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 .
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 21-23 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.
Claims 21-23 are indefinite for the claimed language of “the section separation gap reduces cross heat transfer between the first section and the second section such that the heat exchanger has a reduced size compared to a corresponding heat exchanger without the gap between the first section and the second section” (the same in all 3 claims). The term limitation is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “reduces cross heat transfer” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This value is never quantified or given an level of measurement.
The term “the heat exchanger has a reduced size compared to a corresponding heat exchanger without the gap between the first section and the second section” in claims 21-23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. Specifically the term “a reduced size” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant provides no guidance or explanation of the comparison or what fully changes in the size. For example it is not clear if in fig. 3 the gap 318 was eliminated what would shrink or get larger. For instance would 304 shrink or enlarge? It is noted that the limitation does not differentiate form the prior art used or show a difference, it is simply an unclear comparison thus if the prior art can read on any such hypothetical, it will be applicable.
The term “reduced size” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “reduced size” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what would be larger in the claimed comparison or what has “reduced”. Is the overall size of the version without a gap required to be larger or just specific elements. Examiner also notes that such a comparison is dependent on exact usage (see below rejection)
Thus this language makes it impossible to determine if the claimed apparatus is being read on until it is applied to system which makes the claim indefinite as it makes it unclear when infringement occurs (when system is made or when system used) MPEP 2173.05 (p). Any heat reduction comparison is based upon the use of the structure (temperature of fluids used both internal and external), it also provides no baseline for the claimed usage to compare with or define the limitation.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8-10, 16-18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Michael (US2013/0075069).
In regards to claim 1, Michael discloses
A heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning ("HVAC") system for use with a refrigerant, the HVAC system comprising a multi-pass microchannel heat exchanger (Fig.1 and Abstract) operable as at least one of condenser or an evaporator (paragraph 26), the heat exchanger comprising:
a first header (16) at an end of the heat exchanger;
a second header (18) at an opposite end of the heat exchanger;
a third header (20) at the same end as the first header;
a first section of microchannel tubes (14a) fluidly connecting the first and second headers in a first pass for flowing the refrigerant from the first header to the second header; and
a second section of microchannel tubes (14b) fluidly connecting the second and third headers in a second pass for flowing the refrigerant from the second header to the third header, wherein the first and third headers are arranged with a header separation (46) between the first and third headers such that portions of the first and third headers that contain the refrigerant are not in direct contact (Fig.1), and wherein the first section and the second section are spaced apart by a section separation comprising a gap (space between lowest element 14a and top element 14b, examiner notes that the gap as claimed does not require an empty space (see claim 8)).
In regards to claim 2, Michael discloses that the header separation comprises a gap such that the first and third headers are not directly physically connected (Fig.1).
In regards to claim 8, Michael discloses that the section separation further comprises one or more sections of one or more dead microchannel tubes (40).
In regards to claim 9, Michael discloses
A multi-pass microchannel heat exchanger (Fig.1 and Abstract) for a heating, ventilation, and air- conditioning ("HVAC") system for use with a refrigerant and operable as at least one of a condenser or an evaporator (paragraph 26), the heat exchanger comprising:
a first header (16) at an end of the heat exchanger;
a second header (18) at an opposite end of the heat exchanger;
a third header (20) at the same end as the first header;
a first section of microchannel tubes (14a) fluidly connecting the first and second headers in a first pass for flowing the refrigerant from the first header to the second header; and
a second section of microchannel tubes (14b) fluidly connecting the second and third headers in a second pass for flowing the refrigerant from the second header to the third header, wherein the first and third headers are arranged with a first separation (46) between the first and third headers such that portions of the first and third headers that contain the refrigerant are not in direct contact (Fig.1), and wherein the first section and the second section are spaced apart by a section separation comprising a gap (space between lowest element 14a and top element 14b, examiner notes that the gap as claimed does not require an empty space (see claim 8)).
.
In regards to claim 10, Michael discloses that the header separation comprises a gap such that the first and third headers are not directly physically connected (Fig.1).
In regards to claim 16, Michael discloses that the section separation further comprises one or more sections of one or more dead microchannel tubes (40).
In regards to claim 17, Michael discloses
A method of operating a heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning ("HVAC") system, comprising:
flowing a refrigerant through a multi-pass microchannel heat exchanger (Fig.1 and Abstract), wherein flowing the refrigerant through the heat exchanger comprises:
flowing the refrigerant to a first header (16) at an end of the heat exchanger;
flowing the refrigerant from the first header to a second header (18) at an opposite end of the heat exchanger through a first section of microchannel tubes (14a) in a first pass;
flowing the refrigerant from the second header to a third header (20) at the same end as the first header through a second section of microchannel tubes (14b) in a second pass; and
reducing cross heat transfer between the refrigerant in the first header and the refrigerant in the third header (this is inherent in the distance taught, the limitation requires no specific reduction in heat transfer or specific difference, any distance inherently reduces the heat transfer – this is the inverse square law – “the intensity of radiation from the source reduces with the square of the distance from the source” see web page https://thermtest.com/examples-of-radiation-heat-transfer) by arranging a header separation (46) between the first and third headers such that portions of the first and third headers that contain the refrigerant are not in direct contact (Fig.1), and reducing cross heat transfer of heat between the refrigerant in the first section of microchannel tubes and the second section of microchannel tubes by arranging a section separation between the first and second sections of microchannel tubes, the section separation comprising a gap (this is inherent in the distance taught, the limitation requires no specific reduction in heat transfer or specific difference, any distance inherently reduces the heat transfer – this is the inverse square law – “the intensity of radiation from the source reduces with the square of the distance from the source” see web page https://thermtest.com/examples-of-radiation-heat-transfer).
In regards to claim 18, Michael discloses that the header separation comprises at least one of a gap such that the first and third headers are not directly physically connected (Fig.1) or a chamber formed between connected first and third headers.
In regards to claim 20, Michael discloses that the section separation comprises at least one of a gap or one or more sections of one or more dead microchannel tubes (40).
In regards to claim 21-23 (the same claim limitation in each), Michael discloses the section separation gap reduces cross heat transfer between the first section and the second section such that the heat exchanger has a reduced size compared to a corresponding heat exchanger without the gap between the first section and the second section (The prior art reads on this limitations, while such a comparison is not taught it is necessarily inherent as the claimed structure is the same thus resulting in the same resulting effect. This is inherent in the distance taught, the limitation requires no specific reduction in heat transfer or specific difference, any distance inherently reduces the heat transfer – this is the inverse square law – “the intensity of radiation from the source reduces with the square of the distance from the source” see web page https://thermtest.com/examples-of-radiation-heat-transfer)).
Claims 1-7 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamamoto et al. (JP2004218983A, herein Hamamoto).
In regards to claim 1, Hamamoto discloses
A heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning ("HVAC") system for use with a refrigerant, the HVAC system comprising a multi-pass microchannel heat exchanger (Figs.1-4 and paragraph 2) operable as at least one of condenser or an evaporator (paragraph 2), the heat exchanger comprising:
a first header (header 2 until partition 11) at an end of the heat exchanger;
a second header (3) at an opposite end of the heat exchanger;
a third header (header 2 from partition 12 to the bottom) at the same end as the first header;
a first section of microchannel tubes (upper section of tubes 4) fluidly connecting the first and second headers in a first pass for flowing the refrigerant from the first header to the second header; and
a second section of microchannel tubes (lower section of tubes 4) fluidly connecting the second and third headers in a second pass for flowing the refrigerant from the second header to the third header, wherein the first and third headers are arranged with a header separation (10 and 15) between the first and third headers such that portions of the first and third headers that contain the refrigerant are not in direct contact (Fig.3), and wherein the first section and the second section are spaced apart by a section separation comprising a gap (space where 15 is, examiner notes that the gap as claimed does not require an empty space (see claim 8)).
In regards to claim 2, Hamamoto discloses that the header separation comprises a gap such that the first and third headers are not directly physically connected (Fig.3, gap created by partition member 10 and between adjacent tubes 4 between the first and second sections).
In regards to claim 3, Hamamoto discloses a non-conductive material (heat insulating member 15) located in the gap.
In regards to claim 4, Hamamoto discloses that the header separation comprises a chamber formed between connected first and third headers (within partition member 10).
In regards to claim 5, Hamamoto discloses that the first section and the second section are spaced apart by a section separation (Fig.3, between the tubes 4 of each section).
In regards to claim 6, Hamamoto discloses that the section separation comprises a gap (Fig.3, filled in by heat insulating member 15).
In regards to claim 7, Hamamoto discloses a non-conductive material (15) located in the gap.
In regards to claim 9, Hamamoto discloses
A multi-pass microchannel heat exchanger (Figs.1-4 and paragraph 2) for a heating, ventilation, and air- conditioning ("HVAC") system for use with a refrigerant and operable as at least one of a condenser or an evaporator (paragraph 2), the heat exchanger comprising:
a first header (header 2 until partition 11) at an end of the heat exchanger;
a second header (3) at an opposite end of the heat exchanger;
a third header (header 2 from partition 12 to the bottom) at the same end as the first header;
a first section of microchannel tubes (upper section of tubes 4) fluidly connecting the first and second headers in a first pass for flowing the refrigerant from the first header to the second header; and
a second section of microchannel tubes (lower section of tubes 4) fluidly connecting the second and third headers in a second pass for flowing the refrigerant from the second header to the third header, wherein the first and third headers are arranged with a header separation (10 and 15) between the first and third headers such that portions of the first and third headers that contain the refrigerant are not in direct contact (Fig.3), and wherein the first section and the second section are spaced apart by a section separation comprising a gap ((space where 15 is, examiner notes that the gap as claimed does not require an empty space (see claim 8 as example)).
In regards to claim 10, Hamamoto discloses that the header separation comprises a gap such that the first and third headers are not directly physically connected (Fig.3, gap created by partition member 10 and between adjacent tubes 4 between the first and second sections).
In regards to claim 11, Hamamoto discloses a non-conductive material (heat insulating member 15) located in the gap.
In regards to claim 12, Hamamoto discloses that the header separation comprises a chamber formed between connected first and third headers (within partition member 10).
In regards to claim 13, Hamamoto discloses that the first section and the second section are spaced apart by a section separation (Fig.3, between the tubes 4 of each section).
In regards to claim 14, Hamamoto discloses that the section separation comprises a gap (Fig.3, filled in by heat insulating member 15).
In regards to claim 15, Hamamoto discloses a non-conductive material (15) located in the section separation gap (Fig.1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specific arguments are responded to below.
In response to applicant's argument that Micheal fails to teach a gap the examiner respectfully disagrees. A gap between structures does not by definition require empty space (per //www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gap can be 4a: a separation in space or 5: a break in continuity). Examiner further notes that if a gap required empty space as applicant argues then claim 8 would result in 112b issues as the gap as applicant argues would no longer exist.
In response to applicant's argument regarding inherency, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In regards to applicants argument that the structure of the element 40 would create path for conduction, first it is noted that the lack of such is not claimed, merely the space between headers and the gap (argued above). Applicants’ own claims include a dead tube section as taught thus supporting that such is Not counter to the claimed structure. Additionally, it is noted that applicant includes the dead tube structure which if applicants’ argument were accepted (they are not) would be a 112b issue.
With regards to applicants arguments on the inverse square law it is noted that the claim does not define the type of heat transfer thus the claim is read on by this. Additionally it is noted as the structures both have a gap the physical theory for heat transfer through conduction would still apply to the prior art.
In response to applicant's argument that Hamamoto fails to teach a gap the examiner respectfully disagrees. A gap between structures does not by definition require empty space (per //www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gap can be 4a: a separation in space or 5: a break in continuity). Examiner further notes that if a gap required empty space as applicant argues then claim 8 would result in 112b issues as the gap as applicant argues would no longer exist.
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 Monday-Friday 9:30AM-5:30PM 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, 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.
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights