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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, lines 6-19 of “Remarks”, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to Drawings Objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of drawings is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-10 and 13-18 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
Of particular interest is the newly cited reference to Ri (JP 2011-237062), the disclosure of which is summarized in the Conclusion section, below.
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.
Claims 1, 4-10 and 13-18 are 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.
In this case, the amended independent claims 1 and 10 recites the functional limitation “whereby refrigerant quality is generally equal across the plurality of inlets.” However, Specification of the instant application does not sufficiently disclose what structural design of the refrigerant splitter that enables the refrigerant quality being generally equal across the plurality of inlets.
For example, the Applicant’s 12/15/25 remarks references paragraphs 0040 and 0044 of the as-filed Specification for support of this limitation in amended claims 1 and 10. More specifically, paragraph 0040 states (emphasis added) – ‘The outflows 207 may be generally equal (e.g., within plus minus ten percent of equal) in volume, flow rate, pressure, and/or quality. As used herein, the “quality” of the refrigerant refers to the mixture or ratio of liquid phase refrigerant and vapor phase refrigerant, e.g., the proportion of each refrigerant outflow 207 that is liquid or vapor may be generally the same across the multiple, e.g., four in this example, outflows 207 from the refrigerant splitter 202.”
Moving to paragraph 0044 (emphasis added), there is disclosed – “the plurality of tubes may also contribute to equalizing the refrigerant quality at each inlet of the multiple passes of the heat exchanger 200. For example, where the quality at each outlet (i.e. 206, 208, 210, 212, Fig. 5) of the refrigerant splitter 202 is not exactly, the restriction of each tube of the plurality of tubes may vary to optimize the refrigerant quality across the multiple inlets of the heat exchanger 200. In some embodiments, e.g., as may be seen in FIG. 7, the lengths of the tubes may vary, whereby longer tubes provide a greater restriction. In additional embodiments, the diameters of the tubes may vary as well as or instead of the lengths to provide varying restrictions through the multiple tubes and thereby optimize, e.g., equalize or make generally equal) the refrigerant quality across the multiple inlets of the multiple passes of the heat exchanger 200. Thus, in some embodiments, at least one tube of the plurality of tubes may define a different restriction from at least one other tube of the plurality of tubes. For example, in some embodiments, each tube of the plurality of tubes may define a different restriction from every other tube of the plurality of tubes. In some embodiments, the one or more tubes of plurality of tubes which differs may have a different length from at least one other tube of the plurality of tubes.”
Based on the disclosure of paragraphs 0040 and 0044, above, and as best understood, each tube’s refrigerant outflow 207 (Fig. 5) is “generally equal” (+/- 10% of the mixture or ratio of liquid phase refrigerant to vapor phase refrigerant) across the plurality of inlets 201 in Fig. 4 (i.e. tube/outflow 207 into 201of the multi-pass heat exchanger 200).
This interpretation of paragraphs 0040 and 0044 is consistent with how the limitation “whereby refrigerant quality is generally equal across the plurality of inlets” in amended claims 1 and 10 should be interpreted. Paragraph 0044 discloses that this feature is achieved per “at least one tube of the plurality of tubes” having a different restriction (i.e. a varying diameter and/or length) from the other tubes, and this feature is also claimed in amended claims 1 and 10 (and more narrowly in claims 4, 5, 13, and 14), i.e. “wherein at least one tube of the plurality of tubes defines a different restriction from at least one other tube of the plurality of tubes, the at least one tube defining a different diameter from the at least one other tube…”
Outside of paragraph 0044 generally claiming that varying diameter and/or length of at least one tube out of a plurality of tubes between a splitter and a heat exchanger will result in generally equal refrigerant quality (as explicitly defined in para. 0040 of Applicant’s specification), it is the Examiner’s position that the Specification does not contain enough information to show that the applicant was actually in possession of the currently claimed invention at the time of filing. Therefore, the claims are rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brisjö et al. (US 2021/0010195; hereinafter Brisjö) in view of Gerteis et al. (US 3,024,619; hereinafter Gerteis) and Abbott et al. (US 6,023,940; hereinafter Abbott).
