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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/12/24 and 9/16/24 are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/3/26.
Applicant's election with traverse of restriction in the reply filed on 2/3/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that applicant argued that the restriction requirement of “independent and distinct”. This is not found persuasive because the examiner met the test as required under the MPEP for intermediate and final product restriction. Applicant appears to be arguing the test outlined in the MPEP 806.5(j) does not meet the requirement for restriction, examiner cannot respond to arguments of office decisions on the wording, rules, or guidelines provided in the MPEP. The examiners role is to apply the test provided by the office to determine if restriction is appropriate. The test was applied and appears to have been met; thus the restriction is maintained.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 limitation is indefinite as the claimed and taught structure are incompatible with the claim language of “a distance measured in the second direction between the imaginary line and an inclined contact point where each of the two ridge portions and the connecting portion meet is less than a radius of the sheet portion”. This claim requires the distance between the center point of “O” in fig. 4 to “n2” being LESS than the distance of “O” to “H2” which based upon applicant figure 4 is impossible. Based upon the figures and specification this will be treated as claiming the opposite and reading “a distance measured in the second direction between the imaginary line and an inclined contact point where each of the two ridge portions and the connecting portion meet is greater than a radius of the sheet portion”
Claim 10 is indefinite for having an unclear limitation in that the threshold value is not definite. The claim requires an angle being less than or equal to a threshold value, but the claim does not define this value or how this value is determined. Thus any angle will read on this limitation.
Claims 10-11 are rejected for dependence from one or more of the above rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oh et al. (U.S. PGPub 2004/0251016).
Regarding claim 1, Oh teaches a heat exchanger (element 301) comprising: a heat transfer tube (element 330) configured to guide a refrigerant (abstract); and
a plurality of fins (elements 310) spaced apart from each other to allow air to pass over the plurality of fins in a first direction (per fig. 19, direction of air flow), the plurality of fins extending in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and being spaced apart in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction (per fig. 19, the second direction is the length up and down of the fins while third is the direction between fins), each of the plurality of fins including:
a through-hole (element 316a) through which the heat transfer tube is disposed (para. 0133); a corrugated portion formed in a zigzag shape in the first direction (per fig. 21(a) the peaks create the claimed zigzag structure); a sheet portion (element 318) surrounding the through-hole; a connecting portion (element 320) connecting the sheet portion to the corrugated portion; an inclined contact point (at element 312a or 312b shown fig. 21(a)) located at a highest position between the connecting portion and the corrugated portion measured in the third direction (per fig. 21); and a valley portion contact point (shown in fig. 21(b) where element 320 reaches peak) located at a lowest position between the connecting portion and the corrugated portion measured in the third direction (per fig. 21), wherein the inclined contact point is located closer than the valley portion contact point, measured in the second direction, to an imaginary line extending in the first direction through a center of the through-hole (per fig. 22 it can be seen that this occurs as the peaks have a greater radius than the valley).
Regarding claim 2, Oh teaches each of the plurality of fins further includes a collar (element 316) contacting the heat transfer tube, and wherein for each of the plurality of fins, the sheet portion is connected to an outer surface of the collar (per fig. 22).
Regarding claim 3, Oh teaches wherein for each of the plurality of fins, the through-hole is a circle having a radius of a first size from a center of the heat transfer tube (per fig. 22).
Regarding claim 4, Oh teaches wherein for each of the plurality of fins, the sheet portion is formed in a circular shape that is concentric with the through-hole (per fig. 22), and wherein for each of the plurality of fins, the sheet portion has a radius of a second size greater than the first size (per fig. 22).
Regarding claim 5, Oh teaches wherein for each of the plurality of fins, the connecting portion has an inclined surface that extends from the corrugated portion to a boundary line of the sheet portion (per fig. 20-22).
Regarding claim 6, Oh teaches wherein for each of the plurality of fins, the corrugated portion includes a plurality of inclined portions (per fig. 20), and wherein for each of the plurality of fins, the plurality of inclined portions have an inclination with respect to the first direction (per fig. 20).
Regarding claim 7, Oh teaches wherein for each of the plurality of fins, the plurality of inclined portions includes two ridge portions and a valley portion (per fig. 20, elements 312a & b and 314b).
Regarding claim 8, Oh teaches wherein the through-hole has a center overlapping each valley portion in the second direction (per fig. 20).
Regarding claim 9, Oh teaches wherein for each of the plurality of fins, a distance measured in the second direction between the imaginary line and an inclined contact point where each of the two ridge portions and the connecting portion meet is greater than a radius of the sheet portion (per fig. 22).
Regarding claim 10, Oh teaches and angle between the connecting portion and the sheet portion per the 112 above this reads on the claim.
Regarding claim 11, Oh teaches wherein for each of the plurality of fins, the two ridge portions are positioned higher than or equal to the sheet portion in the third direction (per fig. 21).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL M ATTEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8-5 and Friday 8-10 and 2-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson be reached on (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 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.
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763