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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 12-16, and 19-20 are pending. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 12-13, and 19-20 are amended. Claims 2, 5, 9-11, and 17-18 are canceled.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 has an incorrect status identifier. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 12-16, and 19-20 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 3-4, 6-8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (EP 0184344 A1), hereafter referred to as “Wilson,” in view of and Reiss, III et al. (US 2009/0277606 A1), hereafter referred to as “Reiss.”
Regarding Claim 1: Wilson teaches a tube bundle assembly (wrapper 14 having multiple tubes 30) comprising: a plurality of tubes (multiple tubes 30); and a baffle (32) comprising a plurality of holes (multiple holes 34) for receiving the plurality of tubes (multiple tubes 30), and the plurality of holes (multiple holes 34) have a substantially identical configuration (see Figure 2), each hole (34) of the plurality of holes (multiple holes 34) is a through hole extending between opposing surface (see Figure 4) of the baffle (32) and has a non-uniform diameter (see Figure 4) such that only a portion (lobes 36a-d) of a periphery of each hole (34) is positionable in contact (via 42a-d) with a respective tube (30) of the plurality of tubes (multiple tubes 30), wherein each hole (34) of the plurality of holes (multiple holes 34) has a plurality of lobes (multiple lobes 36) protruding inwardly towards a center of the hole (34,see Figures 2 and 5), and wherein each of the plurality of lobes (multiple lobes 36, 36a-d) has a land (multiple lands 42, 42a-d) arranged at the innermost surface thereof (see Figure 5), each land (42) has a convex curvature such that each land (42) is arranged in line contact with a respective tube (30) positioned within the hole (30 inside of 34, see Figure 5); wherein frictional engagement between the lands (multiple lands 42, 42a-d) and the tube (30) positioned within each hole forms a self-locking interface (page 4, lines 29-36 to page 5, lines 1-2).
Wilson fails to teach wherein the baffle is formed form a non-metallic material.
Reiss teaches wherein a baffle (34) is formed form a non-metallic material (paragraph [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the baffle is formed form a non-metallic material to the structure of Wilson as taught by Reiss in order to advantageously accommodate movement of the core of the heat exchanger system and/or to absorb vibrations (see Reiss, paragraph [0022]).
Regarding Claim 3: Wilson fails to teach wherein the baffle is formed from a polymeric or elastomeric material.
Reiss teaches wherein a baffle (34) is formed from a polymeric or elastomeric material (paragraph [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the baffle is formed from a polymeric or elastomeric material to the structure of Wilson as taught by Reiss in order to advantageously accommodate movement of the core of the heat exchanger system and/or to absorb vibrations (see Reiss, paragraph [0022]).
Regarding Claim 4: Wilson fails to teach wherein the plurality of tubes are formed from an aluminum material.
Reiss teaches wherein a plurality of tubes (18) are formed from an aluminum material (paragraph [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the plurality of tubes are formed from an aluminum material to the structure of Wilson as taught by Reiss in order to advantageously provide various known materials for use in the system for specific performance results (see Reiss, paragraph [0017]).
Regarding Claim 6: Wilson teaches wherein the plurality of lobes (multiple lobes 36, 36a-d) are equidistantly spaced (see Figure 5) about the hole (34).
Regarding Claim 7: Wilson teaches wherein the plurality of lobes (multiple lobes 36, 36a-d) comprises between three and ten lobes (see Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 8: Wilson teaches wherein a configuration of each of the plurality of lobes (multiple lobes 36, 36a-d) is substantially identical (see Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 12: Wilson modified supra fails to teach wherein the convex curvature has a radius C and a diameter B extends between an origin of the radius C for oppositely positioned lobes at each hole, wherein the radius C is between 0.09 and 0.15 times the diameter B. Langer modified supra does, however, disclose the tube bundle and baffle plates, the structure and the lobes of the claimed apparatus. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, were disclosed in the prior art by Wilson modified supra, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation or design choice, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tube bundle, baffle plates and openings for tubes disclosed by Wilson modified supra a having it operating with the ratios and diameter ranges. Furthermore, the ratios and ranges is recognized by the Examiner to be a very broad range, and a range that an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A and 2144.05 II A and B.
Claims 13-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (EP 0184344 A1), hereafter referred to as “Wilson,” in view of and Miyoshi et al. (US 2018/0187932 A1), hereafter referred to as “Miyoshi.”
Regarding Claim 13: Wilson teaches a tube bundle assembly (wrapper 14 having tubes multiple tubes 30) comprising: a plurality of tubes (multiple tubes 30); and at least one baffle (32) comprising a plurality of holes (multiple holes 34) for receiving the plurality of tubes (multiple tubes 30), each of the plurality of holes (multiple holes 34) having a substantially identical configuration (see Figure 2) and wherein each respective hole (34) is a through hole extending between opposing sides of the at least one baffle (32) and comprises a non-uniform diameter (see cross section depicted in Figure 4) such that only a portion (lobes 36a-d) of a periphery of each hole (34) is positionable in contact (via 42a-d) with a respective tube (30), wherein each hole (34) of the plurality of holes (see Figure 2) has a plurality of lobes (multiple lobes 36, 36a-d) protruding inwardly towards a center of the hole (see Figures 2 and 5), and wherein each of the plurality of lobes (multiple lobes 36, 36a-d) has a land (multiple lands 42, 42a-d) arranged at the innermost surface thereof (see Figure 5) and arranged in contact with the tube (30) arranged within the hole (tube 30 inside of 34, see Figure 5), wherein frictional engagement between the land (42, 42a-d) of each of the plurality of lobes (multiple lobes 36, 36a-d) and the tube (30) forms a self-locking interface (page 4, lines 29-36 to page 5, lines 1-2).
Wilson fails to teach a vapor compression system comprising: a compressor for circulating a refrigerant; and the tube bundle assembly for transferring the refrigerant through a shell of the vapor compression system.
Miyoshi teaches a vapor compression system (paragraph [0059]) comprising: a compressor (2) for circulating a refrigerant (paragraph [0059]); and a tube bundle assembly (25A and 25B) for transferring the refrigerant through a shell (21) of the vapor compression system (paragraph [0059]), the tube bundle assembly (25A and 25B) comprising: a plurality of tubes (25, 25A and 25B); and at least one baffle (37) comprising a plurality of holes for receiving the plurality of tubes (paragraph [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a vapor compression system comprising: a compressor for circulating a refrigerant; and the tube bundle assembly for transferring the refrigerant through a shell of the vapor compression system to the structure of Wilson as taught by Miyoshi in order to advantageously provide using heat transfer within a system to enhanced performance (see Miyoshi, paragraph [0048]).
Regarding Claim 14: Wilson teaches wherein the plurality of holes (multiple holes 34) are arranged in a plurality of rows (see Figure 2), and a diameter A is defined by an outermost surface of the plurality of holes (multiple holes 34, see Figure 2) surrounding each hole of the plurality of holes (see Figures 2 and 5, holes 34 for tubes 30).
Regarding Claim 15: Wilson modified supra fails to teach wherein holes in adjacent rows are separated by a first axial distance P and the first axial distance P is between 0.75 and 1.2 times the diameter A.
Wilson modified supra does, however, disclose the tube bundle and baffle plates, the structure and the lobes of the claimed apparatus. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, were disclosed in the prior art by Wilson modified supra, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation or design choice, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tube bundle, baffle plates and openings for tubes disclosed by Wilson modified supra having it operating with the ratios and diameter ranges. Furthermore, the ratios and ranges is recognized by the Examiner to be a very broad range, and a range that an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A and 2144.05 II A and B.
Regarding Claim 16: Wilson modified supra fails to teach wherein adjacent holes within the same row are separated by a second axial distance Rw and the second axial distance Rw is between 0.8 and 1.5 times the diameter A.
Wilson modified supra does, however, disclose the tube bundle and baffle plates, the structure and the lobes of the claimed apparatus. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, were disclosed in the prior art by Wilson modified supra, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation or design choice, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tube bundle, baffle plates and openings for tubes disclosed by Wilson modified supra having it operating with the ratios and diameter ranges. Furthermore, the ratios and ranges is recognized by the Examiner to be a very broad range, and a range that an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A and 2144.05 II A and B.
Regarding Claim 19: Wilson modified supra fails to teach wherein the land of each of the plurality of lobes defines a maximum allowable diameter of the at least one tube and the diameter A is between 0.81 and 1.16 times the maximum allowable diameter.
Wilson modified supra does, however, disclose the tube bundle and baffle plates, the structure and the lobes of the claimed apparatus. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, were disclosed in the prior art by Wilson modified supra, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation or design choice, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tube bundle, baffle plates and openings for tubes disclosed by Wilson modified supra having it operating with the ratios and diameter ranges. Furthermore, the ratios and ranges is recognized by the Examiner to be a very broad range, and a range that an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A and 2144.05 II A and B.
Regarding Claim 20: Wilson modified supra fails to teach wherein a base of each of the plurality of lobes has a fillet radius Z and the fillet radius Z is between 0.05 and 1.1 times the diameter A.
Wilson modified supra does, however, disclose the tube bundle and baffle plates, the structure and the lobes of the claimed apparatus. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, were disclosed in the prior art by Wilson modified supra, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation or design choice, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tube bundle, baffle plates and openings for tubes disclosed by Wilson modified supra having it operating with the ratios and diameter ranges. Furthermore, the ratios and ranges is recognized by the Examiner to be a very broad range, and a range that an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A and 2144.05 II A and B.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. McCausland (1,920,800).
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 KIRSTIN U OSWALD whose telephone number is (571)270-3557. The examiner can normally be reached 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. M-F.
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, Len Tran can be reached on 571-272-1184. 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.
/KIRSTIN U OSWALD/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ERIC S RUPPERT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights