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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 5/13/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-12 and 14-15 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 and 14-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation of “internal pates” appears to be a typographical error of “internal plates”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1- 6, 8-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes (US 5,295,532) in view of Saperstein et al. (US 5,327,959). Hughes discloses (figures 1- 2). a high pressure heat exchanger comprising a first manifold (26, 30 or 24,28) and a second manifold (24, 28 or 26,30) connected fluidly by a plurality of tube sets (20) having tube end sections and arranged in a spaced manner along the first manifold and the second manifold (see figure 2), wherein at least one of the first manifold includes a rear flat cover (80 or 70), a header (84 or 74) with slots (70 or 90) receiving the tube end sections, and at least one internal plate 72,76 or 82,86) interposed between the header (84 or 74) and the rear cover (80 or 70) and configured to create a flow path within the first manifold, the flow path being in fluid communication with the tube sets to allow circulation of a refrigerant in the tube sets and the first manifold and the second manifold (figure 2). Regarding claims 1-3 and 8, Hughes does not disclose that the header has at least a first area adjacent to at least one of the slots and having a first thickness measured along the insertion direction of the respective tube end section, and at least a second area surrounding at least partially the first area and having a second thickness measured along the insertion direction of the respective tube end section, the first thickness being smaller than the second thickness (claim 1), the thickness of the first area is locally smaller around the slots than through the rest of the header (claim 2); the header thickness changes from first thickness having a minimum value at the contact with the tube end section in the slot up to the second thickness (claim 3) and each slot of the header has a tapered shape to guide the tube end section during their insertion (claim 8). Saperstein et al. discloses (figures 1, 4 and 7) a header (72) of a heat exchanger has at least a first area (82, tapered area with 45 degrees angle, shown in figure 4) adjacent to at least one of the slots (48) and having a first thickness measure along the insertion direction of the respective tube end section, and at least a second area (74) surrounding at least partially the first area and having a second thickness measured along the insertion direction of the respective tube end section, the first thickness being smaller than the second thickness (see figure 4, the tapered area 82 has a thickness less than the thickness of the area 74). Saperstein et al further discloses that the thickness of the first area (82) is locally smaller around the slots (48), than in throughout the rest of the header (figure 4). Saperstein further discloses that the header (72) thickness changes from the first thickness having a minimum value at the contact with the tube end section (90) in the slot up to the second thickness (see figure 6). Saperstein further discloses (figures 4-7) each slot of the header has a tapered shape to guide the tube end section during their insertion. Saperstein discloses that the structure of the header has the tube slot being tapered and a first area’s thickness around the tube slot being less than the thickness of the rest of the header is for a purpose of preventing the end of the tubes from entering the header chamber to a location that could disrupt the flow of a heat exchanger fluid (abstract and column 3 lines 30-34) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Saperstein’s teaching in Hughe’s device for a purpose of preventing the end of the tubes from entering the header chamber to a location that could disrupt the flow of a heat exchanger fluid.
Regarding claim 5, Hughes discloses (figure 2) that the first manifold includes a plurality of internal plates (72, 76 or 82, 86) stacked together.
Regarding claim 6, Hughes further discloses (figure 2) that the at least one internal plate (82,86) has internal slots (92, 108, 110) extending so as to create U form flow paths within the first manifold. (flow through path 48, 116 and 54 , see figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, Hughes discloses (column 5, lines 42-64) that the at least one internal plate (82,86 or 72, 76) is brazed with the header.
Regarding claim 10, Hughes discloses (figure 2) that the at least one internal plate has slots ( 108,110,92, 114) to form flow path within the first manifold, these slots communicating each with one another to form the flow paths.
Regarding claim 11, Hughes discloses (figure 2) that the refrigerant flow path is deviated at least once in the shape of a U. (flow paths 46,116, 52 forming U-shaped flow path).
Regarding claim 14, regarding the intended use recitation “the heat exchanger is a chiller”, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitaitons. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). In this case, the combination device of Hughes and Saperstein discloses all of the claimed structural limitation. Therefore, the intended use of the heat exchanger being used as a chiller does not differentiate the claimed heat exchanger from the heat exchanger of the prior art satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
Regarding claim 15, Hughes further discloses (figure 2) that a connecting block (100 or 102) is attached to the first manifold or the second manifold.
Regarding claim 4, Hughes does not disclose the ratio of 3<h/w1 < h/c, wherein h is the height of the distribution channel of the manifold formed between the rear cover and the header and measured along the insertion direction of the respective end section, w1 is the first thickness of the header and c is a smallest wall thickness of the tube end section. Saperstein discloses (figure 6 and figure A shown below) A is a smallest thickness of the tube end section, w1 is the thickness of taper regions (32) around slot 48, and H is the distance between the header (72) and the cover (40). Basing on the geometrical relationship between the tube wall thickness ( C or A), the distance (H) and W1 shown in figure B, the thickness ratio H/w1 is much greater than 3 and h/w1 is less than h/c since w1 is greater than c. Saperstein discloses (figure 6) that the structure of the header has a ratio relationship between the first thickness, the smallest thickness of the end of the tube and the distance between the header and the cover is to secure a tube end into a slot and providing enough space for a fluid entering the manifold from the tube. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Saperstein’s teaching in Hughes’s device for a purpose of securing a tube end into a slot and providing enough space for a fluid entering the manifold from the tube.
PNG
media_image1.png
540
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: the modified figure corresponds to figure 6 of Saperstein with limitations shown.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes and Saperstein as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gorzellik et al. (US EP 3009780A1). Hughes and Saperstein substantially disclose all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above except for the limitation that the tube have refrigerant channels with a ratio of at least 0.3 between a wall thickness of the tubes and diameter of the refrigerant channels. Gorzellik discloses (figures 2-3 and paragraph 17) that a refrigerant tube that has a plurality of refrigerant channels (3), wherein the channel has a ratio of at least 0.3 (at least 0.4) between a wall thickness (W) of the tube and diameter (d) of the refrigerant channels for a purpose of increasing the heat transfer rate while maintaining high pressure resistance of the tube. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Gorzellik’s teaching in the combination device of Hughes and Saperstein for a purpose of increasing the heat transfer rate while maintaining high pressure resistance of the tube.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes, Saperstein as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akaiwa et al. (US 2020/0018528A1). Hughes and Saperstein substantially discloses all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above except for a limitation of that the header includes two lateral folded walls, to encompass and stack the at least one internal plate and the rear cover all together. Akaiwa discloses (figure 3) a header (2) that includes two lateral folded walls to encompass and stack the at least one internal plate (3) and a rear cover (4) for a purpose of enhancing the securement of the header, the internal plate and the rear cover. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Akaiwa’s teaching in the combination device of Hughes and Saperstein for a purpose of enhancing the securement of the header, the internal plate and the rear cover.
Claims 1-8, 10-11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akaiwa et al. (US 2020/0018528A1) in view of Saperstein et al. (US 5,327,959). Akaiwa discloses (figures 1- 3). a high pressure heat exchanger comprising a first manifold (100) and a second manifold (220) connected fluidly by a plurality of tube sets (200) having tube end sections and arranged in a spaced manner along the first manifold and the second manifold (see figure 1), wherein at least one of the first manifold (100) includes a rear flat cover (4), a header (2) with slots (2b) receiving the tube end sections, and at least one internal plate (1,3) interposed between the header (2) and the rear cover (4) and configured to create a flow path within the first manifold, the flow path being in fluid communication with the tube sets to allow circulation of a refrigerant in the tube sets and the first manifold and the second manifold . Regarding claims 1-3 and 8, Akaiwa does not disclose that the header has at least a first area adjacent to at least one of the slots and having a first thickness measured along the insertion direction of the respective tube end section, and at least a second area surrounding at least partially the first area and having a second thickness measured along the insertion direction of the respective tube end section, the first thickness being smaller than the second thickness (claim 1), the thickness of the first area is locally smaller around the slots than through the rest of the header (claim 2); the header thickness changes from first thickness having a minimum value at the contact with the tube end section in the slot up to the second thickness (claim 3) and each slot of the header has a tapered shape to guide the tube end section during their insertion (claim 8). Saperstein et al. discloses (figures 1, 4 and 7) a header (72) of a heat exchanger has at least a first area (82, tapered area with 45 degrees angle, shown in figure 4) adjacent to at least one of the slots (48) and having a first thickness measure along the insertion direction of the respective tube end section, and at least a second area (74) surrounding at least partially the first area and having a second thickness measured along the insertion direction of the respective tube end section, the first thickness being smaller than the second thickness (see figure 4, the tapered area 82 has a thickness less than the thickness of the area 74). Saperstein et al further discloses that the thickness of the first area (82) is locally smaller around the slots (48), than in throughout the rest of the header (figure 4). Saperstein further discloses that the header (72) thickness changes from the first thickness having a minimum value at the contact with the tube end section (90) in the slot up to the second thickness (see figure 6). Saperstein further discloses (figures 4-7) each slot of the header has a tapered shape to guide the tube end section during their insertion. Saperstein discloses that the structure of the header has the tube slot being tapered and a first area’s thickness around the tube slot being less than the thickness of the rest of the header is for a purpose of preventing the end of the tubes from entering the header chamber to a location that could disrupt the flow of a heat exchanger fluid (abstract and column 3 lines 30-34) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Saperstein’s teaching in Akaiwa’s device for a purpose of preventing the end of the tubes from entering the header chamber to a location that could disrupt the flow of a heat exchanger fluid.
Regarding claim 5, Akaiwa discloses (figure 3) that the first manifold includes a plurality of internal plates (1,3) stacked together.
Regarding claim 6, Akaiwa further discloses (figure 3) that the at least one internal plate (1,3) has internal slots (1A,1B and 3A) extending so as to create U form flow paths within the first manifold. (fluid flows from S1 and make a U-turn to enter tube 200, see figure 3).
Regarding claim 7, Akaiwa further discloses (figure 3) that the header (2) that includes two lateral folded walls (bent portion including portion 21, shown in figure 3) to encompass and stack the at least one internal plate (3) and a rear cover (4)
Regarding claim 10, Akaiwa discloses (figure 3) that the at least one internal plate has slots (1a,3a,1b) to form flow path within the first manifold, these slots communicating each with one another to form the flow paths.
Regarding claim 11, Akaiwa discloses (figure 3) that the refrigerant flow path is deviated at least once in the shape of a U. (fluid flows from S1 to S2 and entering the tube 200 in a U-shape manner).
Regarding claim 14, regarding the intended use recitation “the heat exchanger is a chiller”, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitaitons. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). In this case, the combination device of Akaiwa and Saperstein discloses all of the claimed structural limitation. Therefore, the intended use of the heat exchanger being used as a chiller does not differentiate the claimed heat exchanger from the heat exchanger of the prior art satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
Regarding claim 15, Akaiwa further discloses (figure 4) that a connecting block (8) is attached to the first manifold (100) or the second manifold.
Regarding claim 4, Akaiwa does not disclose the ratio of 3<h/w1 < h/c, wherein h is the height of the distribution channel of the manifold formed between the rear cover and the header and measured along the insertion direction of the respective end section, w1 is the first thickness of the header and c is a smallest wall thickness of the tube end section. Saperstein discloses (figure 6 and figure A shown above A is a smallest thickness of the tube end section, w1 is the thickness of taper regions (32) around slot 48, and H is the distance between the header (72) and the cover (40). Basing on the geometrical relationship between the tube wall thickness ( C or A), the distance (H) and W1 shown in figure B, the thickness ratio H/w1 is much greater than 3 and h/w1 is less than h/c since w1 is greater than c. Saperstein discloses (figure 6) that the structure of the header has a ratio relationship between the first thickness, the smallest thickness of the end of the tube and the distance between the header and the cover is to secure a tube end into a slot and providing enough space for a fluid entering the manifold from the tube. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Saperstein’s teaching in Akaiwa’s device for a purpose of securing a tube end into a slot and providing enough space for a fluid entering the manifold from the tube.
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 THO V DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4793. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 10-6PM.
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, Atkisson Jianying can be reached at 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.
/THO V DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights