DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Applicant's amendment filed in response to the previous Office action has been entered and considered. Claims 1, 4, 8 and 11-21 are canceled. Claims 5 and 7 are currently amended. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are pending and are examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are 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 5 recites, in the first two recitations, "a plurality of heat exchange tubes spaced apart along a thickness direction of the plurality of heat exchanger tubes, each of the plurality of heat exchanger tubes having a first longitudinal side face and a second longitudinal side face...." Claim 5 thereafter continues to alternate between the two terms, reciting "each of the plurality of heat exchanger tubes being divided into four portions," "each of the at least two flow channels extending in a length direction of the plurality of heat exchanger tubes," "each of the plurality of heat exchanger tubes having a cross section defined in the thickness direction of the plurality of heat exchanger tubes," and "the fin being arranged between two heat exchange tubes along the thickness direction of the plurality of heat exchanger tubes and connected to the two heat exchange tubes." However, only "a plurality of heat exchange tubes" is positively recited as an element of the claimed heat exchanger. It is therefore unclear whether "the plurality of heat exchanger tubes" refers back to that same plurality, or whether it introduces a second, distinct plurality of tubes. The ambiguity is not merely a matter of form: because the tube portions, the flow channels, the flow sections A1-A4, and the fin are all defined by reference to directions "of the plurality of heat exchanger tubes," therefore the metes and bounds of every one of those limitations depend on which structure that phrase denotes. See MPEP 2173.05(e). Correction is suggested by adopting a single term consistently throughout claim 5 - for example, "a plurality of heat exchange tubes" followed by "the plurality of heat exchange tubes" in each subsequent occurrence.
Claim 5 recites "an opening angle of the louver of the kth group of fins is Rk" and "an opening length of the louver of the kth group of fins is Lk." Wherein Claim 5 previously recites only "first to nth groups of fins" and "n>1, n is an integer." The variable k is not defined at the point at which "the kth group of fins" is first recited; k is bounded only later, in the trailing recitations "for each integer k from 2 to n." There is accordingly no antecedent basis for "the kth group of fins," and one of ordinary skill would not be able to ascertain, at the point of recitation, which of the first through nth groups the limitation is directed to. Correction is suggested by defining k when it is first used, for example by reciting "wherein n>1 and k is an integer from 2 to n" before the Rk and Lk limitations.
Claim 9 recites "a flow sectional area of each flow channel in the same heat exchange tube portion is the same." Claim 10 recites, in feature (a), "a shape of a cross section of each flow channel in the same heat exchange tube portion is the same," and in feature (b), "each heat exchange tube portion comprises a same number of flow channels." Claim 5, from which claims 9 and 10 ultimately depend, recites a first, a second, a third and a fourth heat exchange tube portion; it does not recite any portion designated "the same heat exchange tube portion." The phrase "the same" lacks antecedent basis, and it is unclear whether the limitation requires the recited relationship to hold within each of the four portions individually, or only within one unspecified portion. Correction is suggested by reciting, for example, "a flow sectional area of each flow channel within each of the first to fourth heat exchange tube portions is the same."
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimmura et al. (US 2006/0124289 A1) in view of Kaga (JP 4055449 B2), further in view of Huazhao et al. (US 2010/0243226 A1) and Zhang (US 6,907,919 B2), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0198954 A1).
In regard to claim 5, Shimmura teaches a multi-channel heat exchanger (gas cooler having a pair of header tanks 10a, 10b, flat heat exchanging tubes 30 and corrugated fins 40) comprising:
a plurality of heat exchange tubes (30) spaced apart along a thickness direction of the plurality of heat exchange tubes (¶ 0097; figs. 1-2);
each of the plurality of heat exchange tubes (30) having a first longitudinal side face and a second longitudinal side face opposite to and parallel to each other along the thickness direction of the plurality of heat exchange tubes, and a third longitudinal side face and a fourth longitudinal side face opposite to each other along a width direction of the plurality of heat exchange tubes, 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 (flat tube 30; width dimension larger than height dimension) (¶¶ 0016-0017, 0111; figs. 5A-5B);
each of the plurality of heat exchange tubes (30) being divided into four portions along the width direction of the plurality of heat exchange tubes, the four portions comprising a first heat exchange tube portion (first pass P1), a second heat exchange tube portion (second pass P2), a third heat exchange tube portion (third pass P3) and a fourth heat exchange tube portion (fourth pass P4) distributed along a direction from an inlet side of an airflow to an outlet side of the airflow (¶¶ 0112, 0115, 0127; figs. 3-5; claim 12);
each heat exchange tube portion comprising at least a portion of at least two flow channels (refrigerant passages 35), each of the at least two flow channels extending in a length direction of the plurality of heat exchange tubes, respective flow channels of the four portions being spaced apart along the width direction of the plurality of heat exchange tubes (¶¶ 0111-0112; fig. 5B; claim 1);
each of the plurality of heat exchange tubes (30) having a cross section defined in the thickness direction and the width direction of the plurality of heat exchange tubes, the cross section comprising a flow section, a total area of a flow section of the at least a portion of the at least two flow channels of the first heat exchange tube portion being A1, of the second heat exchange tube portion being A2, of the third heat exchange tube portion being A3, and of the fourth heat exchange tube portion being A4 (passages 35; groups P1-P4) (¶¶ 0111-0112; fig. 5B); and
a fin (corrugated fin 40) arranged between two heat exchange tubes (30) along the thickness direction of the plurality of heat exchange tubes and connected to the two heat exchange tubes, respectively (¶ 0116; figs. 1-2).
The recited division into four portions "with an equal width" is a notional one bearing no required correspondence to the distribution of the flow channels, as Applicant's own disclosure confirms: a single flow channel may straddle two adjacent portions (published application, ¶ 0028). The tube 30 of Shimmura, whose passages 35 are grouped across the width into the four groups P1-P4, may accordingly be divided into four equal-width portions, each containing at least a portion of at least two passages 35 (Shimmura, ¶¶ 0111-0112; fig. 5B).
Shimmura does not explicitly teach that the total area A1 of the flow section of the first heat exchange tube portion is 1.05-1.4 times the total area A4 of the flow section of the fourth heat exchange tube portion.
However, Kaga teaches a flat heat transfer tube (2) in which a partition wall (14a) divides the internal flow paths into a windward path (6a) and a leeward path (6b), the flow cross-sectional area of the leeward path being reduced relative to the windward path so that a larger quantity of refrigerant circulates on the windward side and the amount of heat exchange is thereby improved (¶¶ 0030-0031; figs. 15(b)-15(c)). Kaga thereby identifies the ratio of windward to leeward flow-section area as a variable governing the distribution of refrigerant across the tube width and, through it, the amount of heat exchanged.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the four passage groups P1-P4 of Shimmura so that the total flow-section area of the windward-most portion is greater than that of the leeward-most portion, and specifically so that A1 is 1.05-1.4 times A4, as taught by Kaga, in order to circulate a greater quantity of refrigerant on the windward side than on the leeward side and thereby improve the amount of heat exchange (Kaga, ¶¶ 0030-0031). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Shimmura is expressly concerned with maintaining an appropriate temperature difference between the refrigerant and the cooling air throughout every pass of the heat exchanger (Shimmura, ¶¶ 0127, 0129), and apportioning refrigerant flow area across the tube width in accordance with the local air-to-refrigerant temperature difference is a direct means of doing so. The recited range of 1.05-1.4 is, moreover, the result of routine optimization of a result-effective variable - the relative windward-side and leeward-side refrigerant flow area - the heat-exchange significance of which is expressly identified by Kaga. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II). See KSR, 550 U.S. 398; MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Shimmura in view of Kaga does not explicitly teach that the fin comprises first to nth groups of fins distributed along the direction from the inlet side of the airflow to the outlet side of the airflow, wherein n>1 and n is an integer; that 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; that each of the first to nth groups of fins is provided with a plurality of louvers arranged in the width direction of the heat exchange tubes; or that an opening angle of the louver of the first group of fins is R1, of the kth group is Rk, and of the nth group is Rn, with R(k-1) > Rk for each integer k from 2 to n.
However, Huazhao teaches a louvered fin for a microchannel heat exchanger in which the louvers are divided along the air flow direction into a leading set and a trailing set, either of which may be further divided into sub-sets each having its own uniform louver geometry (¶¶ 0015-0017, 0045; figs. 3, 5; claims 6, 9, 11). Huazhao further teaches that the tilt angle of the louvers decreases continuously in the air flow direction, such that α1 > α2 > α3 > α4 > α5 > α6 > α7 > α8, and that where the louvers are divided into sets, the tilt angle of the leading set is set to a first tilt angle α1 and the tilt angle of the trailing set to a second, smaller tilt angle α2 (¶¶ 0037, 0040; figs. 4-5; claims 5, 8). The leading set, having the larger tilt angle without any decrease in louver density, is credited with a good heat exchange performance (¶¶ 0033, 0042; fig. 5).