PNG
media_image1.png
372
304
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
386
334
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
370
316
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
408
356
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
396
282
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
434
470
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
350
594
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
528
328
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Brisjö discloses a laundry appliance (1, fig. 1), comprising:
a cabinet (2, fig. 1), the cabinet (2, fig. 1) defining a vertical direction (as shown in fig. 1), a lateral direction (as shown in fig. 1), and a transverse direction (as shown in fig. 1);
a drum (11, fig. 2) rotatably mounted within the cabinet (2, fig. 1), the drum (11, fig. 2) defining a chamber (interior space of item 11, fig. 2) for receipt of articles (wet laundry, [0025]) for drying; and
a sealed system (heat pump, figs. 2, 3, 4, [0026]) configured to heat and remove moisture from process air (process air from item 11, fig. 2, [0025]) flowing therethrough, the sealed system (heat pump, figs. 2, 3, 4, [0026]) comprising a multi-pass heat exchanger (15, figs. 3, 13) comprising a plurality of inlets (Brisjö recites “FIG. 13 shows an enlarged portion B of FIG. 3. There is shown a flow divider 57 that splits the refrigerant flow from the expansion valve 16 into a number of sub-flows 58 that are passed to different portions of the evaporator. As shown, the controllable expansion valve 16, controlled electronically by means of a solenoid 54, is connected to the flow divider 57 by means of a straight conduit 56. This means that a less disturbed, more laminar flow will reach the divider 57. As a result, the flow is more evenly divided between the sub-flows 58 that reach different parts of the evaporator 15. It may be preferred that the conduit 56 is short, e.g. shorter than 100 mm to improve this effect further.”, paragraph [0048]), UNDERLINE emphasis added. Furthermore, Fig. 13 of Brisjö shows that there are at least four different sub-flows 58. Thus, the evaporator 15 should have at least four different portions. Each portion of the at least four different portions of the evaporator 15 should have an inlet to receive the sub-flow 58 from the item 57. And thus, the evaporator 15 should have at least four inlets. Furthermore, each portion of the at least four different portions of the evaporator 15 should have a flow path or flow passes for each inlet. So, the at least four different portions of the evaporator 15 should also have at least four different flow paths or flow passes. Therefore, the evaporator 15 is a multi-pass evaporator or multi-pass heat exchanger. This is very well-known in the art as evidenced by Kuriki et al. below.), a refrigerant splitter (57, fig. 13, [0048]) upstream of the plurality of inlets (as explained above, the evaporator 15 should have at least four inlets), the refrigerant splitter (57, fig. 13, [0048]) oriented generally along the vertical direction (as shown in figs. 3, 13), and a plurality of tubes (tubes of items 58, fig. 13, [0048]), each tube (tube of item 58, fig. 13, [0048]) extending between the refrigerant splitter (57, fig. 13, [0048]) and a respective inlet of the plurality of inlets (as explained above, the evaporator 15 should have at least four inlets), wherein at least one tube of the plurality of tubes (tubes of items 58, fig. 13, [0048]) defines a different restriction (Brisjö recites “FIG. 13 shows an enlarged portion B of FIG. 3. There is shown a flow divider 57 that splits the refrigerant flow from the expansion valve 16 into a number of sub-flows 58 that are passed to different portions of the evaporator. ….”, paragraph [0048]), UNDERLINE emphasis added. Thus, tubes of the number of sub-flows 58, see fig. 13, that are passed to different portions of the evaporator should have different lengths and/or different curve(s) or bend(s) which is well-known in the art as evidenced by Kuriki et al. below. And thus, each tube of the tubes of the number of sub-flows 58 should have a different restriction because the different length and/or the different curve(s) or bend(s) would result in different pressure drop, different flow rate, etc.…. In other words, at least one tube of the tubes of the numbers of sub-flows 58 defines a different restriction from at least one other tube of the tubes of the number of sub-flows 58) from at least one other tube of the plurality of tubes (tubes of items 58, fig. 13, [0048]).
Brisjö does not disclose the at least one tube defining a different diameter from the at least one other tube.
