DETAILED ACTION
Amendments filed on 12/22/2025 have 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/2025 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, 9-13, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terayama (US 2017/0045316 A1).
Claim 1: Terayama discloses a heat exchanger (i.e., FIG.5), comprising:
a plurality of refrigerant tubes (i.e., 4) through which refrigerant flows (i.e., intended use);
a fin (i.e., 5) disposed between adjacent refrigerant tubes (i.e., 4) to conduct heat (i.e., functional language); and
a sacrificial sheet (i.e., sacrificial material layer 2) provided between a refrigerant tube of the plurality of refrigerant tubes (i.e., 4) and
the fin (i.e., 5) and configured such that a first surface (i.e., inherent) thereof contacts the refrigerant tube and a second surface (i.e., inherent) thereof (i.e., paragraph [64]: sacrificial material layer 2 side is exposed to external environment that is outer surface of the tube 4; to clarify, since each tube is between two fins, therefore the sacrificial material layer 2 being on the outer surface of the tube is between the tube and the fin) contacts the fin (i.e., 5), wherein a corrosion potential (i.e., paragraph [53]: corrosion resistance improved by sacrificial layer material) of the sacrificial sheet is lower than a corrosion potential of the refrigerant tube (i.e., to clarify, as disclosed sacrificial material layer 2 to improve corrosion resistance therefore corrosion potential of sacrificial layer is lower than the tube), wherein the sacrificial sheet (i.e., 2) comprises:
a first region (i.e., shown in FIG.2 two regions connected together); and
a second region (i.e., shown in FIG.2 two regions connected together) with a step (i.e., one region overlaps the other one making a step between the two regions; see FIG.2) between the first region and the second region (i.e., shown in FIG.2),
wherein the first region is connected to the second region (paragraph [64]: material layer 2 and cladding the other surface thereof with a brazing filler metal layer 3 is formed into a tube material; therefore layer 3 and layer 2 as shown in FIG.2 are joined together by brazing process, further to clarify, apparatus claim, it requires structures, not the process of making it),
wherein the first and second regions (i.e., shown in FIG.2 two regions connected together) are formed as one body (i.e., see FIG.2 is the assembled structure; in product-by-process claim, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)-citations omitted. The combination of previous references meets the structural limitations put forth in Claim 1, wherein the final product existing after fabrication is compared to prior art for the purposes of patentability. The limitations regarding “formed as one body” are drawn to method of production and not the structural aspects of the instant invention),
wherein a thickness of the sacrificial sheet (i.e., 2; sheet inherently has a thickness) a thickness of the fin (i.e., 5; fin inherently has a thickness), and wherein a thickness of the refrigerant tube (i.e., 4; tube inherently has a thickness).
PNG
media_image1.png
283
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Terayama discloses the claimed limitations in claim 1, except for a thickness of the sacrificial sheet is thicker than a thickness of the fin, and wherein a thickness of the refrigerant tube is thicker than the thickness of the sacrificial sheet.
Apparatus claims rely on the structures, and Terayama discloses all the limitations claimed in claim 1 and including the thickness and diameters of the tubes in paragraph [5] and other paragraphs, but lack relations between the thicknesses of the sheet, the fin, and the tube comparing the sizes to one another. 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 Terayama to include a thickness of the sacrificial sheet is thicker than a thickness of the fin, and wherein a thickness of the refrigerant tube is thicker than the thickness of the sacrificial sheet in order to improve the corrosion resistance (paragraph [2]), 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 2: Terayama as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, but is silent concerning wherein the corrosion potential of the sacrificial sheet is lower than a corrosion potential of the fin. 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 Terayama to include the corrosion potential of the sacrificial sheet is lower than a corrosion potential of the fin in order to improve corrosion resistance, 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 3: Terayama as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, but is silent concerning wherein a corrosion potential of the fin is lower than the corrosion potential of the refrigerant tube. 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 Terayama to include a corrosion potential of the fin is lower than the corrosion potential of the refrigerant tube in order to improve corrosion resistance, 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 4: Terayama discloses as modified the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sacrificial sheet (i.e., 2) comprises zinc or an alloy of zinc and aluminum (i.e., paragraph [19]: sacrificial material layer comprises aluminum alloy and Zn).
Claim 5: Terayama as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the fin (i.e., 5) comprises at least one of aluminum (i.e., paragraph [127]: aluminum used for tube and fin materials), copper, or an aluminum alloy.
Claim 6: Terayama as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the refrigerant tube (i.e., 4) comprises at least one of aluminum (i.e., paragraph [127]: aluminum used for tube and fin materials), copper, or an aluminum alloy.
