifold offset downstream along the first flowpath from the first manifold yields predictable results (heat exchange).
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0043809 (Schimmels) in view of US 2014/0360698 (Waldman) and US 9976815 (Roper).
Regarding claim 1, 6, 8, Schimmels teaches a heat exchanger (Fig 2; heat exchanger 200), the heat exchanger is a full annulus or an annular segment (para 58, Fig 4), a gas turbine engine including the heat exchanger of claim 1 and further comprising: a fan section having a fan (150, 152); at least one compressor section (128); a combustor section (130) positioned to receive air compressed by the at least one compressor section; and a turbine section positioned to receive combustion gas from the combustor to drive the at least one compressor section and the at least one fan section (turbine section 132, 134), wherein: the heat exchanger is positioned in a bypass flowpath (172).
Schimmels fails to teach the claimed details of the heat exchanger. However, Waldman teaches a heat exchanger for heat transfer between an external first flow along a first flowpath (Fig 10; first flow along first flowpath 1022) and a second flow along an internal second flowpath (second flow along second flowpath inside tubes 1002), the heat exchanger comprising: a first manifold (inlet manifold 1010 or 1012); a second manifold (outlet manifold 1010 or 1012; para 49-50; it is noted that it appears a typographical error in either the drawing or specification makes it unclear whether 1010 or 1012 is the inlet manifold; however, 1010 is either the inlet or the outlet manifold, and 1012 is the other of the inlet or the outlet manifold); and a plurality of tubes extending from the first manifold to the second manifold and having respective interiors bounding respective legs of the second flowpath (individual tubes 1002 each defining a respective leg of the second flowpath), wherein: the plurality of tubes comprises a plurality groups of tubes (groups of 2 of the tubes 1002); for each of the groups of the tubes: the tubes of the group have first ends mounted to the first manifold at respective first locations (as noted above, it is unclear if 1010 or 1012 is the inlet manifold; however, Waldman teach two opposite arrangements, one of which reads on the claims; the annotations below represent both arrangements); and the tubes of the group have second ends mounted to the second manifold at respective second locations (annotated below); the second locations are offset downstream along the first flowpath from the respective first locations (annotated below; as noted above, it is unclear if 1010 or 1012 is the inlet manifold; however, Waldman teach two opposite arrangements of tubes, one of which comprises tubes with the second locations offset downstream along the first flowpath relative to the first locations; the annotated drawing below shows both possibilities). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the heat exchanger comprising for heat transfer between an external first flow along a first flowpath and a second flow along an internal second flowpath, the heat exchanger comprising: a first manifold; a second manifold; and a plurality of tubes extending from the first manifold to the second manifold and having respective interiors bounding respective legs of the second flowpath, wherein: the plurality of tubes comprises a plurality groups of tubes; for each of the groups of the tubes: the tubes of the group have first ends mounted to the first manifold at respective first locations; and the tubes of the group have second ends mounted to the second manifold at respective second locations; and the second locations are offset downstream along the first flowpath from the respective first locations in order to transfer heat between the first flow and the second flow, as taught by Waldman. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making the heat exchanger comprising for heat transfer between an external first flow along a first flowpath and a second flow along an internal second flowpath, the heat exchanger comprising: a first manifold; a second manifold; and a plurality of tubes extending from the first manifold to the second manifold and having respective interiors bounding respective legs of the second flowpath, wherein: the plurality of tubes comprises a plurality groups of tubes; for each of the groups of the tubes: the tubes of the group have first ends mounted to the first manifold at respective first locations; and the tubes of the group have second ends mounted to the second manifold at respective second locations; and the second locations are offset downstream along the first flowpath from the respective first locations yields predictable results (heat exchange).
PNG
media_image1.png
592
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Waldman further teaches that the tubes may comprise different curved configurations (para 50) but fails to explicitly teach, from the first manifold to the second manifold, each tube has an upstream concave first turn; an upstream convex second turn; and an upstream concave third turn. However, Roper teaches that heat exchanger tubes may be formed with different curvatures from the first manifold to the second manifold, including an upstream concave first turn; an upstream convex second turn; and an upstream concave third turn (annotated below; col 5 ll. 49-61: “passages having any or no curvature and/or any number of loops (e.g., no loops at all)”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide each tube with an upstream concave first turn; an upstream convex second turn; and an upstream concave third turn, as taught by Roper. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making each tube with an upstream concave first turn; an upstream convex second turn; and an upstream concave third turn yields predictable results (heat exchange). It is noted that Roper also shows the second location being downstream of the first location.