In addition, Zhang teaches that the louvers positioned toward the front of a heat exchanger fin, facing the incoming air, trigger vortices that thin the thermal boundary layer across the louver and thereby enhance the heat transfer performance of the fin on the inlet side (figs. 1-2, 5; claim 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the corrugated fin 40 of Shimmura in view of Kaga to comprise first to nth louvered fin groups, with n greater than one, distributed from the inlet side of the airflow to the outlet side, with the louver opening angle decreasing from group to group along the airflow direction such that R(k-1) > Rk, as taught by Huazhao, in order to match the louver geometry at each portion of the fin to the frost load and airflow demand at that portion, preserving sufficient space between adjacent louvers for air to flow, avoiding a substantial increase in wind resistance, and thereby fully utilizing the heat exchange performance of the fin (Huazhao, ¶¶ 0018, 0033, 0042-0043). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Shimmura already arranges its four passes P1-P4 in sequence across the airflow direction so as to maintain an appropriate refrigerant-to-air temperature difference in each pass (Shimmura, ¶¶ 0127, 0129), so that dividing the corrugated fin into corresponding groups and grading the louver geometry across those groups is the natural air-side counterpart of the tube-side arrangement Shimmura already employs. The resulting arrangement further establishes the recited relationship in which the air-side heat transfer coefficient of the nth group of fins is less than that of the first group of fins. Huazhao teaches that where the louver tilt angle is graded along the airflow direction, the leading set, which has the relatively large tilt angle and whose louver density is not thereby reduced, achieves a good heat exchange performance (Huazhao, ¶¶ 0038, 0042; figs. 4-5), and Zhang teaches that the louvers positioned toward the front of the fin facing the incoming fluid thin the thermal boundary layer across the louver and thereby enhance the heat transfer performance of the fin on the inlet side (Zhang, figs. 1-2, 5; claim 3). In the modified Shimmura the first group of fins both retains the largest louver opening angle and occupies the inlet-side position, so that its air-side heat transfer coefficient exceeds that of each succeeding group and, in particular, that of the nth group, as recited. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and (G).
Shimmura, as modified, does not explicitly teach that an opening length of the louver of the first group of fins is L1, an opening length of the louver of the kth group of fins is Lk, an opening length of the louver of the nth group of fins is Ln, and that for each integer k from 2 to n, L(k-1) > Lk.
However, Kim teaches a heat exchanger having a multi-flow tube (2) whose refrigerant channels are spaced apart parallel to the airflow direction (X), and a fin (4) located between adjacent tubes (¶¶ 0049-0050; figs. 2-3). Louvers (11-20) are formed in the fin (4) sequentially along the airflow direction (¶ 0052; figs. 4-5) and are organized into louver groups distributed along that direction, a first group (G1) and a downstream second group (G2) (¶ 0057; figs. 4-5). Kim further teaches that the louver length (L) is shorter toward the downstream side of the airflow direction, being gradually reduced from the second louver (12) rearward, and that within the grouped arrangement the louvers (12-20) of the first group (G1) likewise have a shorter length toward the downstream side (¶¶ 0011, 0016, 0054, 0056, 0060; figs. 4-5; claims 4, 9). Kim identifies the purpose of grading louver geometry along the airflow direction as preventing frost from concentrating on the front part of the heat exchanger, thereby delaying the blocking of the airflow, extending the interval before a defrosting operation, improving heating efficiency and minimizing power consumption (¶¶ 0007, 0023-0024, 0045-0046; figs. 6-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first to nth louvered fin groups of the modified Shimmura so that the opening length of the louvers is progressively reduced from the first group to the nth group along the direction from the inlet side of the airflow to the outlet side, such that L(k-1) > Lk for each integer k from 2 to n, as taught by Kim, in order to prevent frost from concentrating on the front portion of the heat exchanger, delay the blocking of the airflow and the onset of the defrosting operation, improve heating efficiency, and minimize power consumption (Kim, ¶¶ 0023-0024, 0045-0046). The modification also preserves, rather than disturbs, the air-side heat transfer coefficient relationship required by the claim, because a longer louver presents a greater louvered heat transfer area to the airflow, so that the first group retains the higher air-side heat transfer coefficient consistent with the inlet-side enhancement taught by Zhang (Zhang, figs. 1-2, 5). See KSR, 550 U.S. 398; MPEP 2143(I)(A) and (G).
Claims 2, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimmura in view of Kaga, Huazhao, Zhang and Kim as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Yanik et al. (US 2012/0267086 A1).
In regard to claim 2, the modified Shimmura teaches the multi-channel heat exchanger according to claim 5, but does not explicitly teach that 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 multichannel heat exchanger comprising a first manifold (120), a second manifold (122), and a plurality of flat multichannel tubes (124) in fluid communication with the manifolds, with fins (136) disposed between the tubes, the tubes being configured to receive an external fluid that flows across the width of each tube from a leading edge (140) to a trailing edge (142) (¶¶ 0061, 0064-0066; figs. 6-7). Yanik further teaches a tube in which the flow paths (198) are of constant rectangular size (height S, width T) and the spacing between them increases toward the trailing edge (142): a spacing U near the leading edge (140), a spacing V near the center that is twice U, then W, then X closest to the trailing edge, the distances U, V, W and X increasing across the width (¶ 0076; fig. 14; see also ¶ 0075 and fig. 13, same progressive spacing P, Q, R with constant-size paths 194). Because U, V, W and X differ from one another, at least one flow path is spaced by different distances from its two adjacent flow paths (¶ 0076; fig. 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spacing of the refrigerant passages 35 of Shimmura across the tube width so that at least one passage is spaced by different distances from its two adjacent passages, as taught by Yanik, in order to locate a greater number of flow paths near the leading edge of the tube and thereby allow more refrigerant to flow near the leading edge, where the temperature difference between the external fluid and the refrigerant is greatest, while retaining flow paths of a constant size (Yanik, ¶¶ 0005, 0066, 0076). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because the modified Shimmura already apportions the total flow-section area across the tube width in accordance with the airflow-direction temperature difference in setting A1 to 1.05-1.4 times A4, and Yanik expressly identifies passage-to-passage spacing as the structural means by which that same apportionment is achieved within a tube of fixed width using passages of constant size (Yanik, ¶¶ 0075-0076; figs. 13-14).
In regard to claim 9, the modified Shimmura teaches the multi-channel heat exchanger according to claim 2, wherein a flow sectional area of each flow channel in the same heat exchange tube portion is the same (refrigerant passages 35 of like rectangular cross section arranged in parallel within each of the passes P1-P4) (Shimmura, ¶¶ 0111-0112; fig. 5B; claim 12).
In regard to claim 10, the modified Shimmura teaches the multi-channel heat exchanger according to claim 9, wherein the multi-channel heat exchanger comprises at least one of the recited features (a) through (e), and in particular feature (a), a shape of a cross section of each flow channel in the same heat exchange tube portion being the same, and feature (b), each heat exchange tube portion comprising a same number of flow channels (refrigerant passages 35 of like rectangular cross-sectional shape, grouped into the four passage groups P1-P4 across the tube width) (Shimmura, ¶¶ 0111-0112; fig. 5B; claims 1, 12).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimmura in view of Kaga, Huazhao, Zhang and Kim as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Yonezawa (JP 2005-201491 A).
In regard to claim 3, the modified Shimmura teaches the multi-channel heat exchanger according to claim 5, but does not explicitly teach that 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, Yonezawa teaches a flat tube (1) having a windward side A1 provided with three larger square refrigerant passage holes (9a) and a leeward side B1 provided with six smaller refrigerant passage holes (9b), such that the spacing between adjacent passage holes on the windward side is greater than the spacing between adjacent passage holes on the leeward side (¶¶ 0017-0020; fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have set the adjacent-channel spacing in the first, windward heat exchange tube portion of Shimmura to be greater than or equal to that in the second heat exchange tube portion, as taught by Yonezawa, in order to balance the windward-side and leeward-side heat exchange and to provide a more uniform temperature gradient across the tube width (Yonezawa, ¶¶ 0017-0020).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimmura in view of Kaga, Huazhao, Zhang and Kim as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Ninagawa et al. (US 2013/0248150 A1).
In regard to claim 6, the modified Shimmura teaches the multi-channel heat exchanger according to claim 5, but does not explicitly teach that 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.
However, Ninagawa teaches a corrugated fin (2) in the air passage between two adjacent flat tubes (1) and brazed thereto, having flat portions (21) parallel to the airflow direction (X1) and louvers (23) cut and raised from each flat portion and arranged along that direction, with a louver passage (230) between adjacent louvers (¶¶ 0031, 0035, 0037-0038; figs. 3-4). The louvers (23) of each flat portion are separated into an upstream louver group and a downstream louver group along the airflow direction, with an upstream flat part (24) ahead of the upstream group and a changing part (26) between the groups (¶¶ 0039-0042; fig. 4). Each group contains two kinds of louvers differing in louver pitch, the pitch being the distance between the center points of adjacent louvers: first louvers (231) and second louvers (232), the second louvers being nearer the changing part (26) so that the first louvers occupy the upstream side of the group and the second louvers the downstream side (¶¶ 0044-0045; figs. 4-5). The pitch Lp2 of the downstream second louvers (232) is set larger than the pitch Lp1 of the upstream first louvers (231) (¶¶ 0012, 0047; fig. 5; claim 2), and the number of second louvers (232) is two while the number of first louvers (231) is thirteen in each group (¶ 0053; figs. 4-5). The upstream set is accordingly both more closely pitched and greater in number than the downstream set. Ninagawa further teaches, as the governing design principle, that when the louver pitch is decreased so that the number of louvers in a fin is increased, the heat transfer efficiency of the fin is increased due to the edge effects of the louvers and the heat exchange capacity of the fin is thereby increased, but that the airflow resistance of the fin is correspondingly increased because the total area of the louver passages provided between adjacent louvers is decreased (¶¶ 0007-0008), and that the edge effect of a louver is what increases the heat transfer efficiency of the fin and thereby its heat radiation capacity (¶ 0054). Ninagawa additionally quantifies that trade-off, presenting the heat radiation capacity and the airflow resistance of the fin as functions of the number of louvers of a given set (¶¶ 0050-0052; fig. 6). The number and pitch of the louvers within a fin group along the airflow direction are therefore recognized in the art as result-effective variables that directly govern the air-side heat transfer coefficient of that group and the airflow pressure drop across it.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a greater number of louvers in the first, inlet-side fin group than in the nth, outlet-side fin group, as taught by Ninagawa, in order to increase the heat transfer efficiency and heat exchange capacity of the inlet-side group through the edge effects of the more closely pitched louvers, while limiting the airflow resistance and pressure drop on the outlet side by pitching the louvers of that group more widely (Ninagawa, ¶¶ 0007-0008, 0047, 0053; figs. 5-6).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimmura in view of Kaga, Huazhao, Zhang, Kim and Ninagawa as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Yoshioka et al. (US 2013/0299142 A1).
In regard to claim 7, the modified Shimmura teaches the multi-channel heat exchanger according to claim 6, but does not explicitly teach that 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.
However, Yoshioka teaches a heat exchanger (30) having flat tubes (33) with fluid passages (34) arranged across the tube width and corrugated fins (35) between adjacent tubes, each fin having heat transfer parts (37) forming the side walls of the air passages (39) (¶¶ 0069-0075; figs. 2-5). Louvers are formed in each heat transfer part (37) and arranged in successive groups from the windward to the leeward side along the air passage direction: six windward louvers (50), six leeward louvers (60) and two auxiliary louvers (70), in that order (¶¶ 0081-0083; figs. 6A-6B). The louver width in the transverse direction, that is, in the air passage direction, decreases from the windward groups toward the leeward group: the windward louvers (50a) have a width W1, the windward louvers (50b) leeward thereof a width W2, and the leeward louvers (60) a width W3, wherein W1 is greater than W2 and W2 is greater than W3 (¶¶ 0095-0096; figs. 7A-7B). The same relationship, W11 greater than W12 greater than W13, is disclosed in a second embodiment (¶¶ 0156-0157; figs. 16A-16B). The resulting spacing between opposed louvers of adjacent heat transfer parts (37) is likewise largest at the windward louvers and decreases toward the leeward louvers, D0 greater than D1 greater than D2 greater than D3 (¶ 0098; fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the first, inlet-side fin group with a greater louver opening width than the nth, outlet-side fin group, as taught by Yoshioka, in order to distribute the frost load across the depth of the fin rather than allowing it to be collected in the windward region where it would hinder the airflow through the heat exchanger and the heat exchange between the air and the refrigerant, and to preserve the wider windward spacing through which the air and the resulting drain water are discharged (Yoshioka, ¶¶ 0022, 0098, 0108-0111).
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.
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
Prosecution Insights