Claim 7: Terayama as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sacrificial sheet (i.e., 2) is positioned at each of upper and lower surfaces (i.e., paragraph [40]: in general for a tube material is assembled by brazing a cladding material obtained by alloys as a core material with a sacrificial material layer, three layer material having sacrificial material provided on both surfaces of core material) of each of the plurality of refrigerant tubes (i.e., 4).
Claim 9: Terayama as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the second region is formed by protruding a portion of the first region (i.e., shown in FIG.2 one region formed by protruding from filler layer of one region, based on broadest reasonable interpretation, formed protruding portion from outer surface of one region to other region).
Claim 10: Terayama as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the second region protrudes toward (i.e., based on broadest reasonable interpretation, boundary of the regions are circular shapes therefore an arbitrary point on the perimeter can be toward the tube) the refrigerant tube (i.e., 4) contacting the sacrificial sheet (i.e., 2).
Claim 11: Terayama as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, but is silent concerning wherein the second region is formed by recessing a portion of the first region (i.e., in product-by-process claim, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966. The combination of previous references meets the structural limitations put forth in claim 11, wherein the final product existing after fabrication is compared to prior art for the purposes of patentability. The limitations regarding “recessing a portion” are drawn to method of production and not the structural aspects of the instant invention).
Claim 12: Terayama as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the refrigerant tube comprises a matching portion corresponding to the second region (i.e., based on broadest reasonable interpretation, a common portion between the regions is outer surface of filler layer 3 and outer surface of sacrificial layer 2 forming a matching portion).
Claim 13: Terayama as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein a width (i.e., widths inherent; shown in FIG.2 width of one region is greater than a width of the other region) of the first region is greater than a width of the second region (i.e., FIG.2).
Claim 17: Terayama as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 11, further comprising: a header (i.e., 8) coupled to first ends (i.e., inherent) of the plurality of refrigerant tubes (i.e., 4) to supply the refrigerant into the plurality of refrigerant tubes (i.e., intended use/functional language).
Claim 18: Terayama discloses a heat exchanger, comprising:
a plurality of refrigerant tubes (i.e., 4) through which a refrigerant flows; a fin (i.e., 5) disposed between adjacent refrigerant tubes (i.e., 4) to conduct heat; and a sacrificial sheet (i.e., sacrificial material layer 2) provided between a refrigerant tube of the plurality of refrigerant tubes (i.e., 4) and the fin (i.e., 5) and configured such that a first surface (i.e., inherent) thereof contacts the refrigerant tube (i.e., 4) and a second surface (i.e., inherent) thereof contacts the fin (i.e., 5), wherein the sacrificial sheet (i.e., 2) comprises zinc (i.e., paragraph [19]: sacrificial material layer comprises aluminum alloy and Zn), wherein the sacrificial sheet (i.e., 2) comprises:
a first region (i.e., shown in FIG.2 two regions connected together); and
a second region (i.e., shown in FIG.2 two regions connected together) with a step (i.e., one region overlaps the other one making a step between the two regions; see FIG.2) between the first region and the second region (i.e., shown in FIG.2),
wherein the first region is connected to the second region (paragraph [64]: material layer 2 and cladding the other surface thereof with a brazing filler metal layer 3 is formed into a tube material; therefore layer 3 and layer 2 as shown in FIG.2 are joined together by brazing process, further to clarify, apparatus claim, it requires structures, not the process of making it),
wherein the first and second regions (i.e., shown in FIG.2 two regions connected together) are formed as one body (i.e., see FIG.2 is the assembled structure; in product-by-process claim, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)-citations omitted. The combination of previous references meets the structural limitations put forth in Claim 18, wherein the final product existing after fabrication is compared to prior art for the purposes of patentability. The limitations regarding “formed as one body” are drawn to method of production and not the structural aspects of the instant invention),
wherein a thickness of the sacrificial sheet (i.e., 2; sheet inherently has a thickness) a thickness of the fin (i.e., 5; fin inherently has a thickness), and wherein a thickness of the refrigerant tube (i.e., 4; tube inherently has a thickness).
Terayama discloses the claimed limitations in claim 18, except for a thickness of the sacrificial sheet is thicker than a thickness of the fin, and wherein a thickness of the refrigerant tube is thicker than the thickness of the sacrificial sheet.
Apparatus claims rely on the structures, and Terayama discloses all the limitations claimed in claim 18 and including the thickness and diameters of the tubes in paragraph [5] and other paragraphs, but lack relations between the thicknesses of the sheet, the fin, and the tube comparing the sizes to one another. 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 Terayama to include a thickness of the sacrificial sheet is thicker than a thickness of the fin, and wherein a thickness of the refrigerant tube is thicker than the thickness of the sacrificial sheet in order to improve the corrosion resistance (paragraph [2]), 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 19: Terayama as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 18, wherein the refrigerant tube (i.e., 4) and the fin (i.e., 5) comprise at least one of aluminum (i.e., paragraph [127]: aluminum used for tube and fin materials), copper, or an aluminum alloy.
Claim 20: Terayama discloses a heat exchanger comprising:
a plurality of refrigerant tubes (i.e., 4) through which a refrigerant flows; a fin (i.e., 5) disposed between adjacent refrigerant tubes (i.e., 4) to conduct heat; and a sacrificial sheet (i.e., sacrificial material layer 2) provided between a refrigerant tube (i.e., 4) of the plurality of refrigerant tubes (i.e., 4) and the fin (i.e., 5) and configured such that a first surface thereof contacts the refrigerant tube (i.e., 4) and a second surface thereof contacts the fin (i.e., 5), wherein a material of the sacrificial sheet is different from a material (i.e., paragraph [55]: variety of different materials used as core material depending on need for improvement) of the fin and the refrigerant tube (i.e., 4), wherein the sacrificial sheet (i.e., 2) comprises:
a first region (i.e., shown in FIG.2 two regions connected together); and
a second region (i.e., shown in FIG.2 two regions connected together) with a step (i.e., one region overlaps the other one making a step between the two regions; see FIG.2) between the first region and the second region (i.e., shown in FIG.2),
wherein the first region is connected to the second region (paragraph [64]: material layer 2 and cladding the other surface thereof with a brazing filler metal layer 3 is formed into a tube material; therefore layer 3 and layer 2 as shown in FIG.2 are joined together by brazing process, further to clarify, apparatus claim, it requires structures, not the process of making it), wherein the first and second regions (i.e., shown in FIG.2 two regions connected together) are formed as one body (i.e., see FIG.2 is the assembled structure; in product-by-process claim, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)-citations omitted. The combination of previous references meets the structural limitations put forth in Claim 20, wherein the final product existing after fabrication is compared to prior art for the purposes of patentability. The limitations regarding “formed as one body” are drawn to method of production and not the structural aspects of the instant invention),
wherein a thickness of the sacrificial sheet (i.e., 2; sheet inherently has a thickness) a thickness of the fin (i.e., 5; fin inherently has a thickness), and wherein a thickness of the refrigerant tube (i.e., 4; tube inherently has a thickness).
Terayama discloses the claimed limitations in claim 20, except for a thickness of the sacrificial sheet is thicker than a thickness of the fin, and wherein a thickness of the refrigerant tube is thicker than the thickness of the sacrificial sheet.
Apparatus claims rely on the structures, and Terayama discloses all the limitations claimed in claim 20 and including the thickness and diameters of the tubes in paragraph [5] and other paragraphs, but lack relations between the thicknesses of the sheet, the fin, and the tube comparing the sizes to one another. 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 Terayama to include a thickness of the sacrificial sheet is thicker than a thickness of the fin, and wherein a thickness of the refrigerant tube is thicker than the thickness of the sacrificial sheet in order to improve the corrosion resistance (paragraph [2]), 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terayama (US 2017/0045316 A1), in view of Campbell (US 2016/0288279 A1).
Claim 16: Terayama as modified further fails to disclose wherein each of the refrigerant tubes comprises a plurality of micro channels therein.
However, Campbell teaches a plurality of micro channels therein (i.e., paragraph [43]: microchannels used in heat exchanger) for the purpose of providing a larger heat transfer area and improving thermal performance (paragraph [43]).
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 Terayama to include a plurality of micro channels as taught by Campbell in order to provide a larger heat transfer area and to improve thermal performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to all the claims under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument on page 7: “independent claims 1, 18, 20 each recites inter alia, wherein the first and second regions are formed as one body, wherein a thickness of the sacrificial sheet is thicker than a thickness of the fin, and wherein a thickness of the refrigerant tube is thicker than the thickness of the sacrificial sheet. Terayama does not disclose or suggest at least such claimed features of independent claims 1, 18, 20, or the respective claimed combinations”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees: apparatus claims rely on the structures, and Terayama discloses all the limitations in claims 1, 18, 20, and including the thickness and the diameters of the tubes in paragraph [5] and other paragraphs, but lack relations between the thicknesses of the sheet, the fin, and the tube comparing the sizes to one another, it is obvious to optimize the size of the thickness of the tube, fin, and sheet in order to improve the corrosion resistance, since Terayama considering corrosion resistance for different materials and the relations of corrosion with diameters of the tubes in paragraph [14] and other paragraph. Therefore, it is obvious for Terayama to also recognizing sheet and fin thickness in relation with corrosion resistance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure which is relevant to heat exchanger:
Yoshino (US 2020/0115778 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