PNG
media_image2.png
500
494
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 8, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0018904 (Oriol) in view of US 2014/0360698 (Waldman) and US 9976815 (Roper).
Regarding claim 1, 8, Oriol teaches a heat exchanger/heat transfer system (Fig 2, 3; heat exchanger 21) for heat transfer between an external first flow along a first flowpath (flow through duct 22) and a second flow along an internal second flowpath (lubricant flow inside the heat exchanger), a gas turbine engine including the heat exchanger and further comprising: a fan section having a fan (3); at least one compressor section (4a, 4b); a combustor section (5) positioned to receive air compressed by the at least one compressor section; and a turbine section positioned to receive combustion gas from the combustor to drive the at least one compressor section and the at least one fan section (turbine section 6a, 6b; para 55), wherein: the heat exchanger is positioned in a bypass flowpath/duct (22, para 58-59); at least one temperature sensor positioned to measure a temperature associated with at least one tube of the plurality of tubes (sensor 51 measures fluid from the heat exchanger, which is associated with at least one tube of the plurality of tubes; para 71); the at least one temperature sensor is positioned in the first flowpath downstream of the plurality of tubes (Fig 3; sensor is downstream of the heat exchanger); means for controlling pressure within the plurality of tubes (para 66; valve 36); and a controller (60) coupled to receive input from the temperature sensor and controlling the means so as to increase the pressure responsive to a measured temperature increase (para 71-77; when measured temperature is above a threshold valve 36 delivers oil to the heat exchanger – thereby increasing pressure within the tubes).
Oriol fails to teach the claimed details of the heat exchanger. However, Waldman teaches a heat exchanger for heat transfer between an external first flow along a first flowpath (Fig 10; first flow along first flowpath 1022) and a second flow along an internal second flowpath (second flow along second flowpath inside tubes 1002), the heat exchanger comprising: a first manifold (inlet manifold 1010 or 1012); a second manifold (outlet manifold 1010 or 1012; para 49-50; it is noted that it appears a typographical error in either the drawing or specification makes it unclear whether 1010 or 1012 is the inlet manifold; however, 1010 is either the inlet or the outlet manifold, and 1012 is the other of the inlet or the outlet manifold); and a plurality of tubes extending from the first manifold to the second manifold and having respective interiors bounding respective legs of the second flowpath (individual tubes 1002 each defining a respective leg of the second flowpath), wherein: the plurality of tubes comprises a plurality groups of tubes (groups of 2 of the tubes 1002); for each of the groups of the tubes: the tubes of the group have first ends mounted to the first manifold at respective first locations (as noted above, it is unclear if 1010 or 1012 is the inlet manifold; however, Waldman teach two opposite arrangements, one of which reads on the claims; the annotations below represent both arrangements); and the tubes of the group have second ends mounted to the second manifold at respective second locations (annotated below); the tubes each have a plurality of bends (annotated below); and the pressure increase counters stress caused by the temperature increase (para 50: curved tubes enhance thermo-mechanical fatigue strength; furthermore, “the pressure increase counters stress caused by the temperature increase” is a statement of intended use; it has been held 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 if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim" see MPEP 2114 [R-II]; in this case, Waldman and Roper has the same structure; if Applicant’s pressure increase counter stress caused by the temperature increase, so too does Waldman and Roper); the second locations are offset downstream along the first flowpath from the respective first locations (annotated below; as noted above, it is unclear if 1010 or 1012 is the inlet manifold; however, Waldman teach two opposite arrangements of tubes, one of which comprises tubes with the second locations offset downstream along the first flowpath relative to the first locations; the annotated drawing below shows both possibilities). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the heat exchanger comprising for heat transfer between an external first flow along a first flowpath and a second flow along an internal second flowpath, the heat exchanger comprising: a first manifold; a second manifold; and a plurality of tubes extending from the first manifold to the second manifold and having respective interiors bounding respective legs of the second flowpath, wherein: the plurality of tubes comprises a plurality groups of tubes; for each of the groups of the tubes: the tubes of the group have first ends mounted to the first manifold at respective first locations; and the tubes of the group have second ends mounted to the second manifold at respective second locations; and the second locations are offset downstream along the first flowpath from the respective first locations in order to transfer heat between the first flow and the second flow, as taught by Waldman. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making the heat exchanger comprising for heat transfer between an external first flow along a first flowpath and a second flow along an internal second flowpath, the heat exchanger comprising: a first manifold; a second manifold; and a plurality of tubes extending from the first manifold to the second manifold and having respective interiors bounding respective legs of the second flowpath, wherein: the plurality of tubes comprises a plurality groups of tubes; for each of the groups of the tubes: the tubes of the group have first ends mounted to the first manifold at respective first locations; and the tubes of the group have second ends mounted to the second manifold at respective second locations; and the second locations are offset downstream along the first flowpath from the respective first locations yields predictable results (heat exchange).
PNG
media_image1.png
592
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Waldman further teaches that the tubes may comprise different curved configurations (para 50) but fails to explicitly teach, from the first manifold to the second manifold, each tube has an upstream concave first turn; an upstream convex second turn; and an upstream concave third turn. However, Roper teaches that heat exchanger tubes may be formed with different curvatures from the first manifold to the second manifold, including an upstream concave first turn; an upstream convex second turn; and an upstream concave third turn (annotated below; col 5 ll. 49-61: “passages having any or no curvature and/or any number of loops (e.g., no loops at all)”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide each tube with an upstream concave first turn; an upstream convex second turn; and an upstream concave third turn, as taught by Roper. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making each tube with an upstream concave first turn; an upstream convex second turn; and an upstream concave third turn yields predictable results (heat exchange). It is noted that Roper also shows the second location being downstream of the first location.
PNG
media_image2.png
500
494
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11-13, Oriol in view of Waldman and Roper teaches a method for using the heat exchanger/heat transfer system of claim 1, the method comprising: driving the first flow along the first flowpath (Fig 10 of Waldman and in Fig 1 of Roper and in Fig 3 of Oriol); driving the second flow along the second flowpath (through the heat exchanger tubes); measuring a temperature associated with at least one tube of the plurality of tubes (in Oriol, temperature sensor 51 receives fluid from the heat exchanger, which is associated with at least one tube of the plurality of tubes; para 71); and controlling pressure within the plurality of tubes so as to increase the pressure responsive to a measured temperature increase (para 71-77; when measured temperature is above a threshold valve 36 delivers oil to the heat exchanger – thereby increasing pressure within the tubes), the pressure increase counters stress caused by the temperature increase (in the combination the heat exchanger is arranged in the same manner, and under the same conditions; increasing pressure would also counter stress), the pressure increase tends to contract the ends of each of the tubes toward each other (in the combination the heat exchanger is arranged in the same manner, and under the same conditions – increasing pressure would also tend to contract the ends of the tubes toward each other; as taught by Applicant at para 39: “at a turn/bend, the outside of the turn will offer a greater surface area for internal pressure to act upon than does the inside. Pressure increases will tend to tighten the curvature”; Waldman’s and Roper’s turns/bends also have an outside with a greater surface area for internal pressure to act upon than the inside, and therefore would also tend to contract the ends of the tubes toward each other; furthermore, the limitation is a statement of intended use; it has been held 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 if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim" see MPEP 2114 [R-II]; in this case, the pressures experienced by the apparatus and resulting tendency of the tubes do not provide a limitation on the apparatus).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0018904 (Oriol) in view of US 2014/0360698 (Waldman) and US 9976815 (Roper) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US 2020/0332715 (Ribarov).
Regarding claim 9, Oriol further teaches transmission coupled to the fan (transmission 10); and a lubrication system having a lubricant flowpath through the transmission and including the internal second flowpath (para 62, Fig 3; lubricant circuit runs through the transmission and the heat exchanger), a temperature sensor (51; para 71); and a controller (60) coupled to receive input from the temperature sensor and controlling the lubrication system so as to increase pressure within the tubes responsive to a measured temperature increase (para 71-77; when measured temperature is above a threshold valve 36 delivers oil to the heat exchanger – thereby increasing pressure within the tubes).
Oriol is silent as to the transmission being an epicyclic transmission. However, Ribarov teaches that fan gear transmissions may be epicyclic (para 35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the transmission of Oriol epicyclic, as taught by Ribarov. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making the transmission being an epicyclic transmission yields predictable results.
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0018904 (Oriol) in view of US 2014/0360698 (Waldman).
Regarding claim 15-19, Oriol teaches a heat exchanger/heat transfer system (Fig 2, 3; heat exchanger 21) for heat transfer between an external first flow along a first flowpath (flow through duct 22) and a second flow along an internal second flowpath (lubricant flow inside the heat exchanger), a gas turbine engine including the heat exchanger and further comprising: a fan section having a fan (3); at least one compressor section (4a, 4b); a combustor section (5) positioned to receive air compressed by the at least one compressor section; and a turbine section positioned to receive combustion gas from the combustor to drive the at least one compressor section and the at least one fan section (turbine section 6a, 6b; para 55), wherein: the heat exchanger is positioned in a bypass flowpath/duct (22, para 58-59); at least one temperature sensor positioned to measure a temperature associated with at least one tube of the plurality of tubes (sensor 51 measures fluid from the heat exchanger, which is associated with at least one tube of the plurality of tubes; para 71); the at least one temperature sensor is positioned in the first flowpath downstream of the plurality of tubes (Fig 3; sensor is downstream of the heat exchanger); means for controlling pressure within the plurality of tubes (para 66; valve 36); and a controller (60) coupled to receive input from the temperature sensor and controlling the means so as to increase the pressure responsive to a measured temperature increase (para 71-77; when measured temperature is above a threshold valve 36 delivers oil to the heat exchanger – thereby increasing pressure within the tubes).
Oriol fails to teach the claimed details of the heat exchanger. However, Waldman teaches a heat exchanger for heat transfer between an external first flow along a first flowpath (Fig 10; first flow along first flowpath 1022) and a second flow along an internal second flowpath (second flow along second flowpath inside tubes 1002), the heat exchanger comprising: a first manifold (inlet manifold 1010 or 1012); a second manifold (outlet manifold 1010 or 1012; para 49-50; it is noted that it appears a typographical error in either the drawing or specification makes it unclear whether 1010 or 1012 is the inlet manifold; however, 1010 is either the inlet or the outlet manifold, and 1012 is the other of the inlet or the outlet manifold); and a plurality of tubes extending from the first manifold to the second manifold and having respective interiors bounding respective legs of the second flowpath (individual tubes 1002 each defining a respective leg of the second flowpath), wherein: the plurality of tubes comprises a plurality groups of tubes (groups of 2 of the tubes 1002); for each of the groups of the tubes: the tubes of the group have first ends mounted to the first manifold at respective first locations (as noted above, it is unclear if 1010 or 1012 is the inlet manifold; however, Waldman teach two opposite arrangements, one of which reads on the claims; the annotations below represent both arrangements); and the tubes of the group have second ends mounted to the second manifold at respective second locations (annotated below); the tubes each have a plurality of bends (annotated below); and the tubes are configured so that the pressure increase counters stress caused by the measured temperature increase (para 50: curved tubes enhance thermo-mechanical fatigue strength; furthermore, “the pressure increase counters stress caused by the measured temperature increase” is a statement of intended use; it has been held 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 if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim" see MPEP 2114 [R-II]; in this case, the pressures and stresses experienced by the apparatus do not provide a limitation on the apparatus; furthermore Waldman has the same structure; if Applicant’s pressure increase counter stress caused by the measured temperature increase, so too does Waldman), and the tubes are configured so that the pressure increase tends to contract the ends of each of the tubes toward each other (as taught by Applicant at para 39: “at a turn/bend, the outside of the turn will offer a greater surface area for internal pressure to act upon than does the inside. Pressure increases will tend to tighten the curvature”; Waldman’s turns/bends also have an outside with a greater surface area for internal pressure to act upon than the inside, and therefore would also tend to contract the ends of the tubes toward each other; furthermore, the limitation is a statement of intended use; it has been held 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 if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim" see MPEP 2114 [R-II]; in this case, the pressures experienced by the apparatus and resulting tendency of the tubes do not provide a limitation on the apparatus). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the heat exchanger comprising for heat transfer between an external first flow along a first flowpath and a second flow along an internal second flowpath, the heat exchanger comprising: a first manifold; a second manifold; and a plurality of tubes extending from the first manifold to the second manifold and having respective interiors bounding respective legs of the second flowpath, wherein: the plurality of tubes comprises a plurality groups of tubes; for each of the groups of the tubes: the tubes of the group have first ends mounted to the first manifold at respective first locations; and the tubes of the group have second ends mounted to the second manifold at respective second locations in order to transfer heat between the first flow and the second flow, the tubes are configured so that the pressure increase counters stress caused by the measured temperature increase, and the tubes are configured so that the pressure increase tends to contract the ends of each of the tubes toward each other, as taught by Waldman. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making the heat exchanger comprising for heat transfer between an external first flow along a first flowpath and a second flow along an internal second flowpath, the heat exchanger comprising: a first manifold; a second manifold; and a plurality of tubes extending from the first manifold to the second manifold and having respective interiors bounding respective legs of the second flowpath, wherein: the plurality of tubes comprises a plurality groups of tubes; for each of the groups of the tubes: the tubes of the group have first ends mounted to the first manifold at respective first locations; and the tubes of the group have second ends mounted to the second manifold at respective second locations; and the second locations are offset downstream along the first flowpath from the respective first locations, the tubes are configured so that the pressure increase counters stress caused by the measured temperature increase, and the tubes are configured so that the pressure increase tends to contract the ends of each of the tubes toward each other, yields predictable results (heat exchange).
PNG
media_image1.png
592
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Oriol in view of Waldman teaches a method for using the heat exchanger/heat transfer system of claim 15, the method comprising: driving the first flow along the first flowpath (Fig 10 of Waldman and in Fig 3 of Oriol); driving the second flow along the second flowpath (through the heat exchanger tubes); measuring a temperature associated with at least one tube of the plurality of tubes (in Oriol, temperature sensor 51 receives fluid from the heat exchanger, which is associated with at least one tube of the plurality of tubes; para 71); and controlling pressure within the plurality of tubes so as to increase the pressure responsive to a measured temperature increase (para 71-77; when measured temperature is above a threshold valve 36 delivers oil to the heat exchanger – thereby increasing pressure within the tubes).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that Waldman’s labels and numbering is inconsistent, Examiner respectfully asserts that regardless of the inconsistency Waldman teaches that claim limitations as discussed above. As noted above, it is unclear if 1010 or 1012 is the inlet manifold. However, Waldman teach two opposite arrangements of tubes, one of which comprises tubes with the second locations offset downstream along the first flowpath relative to the first locations; the annotated drawing above shows both possibilities.
With regards to Applicant’s affidavit and arguments that the teachings and illustrations of Roper are random, untenable, and nonsensical, that the bends, intersections, and loops are unproducible, the intersections are illogical, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Roper specifically teaches that “internal-passage-defining features 106 may include, for example, a bank of solid cylinders and/or a network of struts” and “[t]he passage-defining features 106 may also intersect, converge, diverge, and/or follow any path (e.g., straight, twisting, helical, tortuous, etc.) through the heat exchanger core” (col 6 ll. 32-43). Modifying the path of the heat exchange tubes (including making the second location offset from the first location) was within the level of ordinary skill in the art and obvious in view of Roper's teachings. Roper repeats the geometry through Figures 2A-2F, including showing the construction, mechanical support features (108), and further discusses the shown features (pair of passages, loops, curvatures; col 5 ll. 17-61). Examiner respectfully asserts that nothing in Roper teaches the shape being random. Different shapes and paths have been considered by the prior art. This does not make the paths random.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Roper does not offer an explanation for the offsets and are likely to be an error rather than an intentional feature, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The drawing of Roper clearly shows two different arrangements, one which locates the second location upstream from the first location and one which locates the second location downstream from the first location. Placing the second location downstream from the first location was known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the simple substitution of one or the other would yield predictable results. As shown by Roper, different paths and arrangements of the tubes, including making the second location offset from the first location, were previously considered by the prior art. Therefore, making the second location offset from the first location would have yielded predictable results. The drawings of Roper are relied upon for what they reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art – that the second location may be offset either upstream or downstream from the first location.
With regards to the questions posed by Applicant in the affidavit at section 17(a-e), the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
With regards to Applicant’s arguments in sections 18-20 of the affidavit, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, providing tubes with an upstream concave first turn; an upstream convex second turn; and an upstream concave third turn was within the level of ordinary skill in the art in view of the teachings of Roper: “[t]he passage-defining features 106 may also intersect, converge, diverge, and/or follow any path (e.g., straight, twisting, helical, tortuous, etc.) through the heat exchanger core” (col 6 ll. 32-43).
With regards to Applicant’s arguments in section 21 of the affidavit, Examiner respectfully asserts that the claim has not defined the physical property that distinguishes it from the prior art. Furthermore, it appears from the disclosure that the countering stress is achieved by the bends. Both Waldman and Roper teach tubes with bends, and therefore are capable of countering stress with internal pressure.
With regards to Applicant’s argument the limitation “so that an internal pressure increase counters stress” “is not a statement of intended use but a physical property” (page 14 of arguments), Examiner respectfully disagrees. “Pressure” and “stress” are not structures of the heat exchanger – they are functions of the fluid acting on the heat exchanger. The claim does not define a structure that achieves the function (countering stress) that differentiates it from the prior art. Furthermore, it appears from Applicant’s disclosure that the countering stress is achieved by the bends. Both Waldman and Roper teach tubes with bends, and therefore are capable of countering stress with internal pressure.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that the “examiner has not made any findings regarding what the predictable results are and Roper et al. offers no teaching” (page 15 of arguments), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The predictable results are manufacturing and operating a heat exchanger.
With regards to Applicant’s arguments regarding the flows, asymmetry, and fluids in Roper, the fluidic considerations of Waldman, and claim 4 – the asserted planar configuration of baseline Waldman (page 15-16), the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
With regards to Applicant’s argument that “the examiner is just endeavoring to include words but not to address an actual combination of disclosure” (page 20), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Waldman and Roper teach the claim limitations regarding the heat exchanger as presented above. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With regards to Applicant’s question, “are the previously asserted planes of the tubes bent in arcs to meet the circumferential illustration … of Schimmels et al.?” (page 20), the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, Schimmels, Waldman, and Roper all teach that heat exchange tubes may be bent. Bending the tubes is within the level of ordinary skill in the art and obvious.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that the motivation is conclusory and “there is no asserted benefit relative to the baseline heat exchange of Schimmels” (page 21), Examiner respectfully asserts that “Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;” (see MPEP 2141 III). Waldman and Roper teach well known heat exchanger configurations. Applying the teachings of Waldman and Roper to Schimmels would yield predictable results – a functioning heat exchanger that exchanges heat between two fluids.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that “the examiner has not offered any explanation as to how, absent a hindsight reconstruction, the pressure increase would contract the ends toward each other rather than extend them away from each other” (page 22-23), Examiner respectfully asserts that, as discussed above, the tubes of Waldman and Roper have bends. As taught by Applicant at para 39: “at a turn/bend, the outside of the turn will offer a greater surface area for internal pressure to act upon than does the inside. Pressure increases will tend to tighten the curvature”; Waldman’s and Roper’s turns/bends also have an outside with a greater surface area for internal pressure to act upon than the inside, and therefore would also tend to contract the ends of the tubes toward each other. Furthermore, the limitation is a statement of intended use; it has been held 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 if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim" see MPEP 2114 [R-II]; in this case, the pressures experienced by the apparatus and resulting tendency of the tubes do not provide a limitation on the apparatus.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that the examiner “has made an unexplained complete hindsight reconstruction” (page 25), Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, Waldman and Roper teach tubes. The teachings were taken directly from the prior art. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With regards to Applicant’s argument that the motivation “heat exchange” or “to transfer heat between the first flow and the second flow” is “nonsensical”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The predictable manufacture and operation of a heat exchanger is useful and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5063. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, Phutthiwat (Pat) Wongwian can be reached on 571-270-5426. 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.
/ANDREW H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights