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 .
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 2/26/2026 are as follows:
Claims 3, 4, 9, 10, and 13-20 are cancelled by the applicant;
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11, and 12 are pending and are being examined.
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 three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Currently, no claim limitations invoke 112(f).
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, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US5806583, as previously cited) in view of Lee (US2011/0277971A1, as previously cited).
Re Claim 1. Suzuki teaches a phase-change heat exchanger (1), comprising a heat exchange core (1) and a housing (8), wherein the heat exchange core comprises an evaporator (3a) and a condenser (3b) which is in communication with the evaporator and is located above the evaporator (Figure 13; Condenser 3b is above evaporator 3a; Column 4 lines 59-66, Column 5 lines 1-60, Column 6 lines 62-67, Column 7 lines 26-61);
wherein a separation plate (2) is provided in the housing, an inner chamber (9, 11) of the housing is separated by the separation plate into an inner circulation heat exchange chamber (9, 11) and an outer circulation heat exchange chamber (12) that are not in communication with each other, the heat exchange core is mounted in the inner chamber of the housing, the evaporator (3a) of the heat exchange core is located in the inner circulation heat exchange chamber (9,11), and the condenser (3b) of the heat exchange core is located in the outer circulation heat exchange chamber (12) (Figures 1-6, 13; Column 4 lines 59-66, Column 5 lines 1-60, Column 6 lines 62-67, Column 7 lines 26-61);
wherein the inner circulation heat exchange chamber and the outer circulation heat exchange chamber are arranged sequentially from bottom to top (Figure 13; Column 4 lines 59-66, Column 5 lines 1-60, Column 6 lines 62-67, Column 7 lines 26-61);
wherein the evaporator is vertically arranged in the inner circulation heat exchange chamber to form a preset obtuse angle between the evaporator and the condenser; or, the condenser (3b) is vertically arranged in the outer circulation heat exchange chamber to form a preset obtuse angle between the evaporator (3a) and the condenser (3b) (Figure 13 illustrates the condenser is vertical and the evaporator is tilted, thereby forming an obtuse angle; Column 4 lines 59-66, Column 5 lines 1-60, Column 6 lines 62-67, Column 7 lines 26-61; Column 10 lines 37-50); and
wherein the evaporator and the condenser are of split structures (Figure 18 illustrates the condenser connected to the evaporator with two conduits, thus the unit is split) and the evaporator is in communication the condenser through a hose (34) (Figure 18).
Suzuki fails to specifically teach the structures are in a movable connection.
However, Lee teaches structures (40-1, 40-2) are in a movable connection (via h4) (Figures 13A; Paragraph 53, 61). Lee teaches the benefit of the hinged connection is “An air conditioner is provided in which high air conditioning efficiency and compact size can be provided in a manner of varying a location, angle or distance of a heat exchanger unit”.
Therefore, in view of Lee's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a movable connection comprising a hinge to Suzuki in order to aid in assembling the split structure into the housing. Additionally, in view of Lee’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a hinged connection to the heat exchangers of Suzuki in order to provide a more compact size of the assembly (Lee Paragraph 61).
Re Claim 8. Suzuki teaches a phase-change heat exchanger (1), comprising a heat exchange core (1) and a housing (8), wherein the heat exchange core comprises an evaporator (3a) and a condenser (3b) which is in communication with the evaporator and is located above the evaporator (Figure 13; Condenser 3b is above evaporator 3a; Column 4 lines 59-66, Column 5 lines 1-60, Column 6 lines 62-67, Column 7 lines 26-61);
wherein a separation plate (2) is provided in the housing, an inner chamber (9, 11) of the housing is separated by the separation plate into an inner circulation heat exchange chamber (9, 11) and an outer circulation heat exchange chamber (12) that are not in communication with each other, the heat exchange core is mounted in the inner chamber of the housing, the evaporator (3a) of the heat exchange core is located in the inner circulation heat exchange chamber (9,11), and the condenser (3b) of the heat exchange core is located in the outer circulation heat exchange chamber (12) (Figures 1-6, 13; Column 4 lines 59-66, Column 5 lines 1-60, Column 6 lines 62-67, Column 7 lines 26-61);
wherein the inner circulation heat exchange chamber and the outer circulation heat exchange chamber are arranged from left to right (Figure 13; Column 4 lines 59-66, Column 5 lines 1-60, Column 6 lines 62-67, Column 7 lines 26-61; When the housing is installed horizontally, the inner chamber will be to the left and the outer chamber to the right);
wherein the evaporator is horizontally arranged in the inner circulation heat exchange chamber to form a preset obtuse angle between the evaporator and the condenser; or, the condenser is horizontally arranged in the outer circulation heat exchange chamber to form a preset obtuse angle between the evaporator and the condenser (Figure 13 illustrates the condenser is vertical and the evaporator is tilted, thereby forming an obtuse angle. When the housing is installed horizontally, condenser will be horizontal and the evaporator will be angled; Column 4 lines 59-66, Column 5 lines 1-60, Column 6 lines 62-67, Column 7 lines 26-61; Column 10 lines 37-50. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e. installation orientation) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP2114(II)); and
wherein the evaporator and the condenser are of split structures (Figure 18 illustrates the condenser connected to the evaporator with two conduits, thus the unit is split) and the evaporator is in communication the condenser through a hose (34) (Figure 18).
Suzuki fails to specifically teach the structures are in a movable connection.
However, Lee teaches structures (40-1, 40-2) are in a movable connection (via h4) (Figures 13A; Paragraph 53, 61). Lee teaches the benefit of the hinged connection is “An air conditioner is provided in which high air conditioning efficiency and compact size can be provided in a manner of varying a location, angle or distance of a heat exchanger unit”.
Therefore, in view of Lee's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a movable connection comprising a hinge to Suzuki in order to aid in assembling the split structure into the housing. Additionally, in view of Lee’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a hinged connection to the heat exchangers of Suzuki in order to provide a more compact size of the assembly (Lee Paragraph 61).
Re Claim 2. Suzuki teaches the preset obtuse angle ranges from 100 to 170° (Figure 13 illustrates an angle of approximately 165°, which is within the recited range; Column 4 lines 59-66, Column 5 lines 1-60, Column 6 lines 62-67, Column 7 lines 26-61).
Re Claim 5. Suzuki teaches the evaporator and the condenser are of split structures (Figure 18 illustrates the condenser connected to the evaporator with two conduits, thus the unit is split). Suzuki fails to specifically teach the structures are in a movable connection, wherein the movable connection between the evaporator and the condenser is that opposite ends of the evaporator and the condenser are hinged.
However, Lee teaches structures (40-1, 40-2) are in a movable connection (via h4), wherein the movable connection between the evaporator and the condenser is that opposite ends of the evaporator and the condenser are hinged (h4) (Figures 13A; Paragraph 53, 61). Lee teaches the benefit of the hinged connection is “An air conditioner is provided in which high air conditioning efficiency and compact size can be provided in a manner of varying a location, angle or distance of a heat exchanger unit”.
Therefore, in view of Lee's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a movable connection comprising a hinge to Suzuki in order to aid in assembling the split structure into the housing. Additionally, in view of Lee’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a hinged connection to the heat exchangers of Suzuki in order to provide a more compact size of the assembly (Lee Paragraph 61).
Re Claim 6. Suzuki teaches a communication pipeline (pipes 3) between the evaporator and the condenser comprises an exhaust pipe (one of the pipes 3 in Figure 1; 34a in Figure 18) and a return pipe (another one of the pipes 3 in Figure 1; 34b in Figure 18), a lower end of the exhaust pipe is connected to an upper end of the evaporator, an upper end of the exhaust pipe is connected to an upper end of the condenser; a lower end of the return pipe is connected to a lower end of the evaporator, and an upper end of the return pipe is connected to a lower end of the condenser (Figure 1, 13; Figure 18 additionally illustrates a split structure with external communication pipelines 34 comprising an exhaust pipe 34a and a return pipe 34b; Column 4 lines 59-66, Column 5 lines 1-60, Column 6 lines 62-67, Column 7 lines 26-61).
Re Claim 11. Suzuki teaches the condenser is arranged close to an air outlet side (17) of the outer circulation heat exchange chamber in a case that the condenser is vertically arranged in the outer circulation heat exchange chamber (Figure 13; Column 4 lines 59-66, Column 5 lines 1-60, Column 6 lines 62-67, Column 7 lines 26-61).
Re Claim 12. Suzuki teaches the evaporator is arranged close to an air outlet side (14) of the inner circulation heat exchange chamber in a case that the evaporator is vertically arranged in the inner circulation heat exchange chamber (Figure 13; It is noted that the evaporator being vertically arranged is an alternative limitation of claim 1 that is not required since the other alternative is taught in claim 1 by Suzuki. Figure 4 of Suzuki illustrates a vertical evaporator near an air outlet side; Column 4 lines 59-66, Column 5 lines 1-60, Column 6 lines 62-67, Column 7 lines 26-61).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US5806583, as previously cited) in view of Lee (US2011/0277971A1, as previously cited) in view of Kawaguchi (US6039111, as previously cited).
Re Claim 7. Suzuki teaches the evaporator and condenser (Figures 1 and 13) but fails to specifically teach the evaporator comprises a stack of a plurality of sub-evaporators, the condenser comprises a stack of a plurality of sub-condensers, and the sub-evaporators are in communication with the sub-condensers in one-to-one correspondence.
However, Kawaguchi teaches it is known to have the evaporator comprise a stack of a plurality of sub-evaporators, the condenser comprise a stack of a plurality of sub-condensers, and the sub-evaporators are in communication with the sub-condensers in one-to-one correspondence (Figure 1, 3, 10; Column 6 lines 17-35).
Therefore, in view of Kawaguchi 's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add additional evaporators and condensers as a stack in Suzuki in order to increase the heat transfer capability of the systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add additional evaporators and condensers in a stack, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI, B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 8 of the reply that “As shown in FIG. 18 of Suzuki, the refrigerant portion 32 and the condensing portion 33 are connected by the two connecting pipes 34a and 34b to form an integral structure, so the refrigerant portion 32 and the condensing portion 33 are of an integral structure and are not split structures”. A gap is formed between the refrigerant portion 32 and the condensing portion 33, thus the two portions are considered to be split structures.
Applicant argues on page 8 of the reply that “a hose is a flexible tube for moving fluids. As shown in FIG. 18 of Suzuki, the two connecting pipes 34a and 34b are not flexible tubes”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the hose being flexible) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues on page 8 of the reply that “Further, in Suzuki (Column 5 lines 10-13), the cooling pipes 3 are flat-shaped and are made of metal having high heat transmissibility (such as aluminum or copper). The two connecting pipes 34a and 34b are probably made of metal having high heat transmissibility”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., shape and material of the hose) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues on page 10 of the reply that “Clearly, the first heat exchanger 40-1 and the second heat exchanger 40-2 are arranged in the housing of the air conditioner 1 including the front housing 10 and the rear housing 20, rather than being respectively arranged in the inner circulation heat exchange chamber and the outer circulation heat exchange chamber that are not in communication with each other, so the first heat exchanger 40-1 and the second heat exchanger 40-2 are not an evaporator and a condenser. Thus, Lee fails to teach or suggest a movable connection between the evaporator and the condenser”. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The primary reference Suzuki already teaches the evaporator and the condenser being located in respective circulation chambers. Lee is relied upon to teach a moveable connection between two heat exchange structure. Thus, the applicants’ argument that Lee fails to teach the evaporator and the condenser being located in respective circulation chambers is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 10 of the reply that “Moreover, Lee does not teach or suggest that the first heat exchanger 40-1 is in communication with the second heat exchanger 40-2, so Lee also does not teach or suggest the feature "the evaporator is in communication with the condenser through a hose"”. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Suzuki already teaches the evaporator and the condenser communicate through a hose. Thus, the applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 11 of the reply that “Kawaguchi also fails to teach or suggest the features "the evaporator and the condenser are of split structures which are in a movable connection, and the evaporator is in communication with the condenser through a hose" in amended claim 1 and amended claim 8.” Since Kawaguchi is not relied upon for the rejection of claims 1 and 8, the applicants’ arguments are moot.
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 TRAVIS RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
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 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.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights