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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/07/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments in pages 6 and 7, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Huang teaches wherein the plurality of fins comprises (114) a first set of fins connected to the refrigerant flow path and a second set of fins connected to the water flow path (see in Figure 5 where 114 comprises a first set of fins that are placed under microchannel tubes 102 and a second set of fins that are placed under microchannel tubes 104). Examiner also notes that the above limitation is broad and does not necessitate the prior art(s) to have each set of fins connected only to one of the flow paths.
Therefore, the previous rejection is maintained, modified as necessitated by Amendment.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “air moving device”.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since: (A) the term “device” is a generic placeholder, (B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “air moving”), and (C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appear to be the corresponding structures for the aforementioned 112(f) limitation(s):
The specification defines air moving device, “the air moving device 206 can be a draft inducer, a fan, a blower, or any other air moving device configured to move air through the system.”. Therefore, the air moving device will be construed as a draft inducer, a fan, a blower, or any other air moving device configured to move air, and/or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Applicant Admitted Prior Art: hereinafter: AAPA) in view of Goenka (US 20140208794 A1: Previously cited) and Huang (US 20190368817 A1: Previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, AAPA teaches a heat exchanger structure (110 and 108: see Figures 1A and 1B) for a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system (100), the heat exchanger structure comprising: a refrigerant heat exchanger coil (110) and a hydronic heat exchanger coil (108), the heat exchanger structure configured to be positioned in an air flow path of the HVAC system (see in Figure 1A where 110 and 108 configured to be positioned in the air flow path) ; the refrigerant heat exchanger coil (110) comprising: a refrigerant flow path (152) configured to (i) receive a refrigerant circulated through the refrigerant heat exchanger coil and (ii) facilitate heat exchange between the refrigerant and air directed across the refrigerant heat exchanger coil (see ¶ [0003]); the hydronic heat exchanger coil (108) comprising: a water flow path (flow path between 112 and 108) configured to (a) receive water circulated through the hydronic heat exchanger coil and (b) facilitate heat exchange between the water and air directed across the hydronic heat exchanger coil (see ¶ [0004]).
AAPA does not teach that the refrigerant heat exchanger coil (110) and the hydronic heat exchanger coil (108) are a unitary heat exchanger structure (i.e. attached to each other).
However, it’s old and well known to attach two types of heat exchangers to each other, as evidenced by Goenka, see in Goenka’s Figure 1 where two types of heat exchangers (24 and 78) are attached to each other.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the heat exchanger structure of AAPA to be a unitary heat exchanger structure, since as evidenced by Goenka, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of having a compact indoor unit.
AAPA in view of Goenka does not teach a plurality of fins disposed between the refrigerant heat exchanger coil and the hydronic heat exchanger coil, the plurality of fins configured to facilitate heat exchange between the refrigerant, the water, and the air, wherein the plurality of fins comprises a first set of fins connected to the refrigerant flow path and a second set of fins connected to the water flow path.
Huang teaches a unitary heat exchanger structure (100) that comprises two heat exchangers (102 and 104: see Figure 5) and a plurality of fins (114) disposed between the two heat exchangers (102 and 104), wherein the plurality of fins (114) configured to facilitate heat exchange between two working fluids in the two heat exchangers, and the air (see ¶ [0049]), wherein the plurality of fins comprises (114) a first set of fins connected to the refrigerant flow path and a second set of fins connected to the water flow path ( see in Figure 5 where 114 comprises a first set of fins that are placed under microchannel tubes 102 and a second set of fins that are placed under microchannel tubes 104).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the heat exchanger structure of AAPA in view of Goenka to have a plurality of fins disposed between the refrigerant heat exchanger coil and the hydronic heat exchanger coil, the plurality of fins configured to facilitate heat exchange between the refrigerant, the water, and the air, wherein the plurality of fins comprises a first set of fins connected to the refrigerant flow path and a second set of fins connected to the water flow path, as taught by Huang, such modification would provide the benefit of having a compact heat exchanger structure.
Regarding claim 2, AAPA further teaches wherein the refrigerant heat exchanger coil comprises a tube having a first cross-sectional area and the hydronic heat exchanger coil comprises a tube having a second cross-sectional area (it’s inherent for each of 110 and 108 to have a tube having a cross-sectional area).
AAPA is silent regarding the size of each tube in 108 and 110. Therefore, AAPA does not teach the second cross-sectional area being greater than the first cross-sectional area.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of each tube in 108 and 110 of AAPA to have the second cross-sectional area being greater than the first cross-sectional area since it has been held 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of AAPA. would not operate differently with the claimed cross-sectional areas. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the claimed cross-sectional areas, indicating simply that “the water flow path 434 and the refrigerant flow path 446 can both have the same cross-sectional area or comprise different cross-section areas” (specification pp. [0050]).
Regarding claim 3, AAPA as modified further teaches wherein the refrigerant heat exchanger coil (110) is configured to be in a downstream position relative to the hydronic heat exchanger coil (108) when the unitary heat exchanger structure is installed in the HVAC system (see Figure 1A where 110 is in a downstream position relative 108).
Regarding claim 6, AAPA does not teach wherein the unitary heat exchanger structure a microchannel heat exchanger.
Huang teaches in Figures 7-9 a unitary heat exchanger structure (100) that is a single interlaced microchannel heat exchanger which comprises two isolated microchannel coils (102 and 104: see Huang’s ¶ [0058]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the unitary microchannel heat exchanger of AAPA as modified to be a microchannel heat exchanger, as taught by Huang, such modification would provide the benefit of increasing the efficiency of AAPA’s HVAC system, see Huang’s ¶ [0048].
Regarding claim 7, AAPA as modified further teaches wherein the refrigerant heat exchanger coil and the hydronic heat exchanger coil are interlaced (see in Huang’s Figures 7-9 the microchannel heat exchanger (100) comprises two isolated microchannel coils (102 and 104) that are interlaced).
Regarding claim 8, AAPA as modified further teaches wherein the refrigerant heat exchanger coil comprises a flat tube (102 of Huang: see Huang’s Figures 7-9) having a first cross-sectional area (see Huang’s Figure 8) and the hydronic heat exchanger coil comprises a flat tube (104 of Huang) having a second cross-sectional area (see Huang’s Figure 8).
AAPA as modified does not teach the second cross-sectional area being greater than the first cross-sectional area.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of each tube in 108 and 110 of AAPA in view of Huang to have the second cross-sectional area being greater than the first cross-sectional area since it has been held 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of AAPA. would not operate differently with the claimed cross-sectional areas. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the claimed cross-sectional areas, indicating simply that “the water flow path 434 and the refrigerant flow path 446 can both have the same cross-sectional area or comprise different cross-section areas” (specification pp. [0050]).
Regarding claim 9, AAPA as modified further teaches wherein the second heat exchanger coil (104 of Huang: see Huang’s Figure 8) comprises a turbulator (see in Huang’s Figure 8 where edge of 220 of 104 is a turbulator that causes turbulence to the flow of the working fluid (i.e. heated water of AAPA)).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Applicant Admitted Prior Art: hereinafter: AAPA) in view of Goenka (US 20140208794 A1: Previously cited) and Huang (US 20190368817 A1: Previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blanton (US 20120272669 A1: Previously cited).
Regarding claim 4, AAPA does not teach wherein the hydronic heat exchanger coil is configured to be in a downstream position relative to the refrigerant heat exchanger coil when the unitary heat exchanger structure is installed in the HVAC system.
However, it is an old and well known technique for HVAC system to position a reheat heat exchanger in a downstream position relative an evaporator, as evidenced by Blanton, see Blanton’s Figure 3 and ¶ [0027] where a HVAC system (see Figure 3) comprises: a reheat heat exchanger (34) that is configured to be in a downstream position relative to an evaporator heat exchanger (32: see ¶ [0027]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the position of the hydronic heat exchanger coil of AAPA to be in a downstream position relative evaporator; that is: using the known technique of positioning a reheat heat exchanger in a downstream position relative an evaporator, as taught by Blanton, to provide the heat exchanger structure of AAPA with wherein the hydronic heat exchanger coil is configured to be in a downstream position relative to the refrigerant heat exchanger coil when the unitary heat exchanger structure is installed in the HVAC system would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007): such would provide the predictable benefit of reheating the air passed through the refrigerant heat exchanger coil, thus provide dehumidified air at a desirable temperature.
Regarding claim 5, AAPA as modified above further teaches wherein the hydronic heat exchanger coil (108) is configured to reheat the air that has passed across the refrigerant heat exchanger coil (110: Examiner note that having 108 in a downstream position relative 110 will make 108 configured to reheat the air passed through 110 since 108 is configured circulate a heated water, see specification ¶ [0004]).
Claims 11-13 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Applicant Admitted Prior Art: hereinafter: AAPA) in view of Goenka (US 20140208794 A1: Previously cited) and Huang (US 20190368817 A1: Previously cited).
Regarding claim 11, AAPA teaches an air handling unit for a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system (100: see Figure 1A), the air handling unit comprising: a housing (110) ; an air inlet (102); an air outlet (104); an air moving device (106) configured to move air from the air inlet (102), through the housing (101), and out of the air outlet (104: see Figure 1A); and a heat exchanger structure (110 and 108: see Figures 1A and 1B) disposed at last partially within the housing (101), the heat exchanger structure comprising: a first heat exchanger coil (110) configured to receive refrigerant and facilitate heat exchange between the refrigerant and air directed across the first heat exchanger coil by the air moving device (see ¶ [0003]; a second heat exchanger coil (108) configured to receive water and facilitate heat exchange between the water and air directed across the second heat exchanger coil by the air moving device (see ¶ [0004].
AAPA does not teach that the first heat exchanger coil (110) and the second heat exchanger coil (108) are unitary heat exchanger structure (i.e. attached to each other).
However, it’s old and well known to attach two types of heat exchangers to each other, as evidenced by Goenka, see in Goenka’s Figure 1 where two types of heat exchangers (24 and 78) are attached to each other.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the heat exchanger structure of AAPA to be a unitary heat exchanger structure, since as evidenced by Goenka, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of having a compact indoor unit.
AAPA in view of Goenka does not teach a plurality of fins disposed between the first heat exchanger coil and the second heat exchanger coil, the plurality of fins configured to facilitate heat exchange between the refrigerant, the water, and the air, wherein the plurality of fins comprises a first set of fins connected to the first heat exchanger coil and a second set of fins connected to the second heat exchanger coil.
Huang teaches a unitary heat exchanger structure (100) that comprises two heat exchangers (102 and 104: see Figure 5) and a plurality of fins (114) disposed between the two heat exchangers (102 and 104), wherein the plurality of fins (114) configured to facilitate heat exchange between two working fluids in the two heat exchangers, and the air (see ¶ [0049]), wherein the plurality of fins (114) comprises a first set of fins connected to the first heat exchanger coil and a second set of fins connected to the second heat exchanger coil ( see in Figure 5 where 114 comprises a first set of fins that are placed under microchannel tubes 102 and a second set of fins that are placed under microchannel tubes 104).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the heat exchanger structure of AAPA in view of Goenka to have a plurality of fins disposed between the first heat exchanger coil and the second heat exchanger coil, the plurality of fins configured to facilitate heat exchange between the refrigerant, the water, and the air, wherein the plurality of fins comprises a first set of fins connected to the first heat exchanger coil and a second set of fins connected to the second heat exchanger coil, as taught by Huang, such modification would provide the benefit of having a compact heat exchanger structure.
Regarding claim 12, AAPA further teaches wherein the first heat exchanger coil (110) comprises a tube having a first cross-sectional area and the second heat exchanger coil (108) comprises a tube having a second cross-sectional area (it’s inherent for each of 110 and 108 to have a tube having a cross-sectional area).
AAPA is silent regarding the size of each tube in 108 and 110. Therefore, AAPA does not teach the second cross-sectional area being greater than the first cross-sectional area.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of each tube in 108 and 110 of AAPA. to have the second cross-sectional area being greater than the first cross-sectional area since it has been held 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of AAPA. would not operate differently with the claimed cross-sectional areas. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the claimed cross-sectional areas, indicating simply that “the water flow path 434 and the refrigerant flow path 446 can both have the same cross-sectional area or comprise different cross-section areas” (specification pp. [0050]).
Regarding claim 13, AAPA further teaches wherein the first heat exchanger coil (110) is positioned in an airflow path downstream of the second heat exchanger (108: see Figure 1A where 110 is in a downstream position relative 108).
Regarding claim 16, AAPA does not teach wherein the unitary heat exchanger structure a microchannel heat exchanger.
Huang teaches in Figures 7-9 a unitary heat exchanger structure (100) that is a single interlaced microchannel heat exchanger which comprises two isolated microchannel coils (102 and 104: see Huang’s ¶ [0058]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the unitary microchannel heat exchanger of AAPA as modified to be a microchannel heat exchanger, as taught by Huang, such modification would provide the benefit of increasing the efficiency of AAPA’s HVAC system, see Huang’s ¶ [0048].
Regarding claim 17, AAPA as modified further teaches wherein the first heat exchanger coil comprises a flat tube (102 of Huang: see Huang’s Figures 7-9) having a first cross-sectional area (see Huang’s Figure 8) and the second heat exchanger coil comprises a flat tube (104 of Huang) having a second cross-sectional area (see Huang’s Figure 8).
AAPA as modified does not teach the second cross-sectional area being greater than the first cross-sectional area.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of each tube in 108 and 110 of AAPA in view Huang to have the second cross-sectional area being greater than the first cross-sectional area since it has been held 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of AAPA. would not operate differently with the claimed cross-sectional areas. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the claimed cross-sectional areas, indicating simply that “the water flow path 434 and the refrigerant flow path 446 can both have the same cross-sectional area or comprise different cross-section areas” (specification pp. [0050]).
Regarding claim 18, AAPA as modified further teaches wherein the second heat exchanger coil (104 of Huang: see Huang’s Figure 8) comprises a turbulator (see in Huang’s Figure 8 where edge of 220 of 104 is turbulator that causes turbulence to the flow of the working fluid (i.e. heated water of AAPA)).
Regarding claim 19, AAPA as modified further teaches wherein the first heat exchanger coil and the second heat exchanger coil are interlaced (see in Huang’s Figures 7-9 the microchannel heat exchanger (100) comprises two isolated microchannel coils (102 and 104) that are interlaced).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Applicant Admitted Prior Art: hereinafter: AAPA) in view of Goenka (US 20140208794 A1: Previously cited) and Huang (US 20190368817 A1: Previously cited) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Blanton (US 20120272669 A1: Previously cited).
Regarding claim 14, AAPA does not teach wherein the second heat exchanger coil is positioned in an airflow path downstream of the first heat exchanger.
However, it’s an old and well known technique for HVAC system to position a reheat heat exchanger in a downstream position relative an evaporator, as evidenced by Blanton, see Blanton’s Figure 3 and ¶ [0027] where a HVAC system (see Figure 3) comprises: a reheat heat exchanger (34) that is configured to be in a downstream position relative an evaporator heat exchanger (32: see ¶ [0027]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the position of the hydronic heat exchanger coil of AAPA to be in an airflow path downstream of the first heat exchanger; that is: using the known technique of positioning a reheat heat exchanger in a downstream position relative an evaporator, as taught by Blanton, to provide the heat exchanger structure of AAPA with wherein the second heat exchanger coil is positioned in an airflow path downstream of the first heat exchanger would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007): such would provide the predictable benefit of reheating the air passed through the refrigerant heat exchanger coil, thus provide dehumidified air at a desirable temperature.
Regarding claim 15, AAPA as modified above further teaches wherein the second heat exchanger coil (108) is configured to reheat the air that has passed across the first heat exchanger coil (110: Examiner note that having 108 in a downstream position relative 110 will make 108 configured to reheat the air passed through 110 since 108 is configured circulate a heated water, see specification ¶ [0004]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Applicant Admitted Prior Art: hereinafter: AAPA) in view of Goenka (US 20140208794 A1: Previously cited) and Huang (US 20190368817 A1: Previously cited).
Regarding claim 20, AAPA teaches an HVAC system (see Figure 1A) comprising the air handling unit (100) of Claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above), the HVAC system further comprising a water heater (112) configured to supply heated water to the second heat exchanger coil (see ¶ [0004]).
AAPA does not teach that the water heater (112) is a tankless water heater.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the type of the water heater (112) would result in a difference in function of the AAPA system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the type of the water heater (112) of AAPA, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the system would function as intended being given the claimed water heater type. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed water heater type solves any stated problem, indicating that “the water heater 212 can be a tanked or tankless water heater and can be a gas fired, electric heating element, heat pump, or other suitable type of water heater” (Specification at para. [0040]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the claimed water heater type such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the water heater type of AAPA to be tankless water heater as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALED AL SAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-8685. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM~3:30PM, M-F (E.S.T.).
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached on (571) 270-7740. 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.
/KHALED AHMED ALI AL SAMIRI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763