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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 1-4, 7, 9-14, 17, 19-20, and 22 the term “gagged” or “gagged region” is not a term of art. As the claim requires the “gagged region” to be “devoid of any louvers,” Examiner takes the position that any region “devoid of any louvers” reads on the term “gagged region.” This interpretation appears consistent with Applicant’s disclosure, which only mentions the “gagged region” in ¶[0036] describing element 406 in Fig. 4.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-13, 19-20, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (KR20070069572A) in view of Zhang (CN201589470U), Nakayama (JP3720208B2), Bi (CN104729342A), and Hachiro (JP02166392A).
Regarding claim 1/10/20, Lim teaches an HVAC system (see Fig. 2 & Page 1) comprising, an outdoor unit (outdoor unit – Page 1), an air handler (Fig. 2) comprising: a cabinet (10); a V-shaped heat exchanger (90); an axial fan housing (80) disposed within the cabinet and located downstream of the V-shaped round tube plate fin heat exchange.
Lim does not teach a distributor in fluid communication with the refrigerant tubes; and a plurality of feeder tubes extending between the distributor and the refrigerant tubes, each feeder tube configured to allow flow of refrigerant therethrough.
Zhang teaches (see Fig. 2) a distributor (3) in fluid communication with the refrigerant tubes; and a plurality of feeder tubes (2) extending between the distributor and the refrigerant tubes, each feeder tube configured to allow flow of refrigerant therethrough.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim to include the distributor of Zhang, in order to improve heat pump efficiency (¶[0013]).
Lim does not teach a plurality of refrigerant tubes, each refrigerant tube having a diameter of 7 mm; a V-shaped round tube plate fin heat exchanger disposed within the cabinet and comprising a plurality of louvered fins, wherein each louvered fin defines a plurality of holes configured to receive the refrigerant tubes, and wherein the plurality of holes defines a linear offset configuration of the louvered fin, at least one gagged region devoid of any louvers/surface enhancements.
Nakayama teaches (See Fig. 1 & 7) a plurality of refrigerant tubes (2), each refrigerant tube having a diameter of 7 mm (see range of 3-7 mm - ¶[0013]); a round tube plate fin (1) heat exchanger comprising a plurality of louvered fins (see cut and raised portions 3), wherein each louvered fin defines a plurality of holes configured to receive the refrigerant tubes, and wherein the plurality of holes defines a linear offset configuration of the louvered fin (see offset configuration of tubes and respective holes, annotated Fig. 7 below, hereinafter Fig. C) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim to include the offset louver fins of Nakayama, in order to improve heat transfer performance (¶[0034-0036]).
PNG
media_image1.png
676
273
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
340
362
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
508
454
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. A - Fig. 2 of Lim Fig. B - Fig. 2 of Zhang Fig. C - Fig. 7 of Nakayama
PNG
media_image4.png
516
929
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
378
431
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. D – Fig. 8 of Bi Fig. E – Fig. 1 of Hachiro
Lim as modified does not teach each of the plurality of louvered fins defines at least one cropped corner.
Bi teaches each of the plurality of louvered fins defines at least one cropped corner (see annotated Fig. 8 below, hereinafter Fig. D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim to include the cropped corner(s) of Bi, in order to provide improved sealing and/or effective heat exchange (¶[0020]).
Lim as modified does not teach at least one gagged region proximal to the at least one corner, wherein the at least one gagged region is devoid of any louvers/surface enhacements, and wherein the at least one gagged region extends across the plurality of holes.
Hachiro teaches at least one gagged region proximal to the at least one corner, wherein the at least one gagged region is devoid of any louvers/surface enhancements, and wherein the at least one gagged region extends across the plurality of holes (see annotated Fig. 1 above, hereinafter Fig. E).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim to include the gagged region of Hachiro, in order to reduce noise and improve heat exchange performance (Page 2 of translation).
Regarding claims 2-3/11-13, Lim as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1/10, and Nakayama further teaches wherein the linear offset configuration of the plurality of holes comprises: a first set of holes defined along a first axis; a second set of holes defined along a second axis, wherein the second set of holes are offset from the first set of holes along a longitudinal axis of the louvered fin; and a third set of holes defined along a third axis, wherein the third set of holes are offset from the second set of holes along the longitudinal axis of the louvered fin, and wherein a first offset distance (2/3 Dp) defined between the second set of holes and the first set of holes, wherein a second offset distance (1/3 Dp) defined between the third set of holes and the second set of holes, wherein each of the first axis, the second axis, and the third axis extends substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the louvered fin, and wherein the second set of holes and the third set of holes define a substantially obtuse trapezoidal matrix, wherein each of two opposite wider angles of the obtuse trapezoidal matrix is in a range of about 95 degrees to about 105 degrees (as the ranges of Lp, Dp, D are known, using trigonometry, the angle claimed can easily be calculated, with Dp = 2D, Lp=3.5D, and D=7mm, the angle claimed is 90 + tan-1 [(1/3)*(2*7) / (3.5*7)] = 90+ tan-1[0.19] = 90 + 10.8 degrees = 100.8 degrees, which falls within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 9/19, Lim as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1/10, and Lim further teaches wherein the axial fan (80) housing is disposed vertically above the V-shaped round tube plate fin heat exchanger (90).
Regarding claim 22, Lim as modified teaches the limitations of claim 10, and Lim as modified further teaches the surface enhancements comprise louvers (see modification above).
Claim(s) 4/14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (KR20070069572A) in view of Zhang (CN201589470U), Nakayama (JP3720208B2), Bi (CN104729342A), Hachiro (JP02166392A) and Beard (US20130087204A1).
Regarding claim 4/14, Lim as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1/10, and Lim as modified does not teach a length of each feeder tube is in a range of 20 inches to 30 inches.
Beard teaches wherein the length of each feeder tube is in a range of 20 inches to 30 inches (see overlapping range of 10-30 in - ¶[0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim to include the feeder tube in a range of 20-30 inches, as it has been held obvious to try when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP 2143). Here, Mercer recognizes that the claimed feeder tube length is known as a suitable length for such feeder tubes.
Claim(s) 7/17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (KR20070069572A) in view of Zhang (CN201589470U), Nakayama (JP3720208B2), Bi (CN104729342A), Hachiro (JP02166392A) and Kraft (US20140299305A1).
Regarding claim 7/17, Lim as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1/10, and Lim as modified does not teach each of the plurality of holes forms an interference fit with an outer surface of the refrigerant tube passing therethrough.
Kraft teaches each of the plurality of holes forms an interference fit with an outer surface of the refrigerant tube passing therethrough (¶[0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim to include the interference fit of Kraft, as it has been held obvious to provide a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143). Here, Kraft recognizes that interference fits are well known in the art as suitable for connecting tubes to fins in such a heat exchanger.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S RUPPERT whose telephone number is (571)272-9911. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm.
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 at 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.
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights