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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the distribution means described in the rejection from Strahle are not different than the channels required in the claim limitations and as such Strahle does not disclose distribution means. The examiner disagrees, as the rejection previously presented describes in the rejection of claim 7 that the distribution means includes vertical walls and as such the distribution means consists of the walls that define the channels themselves. The claims require that the distribution means define a flow section of fluid for each channel. These limitations then describe that the flow sections connect the distribution channels to the inlet and outlet and as the walls define the inlets and outlets to the channels, the flow sections can be these transitions. As the limitations do not preclude the distribution means from also defining the channel shapes, the walls that are interspersed between channels still meet the limitations of the claims. The rejections must also be updated as new limitations are presented with the amendments, as they change the scope of claim 1. Updated rejections are presented below and this action is made final.
The examiner appreciates the amendments made and notes that they overcome the previous 112 rejections.
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(s) 1-2, 4, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Strahle (US 20050194123).
Regarding claim 1, Strahle discloses A heat exchanger (abstract), for an aircraft nacelle (this limitation is presented in the preamble and not positively recited in the claim. As this does not give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim, then these limitations need not be disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2111.02), the heat exchanger comprising a first metal sheet (Figure 1, item 28. Paragraphs 0041-0048 describes metallic connections between the plates, showing that all of them are metal) and a second metal sheet (Figures 1-3, items 50 or 80 show a metal plate on the other side) assembled together and a plurality of distribution channels for distributing a fluid delimited by the first metal sheet and the second metal sheet (Figures 1 and 2, items 62 show recesses in the plates that are formed as item 91 with the two sheets delimiting the channels), inlet and outlet interfaces for said fluid (Figures 2-3, item 36 shows an inlet interface and item 38 shows an outlet interface) and distribution means for distributing said fluid, the distribution means defining, for each distribution channel of the plurality of distribution channels, a flow section of said fluid (The walls between the channels serve as the distribution means as they assist in distributing the fluid by forming the inlet, outlet, channels, and interfaces. the flow sections connect the distribution channels to the inlet and outlet and as the walls define the inlets and outlets to the channels, the flow sections can be these transitions), each of the distribution channels of the plurality of distribution channels being connected to the inlet and outlet interfaces by the flow section (Figure 2 shows each channel 91 being connected to both the inlet and the outlet and as described above, the flow section serves as the transitions from the inlets or outlets into each channel), wherein said distribution channels are distributed over an entire perimeter of the inlet interface and/or the outlet interface (Figure 2 shows the channels 91 being distributed around the perimeter of both the inlet 36 and the outlet 38).
Regarding claim 2, Strahle discloses that said flow section defined for each distribution channel of the plurality of distribution channels has a value that depends on the length of said distribution channel, so as to homogenize the flow rates of the distribution channels with each other. These limitations are functional limitations so as long as the structure is capable of providing a homogenization of the flow rates the structure is disclosed. See MPEP 2173.05(g). There is no baseline set for what the homogenization is provided relative to or what the actual value dependent on the length is, so any flow rate defined by homogenization relative to a nonexistent baseline meets the limitations. As the length of each channel and flow rate through it is dependent on the length, those are values that depend on the length of the channel.
Regarding claim 4, Strahle discloses a plate fastened to the second metal sheet (Figure 3 shows a plate 82 fastened to the second metal sheet 80) and provided with studs disposed between the second and first metal sheets (Figure 3 shows studs 84 located on the plate between the two metal sheets), so as to secure said interfaces to the first and second metal sheets by means of fastening means cooperating with said studs (Page 3, line 29 of the specification of the instant application describes that the fastening means are screws, bolts, rods, or rivets. The reinforcing element 88 meets the limitations of a rod and Paragraph 0037 describes that the element is soldered to the studs which secures the items).
Regarding claim 7, Strahle discloses that the distribution means comprise vertical walls (Figures 5 and 6 show walls 150 between the conduits) of varying thickness (Figure 2 shows the gaps between the various channels 91 being varying as each of the conduits extends along their length which means each wall thickness also varies as the gaps extend) disposed between said studs and the inlet and outlet ends of the distribution channels (Figures 2 and 3 show the walls and passages located between the studs and the inlet and outlet ends) so as to reduce turbulence due to the flow of the fluid (Any shape reduces turbulence relative to an unspecified baseline point of the maximum turbulence possible).
Regarding claim 8, Strahle discloses that the distribution means of distributing said fluid comprise leading edges and trailing edges formed by circular arcs, the convexity of said arcs being directed towards a center of the plate. Figure 2 shows that the various curved shapes of the conduits 91, which are the distribution means, have leading and trailing edges all along their lengths and various curved shapes. As can be seen in Figure 2, some of the curves provide curves that have convexity that faces away from the center of the plate (either HA, VA, or where the two meet).
Regarding claim 9, Strahle discloses that the plate is provided with throttle members intended to be placed in inlet ends and/or outlet ends of the distribution channels, so as to create a reduction in the useful section of the channels at the location of the throttle members. Figure 2 shows a reduction in flow area from the inlet section of the distribution channel where 38 meets 91. As such, the transition from 91 to 38 meets the limitations of a throttle member as no other specific structure is given for the throttle member and a reduction in channel area is provided by that transition.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strahle (US 20050194123) in view of Yamada (US 20100181055).
Regarding claim 3, Strahle discloses the limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the above 102 rejection but does not explicitly disclose that two channels have different cross-sections. Strahle and Yamada are analogous prior art because both describe plate heat exchangers with channels. Yamada teaches that the plurality of distribution channels comprises a first distribution channel and a second distribution channel with different cross-sections (Par. 0044 describes having tubes where the tubes with shorter end-to-end lengths have smaller cross-sectional areas). This allows for the flow rates of the longer tubes and shorter tubes to be substantially the same and thereby keeps a consistent volume flow rate for the entire system (Par. 0047). As Strahle Figure 2 shows the passages having different lengths, this variation would be possible. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the shorter tubes of Strahle have a different cross-sectional area as described in Yamada because the variation allows for the flow rates of the longer tubes and shorter tubes to be substantially the same and thereby keeps a consistent volume flow rate for the entire system (Par. 0047).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strahle (US 20050194123) in view of Myklebust (US 20220341676).
Regarding claim 5, Strahle discloses the limitations of claim 4 as set forth in the above 102 rejection and the means comprising a metal sheet provided with holes aligned with the holes of the studs (Figure 3 shows each plate having holes to fit 88 so that the holes align with the studs 86). However, Strahle does not explicitly disclose the studs having threaded holes. Strahle and Myklebust are analogous prior art because both describe plate heat exchangers. Myklebust teaches that items in the system can be connected with welding and also connected via threaded connection (Par. 0042). As Strahle already shows item 86 which would be capable of being fitted with a threaded connection to engage the reinforcing element, the threaded connection of Myklebust would provide predictable results in the stud of Strahle. Further, Myklebust describes that threaded connection and metallic joining are both suitable for the system. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the threaded connection described in Myklebust for the stud of Strahle because simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strahle (US 20050194123) in view of Snyder (US 20190014687).
Regarding claim 10, Strahle discloses the limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the above 102 rejection but does not explicitly disclose that the heat exchanger is in a nacelle of a turbine engine. Strahle and Snyder are analogous prior art because both describe heat exchange systems capable of using a fluid and a gas (Strahle Par. 0032). Snyder teaches using a plate type heat exchanger in the nacelle of a gas turbine engine (Fig. 3, item 32b). As both systems use plate-type heat exchangers and both are capable of exchanging with a gas, the heat exchanger of Strahle would provide predictable results in the nacelle of Snyder. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the heat exchanger of Strahle in the nacelle of Snyder because simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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
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 THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA whose telephone number is (469)295-9164. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00 (CT).
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at (571)-272-8648. 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.
/THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights