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 .
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-10, drawn to a multi-channel heat exchanger.
Group II, claim(s) 11-20, drawn to an air conditioning refrigeration system.
Group III, claim(s) 21, drawn to a multi-channel heat exchanger.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
The common features are not a special technical feature as they do not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Yanik et al. (US 2012/0267086). Yanik teaches a multi- channel heat exchanger, comprising: a plurality of exchange tubes (124) spaced apart along a thickness direction of the exchange tube (see fig. 9-16 and 23-25), the exchange tube (124) having a first longitudinal side face (top side of 124, see fig. 9-16 and 23-25) and a second longitudinal side face opposite to and parallel to each other along the thickness direction of the exchange tube (bottom side of 124, see fig. 9-16 and 23-25), and a third longitudinal side face (left side 140 of 124, see fig. 9-16 and 23-25) and a fourth longitudinal side face opposite to each other along a width direction of the exchange tube (right side 142 of 124, see fig. 9-16 and 23- 25), a distance between the first longitudinal side face and the second longitudinal side face being less than a distance between the third longitudinal side face and the fourth longitudinal side face (see fig. 9-16 and 23-25, wherein the distance between the top and bottom sides is less than the distance between the left and right sides),
the exchange tube being divided into four portions (the total portion occupied by flow channels 184, the total portion occupied by flow channels 186, the total portion occupied by flow channels 188 and the total portion occupied by flow channels 190...as shown at least in fig. 12) along the width direction of the exchange tube (see fig. 12), the four portions comprising a first flat exchange tube portion, a second exchange tube portion, a third flat exchange tube portion and a fourth exchange tube portion distributed along a direction from an inlet side of an airflow to an outlet side of the airflow (see fig. see fig 12), each exchange tube portion comprising at least two flow channels (flow channels 184, 186, 188 and 190), the flow channel extending in a length direction of the exchange tube, the respective flow channels of the four portions being spaced apart along the width direction of the exchange tube (see fig. 12; I 0074),
Yanik teaches the exchange tube having a cross section in the thickness direction of the exchange tube (124) and the width direction (A) of the exchange tube (see for example fig. 7), the cross section comprising a flow section, a total area of a flow section of the first flat exchange tube portion being A1 (the first stocked tube 124), a total area of a flow section of the second heat exchange tube portion being A2 (the second stocked tube 124), a total area of a flow section of the third heat exchange tube portion being A3 (the third stocked tube 124), a total area of a flow section of the fourth exchange tube portion being A4 (the fourth stocked tube 124) (see at least fig. 7; 22-23; 0086-0087). Yanik does not teach the exchange tube being divided into four portions with an equal width, and also fail to teach the total area Al of the flow section of the first exchange tube portion being 1.05-1.4 times of the total arca A4 of the flow section of the fourth exchange tube portion. However, Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heat exchange tube into four portions equal width, and also modify the total area of the flow section of the first exchange tube portion being 1.05-1.4 times of the total area of the flow section of the fourth exchange tube portion, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).Therefore, the groups and species lack unity a posteriori.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 21 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non- elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinmura et al. (US 2006/0124289 A1) in view of Yatskov (US 2009/0154091 A1) and further in view of Kaga Kunihiko (JP 4055449 B2).
In regard to claim 5, Shinmura teaches a multi-channel heat exchanger,
comprising:
a plurality of heat exchange tubes (30) spaced apart along a thickness direction (see the thickness direction in the annotated figure) of the plurality of heat exchanger tubes (30) (see fig. 1),
each of the plurality of heat exchange tubes (30) having a first longitudinal side face (top side of 30) and a second longitudinal side face (the bottom side of 30) opposite to and parallel to each other along the thickness direction of the plurality of heat exchange tubes (30) (see fig. 1 and 2, wherein the heat exchange tubes (30) stacked on top of each other along the thickness direction; see also the annotated figure 5B below), and a third longitudinal side face (left side of 30) and a fourth longitudinal side face opposite to each other along a width direction of the plurality of heat exchange tubes (right side of 30, see the annotated figure 5B below), a distance between the first longitudinal side face and the second longitudinal side face being less than a distance between the third longitudinal side face and the fourth longitudinal side face (see the annotated figure 5B above, wherein the distance between the top and bottom sides is less than the distance between the left and right sides; see also the annotated figure below),
each of the plurality of heat exchange tubes (30) being divided into four portions (P1, P2, P3 and P4) that appears to be an equal width along the width direction of the plurality of heat exchange tubes (30) (see the annotated figure 5B below), the four portions comprising a first heat exchange tube portion (P4), a second heat exchange tube portion (P3), a third heat exchange tube portion (P2) and a fourth heat exchange tube portion (P1) distributed along a direction from an inlet side of an airflow (A, see fig. 1 for the direction of the airflow) to an outlet side of the airflow (¶ 0126-0127), each heat exchange tube portion (P1-P4) comprising at least two flow channels (four flow channels 35), each of the at least two channels (35) extending in a length direction of the plurality of heat exchange tubes (30), respective flow channels (35) of the four portions (P1-P4) being spaced apart along the width direction of the plurality of heat exchange tubes (30) (see the annotated figure 5B below),
each of the plurality of heat exchange tubes (30) having a cross section defined in the thickness direction of the plurality of heat exchange tubes (30) and the width direction of the plurality of heat exchange tubes (30), the cross section comprising a flow section (the flow section occupied by the plurality of flow channels 35),
a total area of a flow section of the first heat exchange tube portion being Al (the total area of the flow channels of the heat exchange tube portion P4-is considered to be A1), a total area of a flow section of the second heat exchange tube portion being A2 (the total area of the flow channels of the heat exchange tube portion P3-is considered to be A2), a total area of a flow section of the third heat exchange tube portion being A3 (the total area of the flow channels of the heat exchange tube portion P2-is considered to be A3), a total area of a flow section of the fourth heat exchange tube portion being A4 (the total area of the flow channels of the heat exchange tube portion P1-is considered to be A4) (see the annotated figure 5B above).
Shinmura further teaches a multi-channel heat exchanger further comprising: Shinmura only discloses that fins (40) are arranged between two heat exchange tubes (30) along the thickness direction of the heat exchange tubes (30) and are respectively connected to the two heat exchange tubes (30) (see ¶ 0097), but does not explicitly teach having first to nth groups of fins, the first to nth groups of fins being distributed along the direction from the inlet side of the airflow to the outlet side of the airflow, wherein 1≤n, n is an integer, wherein an air-side heat transfer coefficient of the nth group of fins is less than an air-side heat transfer coefficient of the first group of fins.
However, Yatskov teaches a multi-channel heat exchanger (118) (fig. 1-3), comprising a first to nth group of fins (242 or 342a and 342b), wherein the first to nth group of fins are all installed between a first and second longitudinal side face of the plurality of flat tubes (Figures 1-3; ¶ 23, 33-34), and the first to nᵗʰ groups of fins are sequentially arranged in a width direction of the flat tube, the first group of fins corresponds to the first group of flow channels, the kth group of fins corresponds to the kth group of flow channels, the nth group of fins corresponds to the nth group of flow channels (Figures 1-3; Paragraphs 23, 33-34; Figure 3 illustrates multiple sets of fins along the width direction. Additionally, the single fin configuration 242 would satisfy the limitation since the claim docs not recite that the fins have to have different configurations); wherein an air-side heat transfer coefficient of the kth group of fins is greater than an air side heat transfer coefficient of a (k-1)th group of fins (Figures 1-3; ¶ 33-34; Fins 342b have a higher heat conductance than the fins 342a, which is the same as having a higher heat transfer coefficient).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fins of Shinmura with fins having first to nth groups of fins, wherein an air-side heat transfer coefficient of the nth group of fins is less than an air-side heat transfer coefficient of the first group of fins, in view of the teachings of Yatskov, in order to match fin performance to a decreasing thermal driving force along the airflow direction, thereby reducing pressure drop, improving thermal uniformity, and optimizing overall heat exchanger efficiency and cost.
Shinmura teaches the heat exchange tube (30) being divided into four portions (P1, P2, P3 and P4) that appears to be an equal width along the width direction of the heat exchange tube (30), but the does not explicitly teach the four portions are equal width along the width direction of the heat exchange tube.
However, Kaga teach a heat exchanger tube (2) comprising a partition wall (14a) located substantially in the center, and the respective coolant channels are connected to the left and right coolant channels (see fig. 15a; ¶ 0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the four portions of the heat exchange tube portions of Shinmura by dividing the four portions into an equal width along the width direction of the heat exchange tube, in view of the teachings of Kaga, for the purpose of providing more even flow distribution, minimizing bypassing or stagnant zones and improving the efficiency while reducing the risk of flow instability.
Shinmura does not explicitly teach the total area Al of the flow section of the at least a portion of the at least two flow channels of the first heat exchange tube portion being 1.05-1.4 times of the total area A4 of the flow section of the at least a portion of the at least two channels of the fourth heat exchange tube portion.
Kaga does, however, teach a heat exchanger tube (2), comprising at least two heat exchange tube portion (left and right side of partition wall 14a), wherein the heat exchanger tube (2) is formed by reducing the flow cross-sectional area of each of the refrigerant flow paths (6b, the right side of partition wall 14a) on the leeward side to reduce the refrigerant flow rate, and a large amount of refrigerant can be circulated through the refrigerant channel (6a, on the left side of the partition wall 14a) on the windward side, and the amount of heat exchange can be improved (see fig. 15; ¶ 0030-0031).
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e., making the total area of the flow section of one of a heat exchange tube portion to be greater than a flow section of another heat exchange tube portion of a heat exchanger tube, is disclosed in the prior art by Kaga, then it is not inventive to discover an optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the total areas of the flow sections of the first heat exchange tube portion and the fourth heat exchange tube portions by making the total area Al of the flow section of the first heat exchange tube portion to be 1.05-1.4 times of the total area A4 of the flow section of the fourth heat exchange tube, for the purpose of distributing/circulating a large amount of refrigerant/coolants to an upwind side of the flow section of the first heat exchange tube portion so that the amount of heat exchange can be improved (see Kaga ¶ 0031).
PNG
media_image1.png
367
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 2, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinmura, Yatskov and Kaga as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Yanik et al. (US 2012/0267086 A1).
In regard to claim 2, Shinmura teaches the multi-channel heat exchanger according to claim 5, wherein Shinmura does not
explicitly teach distances from at least one of the at least two flow channels in the four heat exchange tube portions to two flow channels adjacent to the at least one of the at least two flow channels are different.
However, Yanik teaches a heat exchanger comprising a multichannel tube (192) wherein the multichannel tube comprises a plurality of flow channels (198) wherein the spacing between flow paths (198) increases as the flow paths are located closer to trailing edge (142). The flow path disposed near the leading edge (140) is spaced apart at a distance (U) and the flow paths located near the center of the tube are spaced apart at a distance (V) that is twice distance (U) (see fig. 14; ¶ 0076; see also fig. 16, ¶ 0078).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the distance between the at least two flow channels of Shinmura by adjusting distances from at least one of the at least two flow channels in the four heat exchange tube portions to two flow channels adjacent to the at least one of the at least two flow channels to be different, in view of the teachings of Yanik, for the purpose of providing more flow channels near the edge of the heat exchange tube to allow more refrigerant to flow near the edge.
In regard to claim 9, Shinmura teaches the multi-channel heat exchanger according to claim 2, wherein a flow sectional area of each flow channel (35) in the same heat exchange tube portion is the same (Shinmura fig. 5B; ¶ 0111-0112).
In regard to claim 10, Shinmura teaches the multi-channel heat exchanger according to claim 9, wherein the multi-channel heat exchanger comprises at least one of following features:
a. a shape of a cross section of each flow channel in the same heat exchange tube portion is the same (see Shinmura ¶ 0111-0112);
b. each heat exchange tube portion comprises a same number of flow channels (35) (see fig. 5B of Shinmura; wherein Shinmura teaches 4 flow channels in each heat exchange tube portions);
c. sizes of any two flow channels along the width direction of the plurality of heat exchange tubes are the same, and sizes of at least one flow channel in different heat exchange tube portions along the thickness direction of the plurality of heat exchange tubes are different;
d. sizes of any two flow channels along the thickness direction of the plurality of heat exchange tubes are the same, and sizes of the flow channels in different heat exchange tube portions along the width direction of the plurality of heat exchange tubes are different; and
e. at least part of the at least a portion of the at least two flow channels provided with an inner rib.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinmura, Yatskov and Kaga as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Yonezawa Masaru (JP 2005201491 A).
In regard to claim 3, Shinmura teaches the multi-channel heat exchanger according to claim 5, Shinmura does not explicitly teach a distance between any two adjacent flow channels in the first heat exchange tube portion is greater than or equal to a distance between any two adjacent flow channels in the second heat exchange tube portion.
However, Masaru teaches heat exchanger comprising a heat exchange tube comprising a first (A1) and second (B1) heat exchange tube portions, wherein a distance between any two adjacent flow channels (9j of fig. 4; 9l of fig. 5; 9n, 9o, 9p fig. 6) in the first heat exchange tube portion (A1) is equal to a distance between any two adjacent flow channels (9k of fig. 4; 9m of fig. 5; 9q, 9r, 9s of fig. 6) in the second heat exchange tube portion (B1) (see fig. 4, 5 and 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a distance between two adjacent flow channels of the first and second heat exchange tube portions of Shinmura by making the distance between any two adjacent flow channels in the first heat exchange tube portion to be greater than or equal to a distance between any two adjacent flow channels in the second heat exchange tube portion, in view of the teachings of Masaru, in order to provide a uniform temperature gradients across the entire exchanger and prevent hot or spots, ensuring consistent thermal exchange throughout the heat exchange tube.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinmura, Yatskov and Kaga as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Sugimura et al. (US 20170082381 A1).
In regard to claim 6, Shinmura teaches the multi-channel heat exchanger according to claim 5, wherein Shinmura teaches a plurality of fins, but does not explicitly teach the number of the louvers of the first group of fins is greater than the number of the louvers of the nth group of fins.
Sugimura teaches a heat exchanger comprising a stacked tubes (1) through which a refrigerant flows and a group of fins (2) joined to the tube to increase a heat exchange area with air flowing around the tube (1) (see 0040-0042; fig. 1-2), wherein a first to nth groups of fins comprise a plurality of louvers (23c) arranged along the width direction of the heat exchange tube, and the number of the louvers of the first group of fins (23c) is greater than the number of the louvers of the nth group of fins (23d) (see fig. 3-5; ¶ 0044-0046, 0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the groups of fins of Shinmura by including a plurality of louvers, wherein the groups of fins comprise a plurality of louvers arranged along the width direction of the heat exchange tube, and the number of the louvers of the first group of fins is greater than the number of the louvers of the nth group of fins, in view of the teachings of Sugimura, in order to promote turbulent airflow and enhances heat transfer between the fins and the air, and having a greater number of louvers on the first group improves air disturbance, turbulence and promotes better heat transfer from the fin to the air because at the air inlet side of the heat exchanger, the velocity and pressure of the incoming air are high.
In regard to claim 7, the modified Shinmura in view of Sugimura further teaches the multi-channel heat exchanger comprises at least one of following features:
a. an opening width of the louver of the first group of fins is greater than an opening width of the louver of the nth group of fins;
b. an opening angle of the louver of the first group of fins is greater than an opening angle of the louver of the nth group of fins; and
c. an opening length of the louver of the first group of fins is greater than an opening length of the louver of the nth group of fins (see Sugimura ¶ 0051-0052).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection (see the rejection in view of Yatskov (US 2009/0154091 A1).
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 WEBESHET MENGESHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1793. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7-4, alternate Fridays, EST. 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/W.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763