Gerteis teaches at least one tube (Gerteis, 28, fig. 1) defining a different diameter (Gerteis, recites “The thermal expansion valve 27 acts as a check valve during the cooling cycle, therefore, refrigerant flows through line 28 which is of greater diameter than line 24, 25, or 26, to the row 16 which acts as a subcooler.”, column 3, lines 5-8, fig. 1) from the at least one other tube (Gerteis, 24, 25, 26, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the laundry appliance of Brisjö with the at least one tube defining a different diameter from the at least one other tube, as taught by Gerteis, for providing an improve heat exchanger system or heat pump system with the subcooler function which would result in increasing the heat exchange capacity during a drying process of the laundry appliance. Consequently, the laundry appliance operates in a more thermally efficient manner and thus benefits the consumer.
Furthermore, Brisjö does not disclose whereby refrigerant quality is generally equal across the plurality of inlets.
Abbott teaches whereby refrigerant quality is generally equal across the plurality of inlets (Abbott recites “A strainer is located at the entrance to the distributor that homogenizes the expanded two phase mixture so that refrigerant of equal quality is delivered to each of the evaporator flow circuits.”, Abstract; distributor 30, strainer 40, evaporator 14, figs. 1, 2; thus, the refrigerant of equal quality would be across the plurality of the inlets of the evaporator or multi-pass heat exchanger; or in other words, the refrigerant quality is generally equal across the plurality of inlets of the evaporator or multi-pass heat exchanger).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to further modify the laundry appliance of Brisjö with whereby refrigerant quality being generally equal across the plurality of inlets, as taught by Abbott, for optimizing a performance of the evaporator or multi-pass heat exchanger which would result in optimizing a heat transfer between the evaporator or multi-pass heat exchanger and a process drying air. Thus, the laundry appliance operates in a further more thermally efficient manner and thus further benefits the consumer.
Regarding claim 5, Brisjö as modified discloses wherein the at least one tube (tube of item 58, fig. 13, [0048]) comprises a different length (as shown in fig. 13) (Brisjö recites “FIG. 13 shows an enlarged portion B of FIG. 3. There is shown a flow divider 57 that splits the refrigerant flow from the expansion valve 16 into a number of sub-flows 58 that are passed to different portions of the evaporator. ….”, paragraph [0048]), UNDERLINE emphasis added. Thus, tubes of the number of sub-flows 58, see fig. 13, that are passed to different portions of the evaporator should have different lengths and/or different curve(s) or bend(s) which is well-known in the art as evidenced by Kuriki et al. below.) from the at least one other tube (tubes of items 58, fig. 13, [0048]).
Regarding claim 6, Brisjö as modified discloses wherein the multi-pass heat exchanger (15, figs. 3, 13) (as explained in claim 1 above, the evaporator 15 is a multi-pass evaporator or multi-pass heat exchanger) comprises four passes (as explained in claim 1 above, the at least four different portions of the evaporator 15 should also have at least four different flow paths or flow passes) and the plurality of inlets (as explained in claim 1 above, the evaporator 15 should have at least four inlets) comprises four inlets (as explained in claim 1 above, the evaporator 15 should have at least four inlets).
Regarding claim 7, Brisjö as modified discloses wherein the drum (11, fig. 2) defines a drum outlet (outlet of item 11 at item 12, fig. 2) and a drum inlet (inlet of item 11 at item 19, fig. 2) to the chamber (interior space of item 11, fig. 2), further comprising a duct system (duct between item 11 and item 13, 29, fig. 2) for providing fluid communication between the drum outlet (outlet of item 11 at item 12, fig. 2) and the sealed system (heat pump, figs. 2, 3, 4, [0026]) and between the sealed system (heat pump, figs. 2, 3, 4, [0026]) and the drum inlet (inlet of item 11 at item 19, fig. 2), wherein the duct system (duct between item 11 and item 13, 29, fig. 2), the sealed system (heat pump, figs. 2, 3, 4, [0026]), and the drum (11, fig. 2) define a process air flow path (21, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Brisjö as modified discloses further comprising a blower fan (13, fig. 2) operable to move process air (process air from item 11, fig. 2, [0025]) along the process air flow path (21, fig. 2).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brisjö, Gerteis and Abbott as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rust, Jr. et al. (US 5,341,656; hereinafter Rust, Jr.).
PNG
media_image9.png
570
424
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
348
560
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Brisjö as modified discloses the invention as applied to claim ,4, above, but doesn’t explicitly disclose that each tube of the plurality of tubes defines a different restriction from every other tube of the plurality of tubes.
Rust, Jr. discloses a refrigerant splitter (Rust, Jr, “flow distribution device – see title the figures) comprising a unit 20/21 (Rust, Jr., Figures 1 and 2; col. 2, lines 64-68) designed to deliver homogenously mixed refrigerant to a heat exchanger (Rust, Jr., heat exchangers 15/16). As shown in Figure 2, each unit 20/21 has a flow path (Rust, Jr., 36, 41, 42) that is described in col. 10, lines 10-14, as “the distance and sizing of the flow paths are controlled so that sufficient energy remains in the distributed flow to maintain a homogenous mixture and insure even distribution of the flow.” In other words, Rust, Jr., discloses that it’s known in the art that the sizing (i.e. tube/pipe diameter) and length of flow paths are intentionally controlled to achieve homogenous mixture of refrigerant flow in heat pump applications (Rust, Jr., col. 10, line 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Brisjö by applying the teachings of Rust, Jr. to Brisjö, i.e. modifying the plurality of tubes to have different restrictions from one another, in order to achieve the expected and known benefit of homogenous mixture of refrigerant flow, as suggested by the citated portions in Rust, Jr. above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brisjö, Gerteis and Abbott as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Contarini et al. (US 2014/0338218; hereinafter Contarini).
PNG
media_image11.png
448
694
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Brisjö as modified discloses wherein the sealed system (heat pump, figs. 2, 3, 4, [0026]) further comprises a variable speed compressor (Brisjö recites “… In this example, the compressor 17 is adapted to be run by an inverter-controlled motor 27. An inverter 29 is provided allowing the compressor 17 output to be varied…”, paragraph [0030])
Brisjö does not disclose wherein the blower fan is a variable speed blower fan.
Contarini teaches a blower fan (Contarini, 250, fig. 2) is a variable speed blower fan (Contarini, a vriable speed drying air recirculation fan 250, [0105]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to further modify the laundry appliance of Brisjö with the blower fan is a variable speed blower fan, as taught by Contarini, for enabling a greater flexibility of programing more drying cycles, such as quick dry cycle, eco dry cycle, silent dry cycle, etc. …, at different fan speeds which would result in providing a greater flexibility of drying different types of laundry or clothes and thus user’s satisfaction is promoted. Thus, the laundry appliance is a more user-friendly and thus benefits the consumer.
Claims 10 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brisjö et al. (US 2021/0010195; hereinafter Brisjö) in view of Kuriki et al. (US 2017/0363376; hereinafter Kuriki), Gerteis et al. (US 3,024,619; hereinafter Gerteis) and Abbott et al. (US 6,023,940; hereinafter Abbott).
PNG
media_image1.png
372
304
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
386
334
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
370
316
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
408
356
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
396
282
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
312
454
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
342
514
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
434
470
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
350
594
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
528
328
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Brisjö discloses a laundry appliance (1, fig. 1), comprising:
a cabinet (2, fig. 1);
a drum (11, fig. 2) rotatably mounted within the cabinet (2, fig. 1), the drum (11, fig. 2) defining a chamber (interior space of item 11, fig. 2) for receipt of articles (wet laundry, [0025]) for drying; and
a sealed system (heat pump, figs. 2, 3, 4, [0026]) configured to heat and remove moisture from process air (process air from item 11, fig. 2, [0025]) flowing therethrough, the sealed system (heat pump, figs. 2, 3, 4, [0026]) comprising a multi-pass heat exchanger (15, figs. 3, 13) (Brisjö recites “FIG. 13 shows an enlarged portion B of FIG. 3. There is shown a flow divider 57 that splits the refrigerant flow from the expansion valve 16 into a number of sub-flows 58 that are passed to different portions of the evaporator. As shown, the controllable expansion valve 16, controlled electronically by means of a solenoid 54, is connected to the flow divider 57 by means of a straight conduit 56. This means that a less disturbed, more laminar flow will reach the divider 57. As a result, the flow is more evenly divided between the sub-flows 58 that reach different parts of the evaporator 15. It may be preferred that the conduit 56 is short, e.g. shorter than 100 mm to improve this effect further.”, paragraph [0048]), UNDERLINE emphasis added. Furthermore, Fig. 13 of Brisjö shows that there are at least four different sub-flows 58. Thus, the evaporator 15 should have at least four different portions. Each portion of the at least four different portions of the evaporator 15 should have an inlet to receive the sub-flow 58 from the item 57. And thus, the evaporator 15 should have at least four inlets. Furthermore, each portion of the at least four different portions of the evaporator 15 should have a flow path or flow passes for each inlet. So, the at least four different portions of the evaporator 15 should also have at least four different flow paths or flow passes. Therefore, the evaporator 15 is a multi-pass evaporator or multi-pass heat exchanger. This is very well-known in the art as evidenced by Kuriki.), Brisjö recites “FIG. 13 shows an enlarged portion B of FIG. 3. There is shown a flow divider 57 that splits the refrigerant flow from the expansion valve 16 into a number of sub-flows 58 that are passed to different portions of the evaporator. As shown, the controllable expansion valve 16, controlled electronically by means of a solenoid 54, is connected to the flow divider 57 by means of a straight conduit 56. This means that a less disturbed, more laminar flow will reach the divider 57. As a result, the flow is more evenly divided between the sub-flows 58 that reach different parts of the evaporator 15. It may be preferred that the conduit 56 is short, e.g. shorter than 100 mm to improve this effect further.”, paragraph [0048]), UNDERLINE emphasis added. Furthermore, Fig. 13 of Brisjö shows that there are at least four different sub-flows 58. Thus, the evaporator 15 should have at least four different portions. Each portion of the at least four different portions of the evaporator 15 should have an inlet to receive the sub-flow 58 from the item 57. And thus, the evaporator 15 should have at least four inlets. Furthermore, each portion of the at least four different portions of the evaporator 15 should have a flow path or flow passes for each inlet. So, the at least four different portions of the evaporator 15 should also have at least four different flow paths or flow passes. Therefore, the evaporator 15 is a multi-pass evaporator or multi-pass heat exchanger. This is very well-known in the art as evidenced by Kuriki above.), wherein at least one tube of the plurality of tubes (tubes of items 58, fig. 13, [0048]) defines a different restriction (Brisjö recites “FIG. 13 shows an enlarged portion B of FIG. 3. There is shown a flow divider 57 that splits the refrigerant flow from the expansion valve 16 into a number of sub-flows 58 that are passed to different portions of the evaporator. ….”, paragraph [0048]), UNDERLINE emphasis added. Thus, tubes of the number of sub-flows 58, see fig. 13, that are passed to different portions of the evaporator should have different lengths and/or different curve(s) or bend(s) which is well-known in the art as evidenced by Kuriki above. And thus, each tube of the tubes of the number of sub-flows 58 should have a different restriction because the different length and/or the different curve(s) or bend(s) would result in different pressure drop, different flow rate, etc.…. In other words, at least one tube of the tubes of the numbers of sub-flows 58 defines a different restriction from at least one other tube of the tubes of the number of sub-flows 58) from at least one other tube of the plurality of tubes (tubes of items 58, fig. 13, [0048]).
Brisjö does not disclose the refrigerant splitter configured to direct a flow of refrigerant against gravity.
Kuriki teaches a refrigerant splitter (Kuriki, 1, fig. 2) configured to direct a flow of refrigerant (Kuriki, refrigerant from item 4, figs. 1, 2) against gravity (Kuriki, as shown in fig. 2, the refrigerant in item 4 is flowing upward or against of gravity).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the laundry appliance of Brisjö with the refrigerant splitter configured to direct a flow of refrigerant against gravity, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Shifting the location of the refrigerant splitter does not modify the operation of the laundry appliance because the refrigerant splitter would still distribute the refrigerant to the multi-pass heat exchanger. Indeed, Specification of the instant application recites “Referring generally to FIGS. 5 through 7, in some embodiments, the refrigerant splitter 202 may be oriented generally along the vertical direction V. In such embodiments, the refrigerant splitter 202 may thereby be configured to direct the flow of refrigerant against the force of gravity, e.g., upwards generally along the vertical direction V, or may be configured to direct the flow of refrigerant with the force of gravity, e.g., downwards generally along the vertical direction V. Such orientation and/or configuration of the refrigerant splitter 202 may advantageously promote equalizing the refrigerant quality across the multiple outlets of the splitter 202….”, paragraph [0043], UNDERLINE emphasis added.
Furthermore, Brisjö does not disclose the at least one tube defining a different diameter from the at least one other tube.
Gerteis teaches at least one tube (Gerteis, 28, fig. 1) defining a different diameter (Gerteis, recites “The thermal expansion valve 27 acts as a check valve during the cooling cycle, therefore, refrigerant flows through line 28 which is of greater diameter than line 24, 25, or 26, to the row 16 which acts as a subcooler.”, column 3, lines 5-8, fig. 1) from the at least one other tube (Gerteis, 24, 25, 26, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to further modify the laundry appliance of Brisjö with the at least one tube defining a different diameter from the at least one other tube, as taught by Gerteis, for providing an improve heat exchanger system or heat pump system with the subcooler function which would result in increasing the heat exchange capacity during a drying process of the laundry appliance. Consequently, the laundry appliance operates in a more thermally efficient manner and thus benefits the consumer.
Moreover, Brisjö does not disclose whereby refrigerant quality is generally equal across the plurality of inlets.
Abbott teaches whereby refrigerant quality is generally equal across the plurality of inlets (Abbott recites “A strainer is located at the entrance to the distributor that homogenizes the expanded two phase mixture so that refrigerant of equal quality is delivered to each of the evaporator flow circuits.”, Abstract; distributor 30, strainer 40, evaporator 14, figs. 1, 2; thus, the refrigerant of equal quality would be across the plurality of the inlets of the evaporator or multi-pass heat exchanger; or in other words, the refrigerant quality is generally equal across the plurality of inlets of the evaporator or multi-pass heat exchanger).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to further modify the laundry appliance of Brisjö with whereby refrigerant quality being generally equal across the plurality of inlets, as taught by Abbott, for optimizing a performance of the evaporator or multi-pass heat exchanger which would result in optimizing a heat transfer between the evaporator or multi-pass heat exchanger and a process drying air. Thus, the laundry appliance operates in a further more thermally efficient manner and thus further benefits the consumer.
Regarding claim 14, Brisjö as modified discloses wherein the at least one tube (tube of item 58, fig. 13, [0048]) comprises a different length (as shown in fig. 13) (Brisjö recites “FIG. 13 shows an enlarged portion B of FIG. 3. There is shown a flow divider 57 that splits the refrigerant flow from the expansion valve 16 into a number of sub-flows 58 that are passed to different portions of the evaporator. ….”, paragraph [0048]), UNDERLINE emphasis added. Thus, tubes of the number of sub-flows 58, see fig. 13, that are passed to different portions of the evaporator should have different lengths and/or different curve(s) or bend(s) which is well-known in the art as evidenced by Kuriki above.) from the at least one other tube (tube of item 58, fig. 13, [0048]).
Regarding claim 15, Brisjö as modified discloses wherein the multi-pass heat exchanger (15, figs. 3, 13) comprises four passes (as explained in claim 10 above, the at least four different portions of the evaporator 15 should also have at least four different flow paths or flow passes) and four inlets (as explained in claim 10 above, the evaporator 15 should have at least four inlets).
Regarding claim 16, Brisjö as modified discloses wherein the drum (11, fig. 2) defines a drum outlet (outlet of item 11 at item 12, fig. 2) and a drum inlet (inlet of item 11 at item 19, fig. 2) to the chamber (interior space of item 11, fig. 2), further comprising a duct system (duct between item 11 and item 13, 29, fig. 2) for providing fluid communication between the drum outlet (outlet of item 11 at item 12, fig. 2) and the sealed system (heat pump, figs. 2, 3, 4, [0026]) and between the sealed system (heat pump, figs. 2, 3, 4, [0026]) and the drum inlet (inlet of item 11 at item 19, fig. 2), wherein the duct system (duct between item 11 and item 13, 29, fig. 2), the sealed system (heat pump, figs. 2, 3, 4, [0026]), and the drum (11, fig. 2) define a process air flow path (21, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Brisjö as modified discloses further comprising a blower fan (13, fig. 2) operable to move process air (process air from item 11, fig. 2, [0025]) along the process air flow path (21, fig. 2).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brisjö, Kuriki, Gerteis and Abbott as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Rust, Jr. et al. (US 5,341,656; hereinafter Rust, Jr.).
PNG
media_image9.png
570
424
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
348
560
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Brisjö as modified discloses the invention as applied to claim ,4, above, but doesn’t explicitly disclose that each tube of the plurality of tubes defines a different restriction from every other tube of the plurality of tubes.
Rust, Jr. discloses a refrigerant splitter (Rust, Jr, “flow distribution device – see title the figures) comprising a unit 20/21 (Rust, Jr., Figures 1 and 2; col. 2, lines 64-68) designed to deliver homogenously mixed refrigerant to a heat exchanger (Rust, Jr., heat exchangers 15/16). As shown in Figure 2, each unit 20/21 has a flow path (Rust, Jr., 36, 41, 42) that is described in col. 10, lines 10-14, as “the distance and sizing of the flow paths are controlled so that sufficient energy remains in the distributed flow to maintain a homogenous mixture and insure even distribution of the flow.” In other words, Rust, Jr., discloses that it’s known in the art that the sizing (i.e. tube/pipe diameter) and length of flow paths are intentionally controlled to achieve homogenous mixture of refrigerant flow in heat pump applications (Rust, Jr., col. 10, line 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Brisjö by applying the teachings of Rust, Jr. to Brisjö, i.e. modifying the plurality of tubes to have different restrictions from one another, in order to achieve the expected and known benefit of homogenous mixture of refrigerant flow, as suggested by the citated portions in Rust, Jr. above.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brisjö, Kuriki, Gerteis, and Abbott as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Contarini et al. (US 2014/0338218; hereinafter Contarini).
PNG
media_image11.png
448
694
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Brisjö as modified discloses wherein the sealed system (heat pump, figs. 2, 3, 4, [0026]) further comprises a variable speed compressor (Brisjö recites “… In this example, the compressor 17 is adapted to be run by an inverter-controlled motor 27. An inverter 29 is provided allowing the compressor 17 output to be varied…”, paragraph [0030])
Brisjö does not disclose wherein the blower fan is a variable speed blower fan.
Contarini teaches a blower fan (Contarini, 250, fig. 2) is a variable speed blower fan (Contarini, a vriable speed drying air recirculation fan 250, [0105]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to further modify the laundry appliance of Brisjö with the blower fan is a variable speed blower fan, as taught by Contarini, for enabling a greater flexibility of programing more drying cycles, such as quick dry cycle, eco dry cycle, silent dry cycle, etc. …, at different fan speeds which would result in providing a greater flexibility of drying different types of laundry or clothes and thus user’s satisfaction is promoted. Thus, the laundry appliance is a more user-friendly and thus benefits the consumer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP 2011237062 to Ri discloses a means for addressing the well-known phenomenon of inhomogeneous refrigerant distribution. Ri discloses a microchannel tube with different refrigerant flow paths (1-5) that can have a variety of cross-sections (triangle, trapezoid, circle) and lengths to define individual finger-shaped bodies (1a-5b). The microchannel tube/finger shaped body acts as a throttle for refrigerant flow, making a refrigerant equally flow into a plurality of small-diameter flow passages (1b-5b) into/leading to an evaporator (1000).
PNG
media_image14.png
872
1232
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5141. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 5712726460. 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.
/BAO D NGUYEN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762