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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/14/2019 has been entered.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-7, 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voorhis (US 2015/0345843 A1), in view of Higashiiue (US 2020/0166253 A1), and further in view of Murakami (US 2017/0167749 A1) with evidence by Joardar (US 2017/0343288 A1).
Claim 1: Voorhis discloses a microchannel heat exchanger (FIG.1/FIG.6) comprising:
an inlet header (paragraph [24]: two opposite headers 110 have ports 112 to allow refrigerant to enter and exit headers) enclosing an inlet header volume (inherent; volume within header 110) and comprising an inlet port (112), and wherein the inlet header (110/610) extends along a first direction (first direction is horizonal);
an outlet header (110);
a plurality of microchannel tubes (115) extending between, and fluidly connecting the inlet header (110) and the outlet header (110); and
a flow distribution conduit (refrigerant distributor 620 used as flow distribution conduit) extending into the inlet header volume (inherent; volume within header 610/110), interposed between, and in fluid communication with, the inlet port (112) and the plurality of microchannel tubes (115/215) and wherein the flow distribution conduit (220/620) is configured to direct a fluid flowing therethrough along the first direction (see FIG.6), wherein the flow distribution conduit (220/620) comprises
a flow distribution conduit inlet (inherent; shown in FIG.6 by arrow), a flow distribution conduit body (inherent; body of distributor 220/620), and
a flow distribution conduit outlet (inherent; shown in FIG.6 by arrow),
Voorhis discloses the claimed limitations in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the flow distribution conduit body is impervious and configured without holes therethrough, wherein the flow distribution conduit outlet is oriented along the first direction toward an opposing end cap of the inlet header and is configured to discharge a jet, and the jet and a reflected flow within the inlet header produce shear to distribute the fluid to the plurality of microchannel tubes.
However, Higashiiue teaches the flow distribution conduit body is impervious and configured without holes therethrough (paragraph [26]: pipe 6 and pipe 7 inserted inside space 11 of header 2; to clarify, there is no holes along the body of the pipes 6/7) for the purpose of suddenly expanding the refrigerant mixture and passing the liquid refrigerant into pipes (paragraph [39]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Voorhis to include the flow distribution conduit body is impervious and configured without holes therethrough as taught by Higashiiue in order to suddenly expand the refrigerant mixture and to pass the liquid refrigerant into pipes.
Further, Murakami teaches the flow distribution conduit outlet (guide plate 232 used as outlet) is oriented along the first direction toward an opposing end cap of the inlet header (paragraph [69]: guide plate 232 bent at obtuse angle to direct the fluid down to guide plate) and is configured to discharge a jet (functional language), and the jet and a reflected flow (reflector 23) within the inlet header produce shear to distribute the fluid to the plurality of microchannel tubes (see FIG.1) for the purpose of promoting the convection of air so that heating/cooling efficiency is improved (paragraph [23]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Voorhis to include the flow distribution conduit outlet is oriented along the first direction toward an opposing end cap of the inlet header and is configured to discharge a jet, and the jet and a reflected flow within the inlet header produce shear to distribute the fluid to the plurality of microchannel tubes as taught by Murakami in order to promote the convection of air so that heating/cooling efficiency is improved.
PNG
media_image1.png
801
579
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: Voorhis as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the flow distribution conduit (220) comprises the terminal end of a heat exchanger inlet pipe (a refrigerant line used as heat exchanger inlet pipe; paragraph [28]: end 222 of distributor 220 connected with a refrigerant line of HVAC system) fluidly connecting the microchannel heat exchanger (200) to a refrigerant containing system (intended use; paragraph [2]: HVAC system utilizes heat exchangers).
Claim 3: Voorhis as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 2, wherein the heat exchanger inlet pipe (end 222 of distributor 220/620 connected with a refrigerant line of HVAC system) comprises a bend (annotated FIG.6) adjacent the flow distribution conduit (220/620).
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (bent)]
PNG
media_image2.png
529
686
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 4: Voorhis as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 3, except for wherein an angle of the bend is greater than or equal to 30 degrees and less than or equal to 150 degrees (20It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Voorhis to include an angle of the bend is greater than or equal to 30 degrees and less than or equal to 150 degrees in order to improve distribution of the refrigerant to the tubes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only skill in the art - Optimum Range: MPEP 2144.05 II-A).
Claim 5: Voorhis as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the inlet header (110) further comprises an inlet header length (L2) extending in the first direction (see FIG.2) and the flow distribution conduit (220/620) extends into the inlet header volume an extension distance (shown in FIG.2; based on broadest reasonable interpretation, distributor 220 extends into header volume by an extension distance),
Voorhis discloses the claimed limitations in claim 5, except for wherein the extension distance is between 1% and 99%, endpoint inclusive, of the inlet header length (20It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Voorhis to include the extension distance is between 1% and 99%, endpoint inclusive, of the inlet header length in order to improve distribution of the refrigerant to the tubes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only skill in the art - Optimum Range: MPEP 2144.05 II-A).
Claim 6: Voorhis as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 5, except for the extension distance is between 5% and 75%, endpoint inclusive, of the inlet header length (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Voorhis to include the extension distance is between 5% and 75%, endpoint inclusive, of the inlet header length in order to improve distribution of the refrigerant to the tubes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only skill in the art - Optimum Range: MPEP 2144.05 II-A).
Claim 7: Voorhis as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 5, except for the extension distance is between 5% and 50%, endpoint inclusive, of the inlet header length (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Voorhis to include the extension distance is between 5% and 50%, endpoint inclusive, of the inlet header length in order to improve distribution of the refrigerant to the tubes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only skill in the art - Optimum Range: MPEP 2144.05 II-A).
Claim 12: Voorhis as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the flow distribution conduit (220/620) comprises a converging section and a throat (see annotated FIG.6 where bent is shown; based on broadest reasonable interpretation, fluid coming through a throat of the distributor then converging through the bent section).
Claim 13: Voorhis as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the microchannel heat exchanger (FIG.1/FIG.6; preamble) is configured as an evaporator (paragraph [12]) of a vapor compression cycle (intended use).
Claim 14: Voorhis as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the flow distribution conduit (220/620) is positioned offset from a centerline of the inlet header volume (see FIG.6).
Claim 15: Voorhis as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 14, but fails to disclose wherein the offset is less than or equal to half the distance between the centerline of the inlet header volume and a wall of the inlet header.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Kato to include the offset is less than or equal to half the distance between the centerline of the inlet header volume and a wall of the inlet header in order to enhance the flow rate of the refrigerant, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (Optimum value: MPEP 2144.05 II-B).
Claim 16: Voorhis as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the inlet header (210) and the flow distribution conduit (220) are substantially cylindrical in shape (see FIG.2).
Claim 17: Voorhis as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, a vapor compression system comprising (preamble) a compressor (Voorhis paragraph [3]: some HVAC systems includes compressor; evidence provided by Joardar compressor 22 used in refrigeration cycle), an evaporator (paragraph [39]: evaporator of HVAC system), a condenser (paragraph [32]: refrigerant as liquid from a condenser), and an expansion valve (paragraph [21]: HVAC liquid refrigerant coming out of condenser directed to an expansion valve to become two phase mixture).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voorhis (US 2015/0345843 A1), in view of Higashiiue (US 2020/0166253 A1), in view of Murakami (US 2017/0167749 A1), further in view of Kato (US 2020/0072517 A1).
Claim 9: Voorhis further fails to disclose a hydraulic diameter ratio of the hydraulic diameter of the flow distribution conduit divided by thehydraulic diameter of the inlet header, and wherein the hydraulic diameter ratio is greater than or equal to 0.05 and less than or equal to about 0.95.
However, Kato teaches a hydraulic diameter of the flow distribution conduit (paragraph [152]: hydraulic diameter of each tubes is greater than hydraulic diameter of each distributor passages) for the purpose of increasing the flow rate of the refrigerant (paragraph [148]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Voorhis to include a hydraulic diameter of the flow distribution conduit as taught by Kato in order to increase the flow rate of the refrigerant.
Further, concerning a hydraulic diameter ratio of the hydraulic diameter of the flow distribution conduit divided by thehydraulic diameter of the inlet header. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Kato to include a hydraulic diameter ratio of the hydraulic diameter of the flow distribution conduit divided by thehydraulic diameter of the inlet header in order to increase the flow rate of the refrigerant, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (Optimum value: MPEP 2144.05 II-B).
Further, concerning the hydraulic diameter ratio is greater than or equal to 0.05 and less than or equal to about 0.95. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Voorhis to include the hydraulic diameter ratio is greater than or equal to 0.05 and less than or equal to about 0.95 in order to increase the flow rate of the refrigerant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only skill in the art (Optimum Range: MPEP 2144.05 II-A).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voorhis (US 2015/0345843 A1), in view of Higashiiue (US 2020/0166253 A1), in view of Murakami (US 2017/0167749 A1), and further in view of Joardar (US 2017/0343288 A1).
Claim 10: Voorhis further fails to disclose wherein the plurality of microchannel tubes comprises a bend or a fold such that the heat exchanger comprises a V shape, U shape, or A shape.
However, Joardar teaches the plurality of microchannel tubes comprises a bend or a fold such that the heat exchanger comprises a V shape, U shape, or A shape (paragraph [40]: bends 60 of tubes 36 of heat exchanger formed V shape) for the purpose of having a reduced bending radius as a result the heat exchanger adapted to fit within the sizing enveloped defined by existing air conditioner (paragraph [41]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Voorhis to include the plurality of microchannel tubes comprises a bend or a fold such that the heat exchanger comprises a V shape, U shape, or A shape as taught by Joardar in order to have a reduced bending radius as a result the heat exchanger adapted to fit within the sizing enveloped defined by existing air conditioner.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voorhis (US 2015/0345843 A1), in view of Higashiiue (US 2020/0166253 A1), in view of Murakami (US 2017/0167749 A1), and further in view of Yi (US 2004/0026072 A1).
Claim 11: Voorhis further fails to disclose a turbulator disposed in the inlet header volume.
However, Yi teaches a turbulator disposed in the inlet header volume (paragraph [26]: turbulators 98 formed at tubular body 82 of distributor 80; FIG.5C) for the purpose of producing turbulent flow (paragraph [28]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Voorhis to include a turbulator disposed in the inlet header volume as taught by Yi in order to produce turbulent flow.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure which is relevant to heat exchanger:
Jin (US 2019/0186783 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMRAN TAVAKOLDAVANI whose telephone number is (313)446-6612. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 pm 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, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAMRAN TAVAKOLDAVANI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights