DETAILED ACTION
Applicant response filed on 1/2/2026 has been entered.
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 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jindou (US 2015/0027672 A1), in view of Lee (KR 20160077835 A), and in view of Satou (US 2020/0200477 A1).
Claim 1: Jindou discloses a heat exchanger (FIG.2) comprising:
an inlet header (inlet header 70; paragraph [11]: refrigerant flow into spaces 71a-71c of header 70 then flows into flat tubes and passes through and enters header 60) located on a refrigerant inlet side (inherent);
an outlet header (outlet header 60) located on a refrigerant outlet side (inherent);
a plurality of rooms (see FIG.3; to clarify rooms formed inside entire space if header 70) partitioned by partition plate (partition plates 39) and provided inside one header of the inlet header (70) or the outlet header;
a plurality of flat tubes (flat tubes 31) connected in parallel between each room of the plurality of rooms (see FIG.3) provided in the one header of the inlet header (70) or the outlet header and the other header of the inlet header (70) or the outlet header;
a distributor (81) provided in a refrigerant pipe (18);
a plurality of branch pipes (pipes 82) connected to each room and the distributor (81),
which the flat tubes (31), is less than the number connected to the room (paragraph [60]: number of flat tubes 31 in sections 51a-51c is greater than number of flat tubes 31 in sections 52a-52c),
PNG
media_image1.png
485
689
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
742
491
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Jindou discloses the claimed limitations in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the branch pipe has a branch portion provided between the room and the distributor depending on an air veloci ty distribution in the heat exchanger, and number of the branch portions of the branch pipe connected to the room, to which the flat tubes located in a part having a high air velocity are connected, to which the flat tubes passing through a part having a low air velocity are connected.
However, Lee teaches wherein the branch pipe (107) has a branch portion (109) provided between the room and the distributor (110; branch pipe 109 is corresponding to number of tubes 107) for the purpose of reducing the pressure loss of refrigerant, thereby preventing a decreases in evaporation pressure, thereby improving the efficiency (paragraph [127]).
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 invention of Jindou to include the branch pipe has a branch portion provided between the room and the distributor as taught by Lee in order to reduce the pressure loss of refrigerant, thereby preventing a decreases in evaporation pressure, thereby improving the efficiency.
PNG
media_image3.png
633
830
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Further, Satou teaches depending on an air velocity distribution in the heat exchanger (paragraph [17]: air velocity in the heat exchange sections), which the flat tubes located in a part having a high air velocity are connected, to which the flat tubes passing through a part having a low air velocity are connected (paragraph [19]: heat exchange unit in which number of pipes in each heat exchange sections is set in such manner number of pipes in heat exchange section correspond to a part where air velocity is low is larger than number of pipes in heat exchange section corresponding to a part where the air velocity is high) for the purpose of obtaining the relationship in which the heat exchange efficiency is higher in part where air velocity is higher and the heat exchange efficiency is lower in part where air velocity is lower (paragraph [20]).
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 invention of Jindou to include depending on an air velocity distribution in the heat exchanger, which the flat tubes located in a part having a high air velocity are connected, to which the flat tubes passing through a part having a low air velocity are connected as taught by Satou in order to obtain the relationship in which the heat exchange efficiency is higher in part where air velocity is higher and the heat exchange efficiency is lower in part where air velocity is lower.
Claim 2: Jindou as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of rooms (see FIG.3) are formed inside the one header (70) along an entire vertical extent of the one header (to clarify, rooms formed inside entire header 70 partitioned by plates 39 are extended vertically along the header), and a length (inherent) of each room in a direction in which the flat tubes (31) connected in parallel are arranged is the same (see FIG.2).
Claim 3: Jindou as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one header is the inlet header (70) and the other header is the outlet header (60).
Claim 4: Jindou as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, an upward blowing type outdoor unit of an air conditioner, comprising:
a blower fan (Lee 211) provided at an upper portion (Lee see FIG.2); the heat exchanger (Lee see FIG.2) provided below the blower fan (Lee 211), wherein, in the heat exchanger (Jindou 23), a parallel direction of the plurality of flat tubes (Jindou 31) is a vertical direction, and the inlet header (Jindou 70) and the outlet header (Jindou 60) are installed upright in the vertical direction (Jindou see FIG.2).
PNG
media_image4.png
754
610
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 5: Jindou as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 2, wherein the one header is the inlet header (70) and the other header is the outlet header (60).
Claim 6: Jindou as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 2, an upward blowing type outdoor unit of an air conditioner, comprising:
a blower fan (Lee 211) provided at an upper portion (Lee see FIG.2); the heat exchanger (Lee see FIG.2) provided below the blower fan (Lee 211), wherein, in the heat exchanger (Jindou 23), a parallel direction of the plurality of flat tubes (Jindou 31) is a vertical direction, and the inlet header (Jindou 70) and the outlet header (Jindou 60) are installed upright in the vertical direction (Jindou see FIG.2).
Claim 7: Jindou as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 3, an upward-blowing type outdoor unit of an air conditioner, comprising:
a blower fan (Lee 211) provided at an upper portion (Lee see FIG.2); the heat exchanger (Lee see FIG.2) provided below the blower fan (Lee 211), wherein, in the heat exchanger (Jindou 23), a parallel direction of the plurality of flat tubes (Jindou 31) is a vertical direction, and the inlet header (Jindou 70) and the outlet header (Jindou 60) are installed upright in the vertical direction (Jindou see FIG.2).
Claim 8: Jindou as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 5, an upward blowing type outdoor unit of an air conditioner, comprising:
a blower fan (Lee 211) provided at an upper portion (Lee see FIG.2); the heat exchanger (Lee see FIG.2) provided below the blower fan (Lee 211), wherein, in the heat exchanger (Jindou 23), a parallel direction of the plurality of flat tubes (Jindou 31) is a vertical direction, and the inlet header (Jindou 70) and the outlet header (Jindou 60) are installed upright in the vertical direction (Jindou see FIG.2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 1/2/2026, with respect to all the claims under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered, and they are not persuasive.
Applicant argument on pages 6 and 10: “Jindou in view of Lee and Satou at least fails to teach or suggest number of the branch portions of the branch pipe connected to the room, to which the flat tubes located in a part having a high air velocity are connected, to which the flat tubes passing through a part having a low air velocity are connected, as recited in claim 1”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, Jindou is modified by Lee teaches a branch pipe having a branch portion 109 as indicated in the office action, and Satou teaches flat tubes located in a part having a high air velocity are connected, to which the flat tubes passing through a part having a low air velocity are connected as indicated in the office action. Therefore, Jindou is modified by Satou and Lee to teach the limitations as mentioned above with motivation statements as indicated in the office action. Note that Jindou discloses the branch pipes, only lacks a branch portion, and Jindou discloses the flat tubes, except for the air velocity distribution and having high/low velocities parts where the flat tubes are located.
Applicant argument on page 9: “Lee does not include any chamber”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, firstly, a chamber is not required by the claim, secondly Lee teaches a branch portion 109 provided between the room 105 (header used as room) and the distributor 110 as shown in FIG.5.
Applicant argument regarding incomplete action without addressing argument on page 12 and complete action not provided on page 15: “applicant also respectfully notes that the examiner did not address the presented arguments regarding Jindou and Lee in the previous response, while presenting the same and similar assertions regarding Jindou and Lee”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, Examiner clearly indicated under detailed action section of the previous non-final action that it is replacing the non-final action posted on 5/22/2025, therefore a new ground of rejections were made, and further it was indicated under response to argument section of the previous office action that Applicant's arguments filed on 8/22/2025 have been fully considered and they are moot, in response to the applicant’s arguments, a new reference Satou (US 2020/0200477 A1) was used. In the previous office action the primary reference Jindou and the secondary reference Lee were modified by the new reference Satou, therefore new assertions, new interpretations were conducted, and the claimed limitations were rejected in view of Satou. Lastly, complete action was provided in the previous office action mailed on 10/2/2025 in which the rejections of all the claims were included, and the response to the arguments were also included and addressed which it was indicated that the arguments were moot, because the new ground of rejections were made to reject all the claims in view of new reference Satou.
Applicant argument on page 13: “Jindou fails to reasonably teach or suggest wherein the plurality of rooms are formed inside the one header along an entire vertical extent of the one header, and a length of each room in a direction in which the flat tubes connected in parallel are arranged is the same, as recited in claim 2”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as it is clearly indicated in claim 2 rejections, the plurality of rooms (to clarify, rooms formed inside entire space of header 70) are formed inside the one header (70) along an entire vertical extent of the one header (to clarify, rooms formed inside entire header 70 partitioned by plates 39 are extended vertically along the header), and a length (each room of header inherently has a length) of each room in a direction in which the flat tubes (31) connected in parallel are arranged is the same (as shown in FIG.2 flat tubes are arranged parallel having header at the end in vertical direction).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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