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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 8/27/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-3,5-6 and 8-12 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: reference sign “D3” is mentioned in paragraph 30 but not shown in the drawing. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “12” has been used to designate both “the end circumferential part 12” and “the intermediate circumferential part 12” in paragraph 35. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that reference to Park’s 780 teaches that the width of the region corresponding to the end circumferential part is constant, (page 6, applicant’s remark) has been carefully considered but is not found to be persuasive. Park discloses (figure 2 or figure B shown in the rejection) that the width W2 to W1 is not constant and reduce gradually from W2 to W1.
Regarding to reference to Lee Dong Keun (US 20150308756), Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1-3,5-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park Jun Kyu, hereinafter Park (WO 2019235780A1). Regarding claim 1, Park discloses (figure A and figure B, shown below) a heat transfer fin (330) comprising a fin main body having a plate shape perpendicular to a third direction; and a plurality of through-holes (to accommodate pipes 320) defined to pass through the fin main body and spaced apart from each other in a first direction that is a predetermined direction, wherein, when a direction (D), which perpendicular crosses the first direction and in which a combustion gas flows along a surface of the fin main body, is referred to as a second direction, the fin main body comprises an end circumferential part configured to surround a first end region that is a region, which is disposed at the uppermost upstream side on the basis of the second direction, of regions on the through hole (see figure A shown below) ; and an intermediate circumferential part provided to extend from the end circumferential part in the second direction and configured to surround an intermediate region that is a region, which is disposed at a downstream side of the first end region on the basis of the second direction, of the regions on the through hole, (see figure A shown below) wherein a width of the intermediate circumferential part in the first direction gradually increases in the second direction (See figure A and B).
Park further discloses (figure A) that an inner boundary of the end circumferential part, which is a boundary that distinguishes the end circumferential part from the first end region, and an outer boundary of the end circumferential part, which is a boundary that distinguishes the end circumferential part from the outside of the fin main body (see figure A)
Park further discloses (figures A and B) wherein a minimum distance from a point on the inner boundary of the end circumferential part to the outer boundary of the end circumferential part, gradually decreases along the inner boundary of the end circumferential part in a direction opposite to the second direction.
Regarding claim 2, Park further disclose (figure A) that an inner boundary of the intermediate circumferential part, which is a boundary that distinguishes the intermediate circumferential part from the intermediate region, has a parabolic shape (which is similar shape to the applicant’s drawing shown in figures 1 and 2 of the inner boundary 132).
Regarding claim 3, Park further discloses (figure A) that an outer boundary of the intermediate circumferential part, which is a boundary that distinguishes the intermediate circumferential part from the outside of the fin main body, has a linear shape.
Regarding claim 5, Park further discloses (figures A and B) that wherein a minimum distance between the inner boundary of the end circumferential part and the outer boundary of the end circumferential part, which is obtained in a region, which is disposed at the uppermost upstream side on the basis of the second direction, of regions on the end circumferential part is less than a minimum distance between the inner boundary end of the end circumferential part and the outer boundary of the end of the circumferential part, which is obtained in another region of the regions of the end circumferential part (see figure B, the minimum distance (W1) of the end part is smaller than the minimum distance (W2) of the intermediate part).
Regarding claim 6, Park further discloses (figures A and B) a minimum distance between the inner boundary of the end circumferential part and the outer boundary of the end circumferential part and the outer boundary of the end circumferential part, which is obtained in a region, which is disposed at the uppermost upstream side on the basis of the second direction, of regions on the end circumferential part is less than a minimum distance between the inner boundary and the outer boundary, which is obtained in a region, which is disposed at the lowermost downstream side on the basis of the second direction, of the regions on the end circumferential part (see figure B, the minimum distance of the end part is smaller than the minimum distance of the intermediate part).
Regarding claim 8, Park further discloses (figures A and B) that the outer boundary of the intermediate circumferential part is a boundary that distinguishes the intermediate circumferential part from the outside air of the fin main body, the outer boundary of the end circumferential part and the outer boundary of the intermediate circumferential part at an outer contact point, and the outer boundary of the end circumferential part and the outer boundary of the intermediate circumferential part are represented as curved lines that are defined to be different from each other at the outer contact point. (the outer boundary of the intermediate and the end part connects at a point, see in figures A and B)
Regarding claim 9, Park further discloses (figure A) that wherein a through-region, which passes through the fin main body so as to be opened from the inside of the fin main body in the direction opposite to the second direction, is defined between two end circumferential parts that surrounds first end regions of the two through-holes disposed to be adjacent to each other in the first direction, respectively.
Regarding claim 10, Park further discloses (figure A) that two main body outer parts, each of which protrudes outward from at least a partial region of each of both ends of the fin main body in the first direction. (the main body outer part on two opposite side end, only one side is shown in figure A)
Regarding claim 11, Park further discloses (figure A) that a fin side groove is defined to be recessed in the second direction in an upper end of a main body outer part, which is disposed at an upstream side of the main body outer part on the basis of the second direction.
Regarding claim 12, Park further discloses (figure A) a groove end disposed at a downstream side of the fin side groove on the basis of the second direction has a semicircular profiled.
PNG
media_image1.png
721
848
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: the modified figure corresponds to figure 17 of reference to Park with limitations shown.
PNG
media_image2.png
286
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B: the modified figure corresponds to figure 2 with an enlarged portion of end of tube showing width W1,W2 and W3, wherein the width increases from W1 to W2 and from W2 to W3 in a direction of D1.
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 (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.
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.
Claims 1-3,5-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee Dong Keun (US 20150308756), hereinafter Lee in view of Park et al. (KR 20190122142A), hereinafter Park’s 142. Lee discloses (figure 3) a heat transfer fin (20) comprising a fin main body having a plate shape; and a plurality of through-holes (to accommodate pipes 10) defined to pass through the fin main body and spaced apart from each other in a first direction that is a predetermined direction, wherein, when a direction (see figure C), which perpendicular crosses the first direction and in which a combustion gas flows along a surface of the fin main body, is referred to as a second direction, the fin main body comprises an end circumferential part configured to surround a first end region that is a region, which is disposed at the uppermost upstream side on the basis of the second direction, of regions on the through hole (see figure C shown below) ; and an intermediate circumferential part provided to extend from the end circumferential part in the second direction and configured to surround an intermediate region that is a region, which is disposed at a downstream side of the first end region on the basis of the second direction, of the regions on the through hole, (see figure C shown below) wherein a width of the intermediate circumferential part in the first direction gradually increases in the second direction (See figure C).
Lee further discloses (figure C) that an inner boundary of the end circumferential part, which is a boundary that distinguishes the end circumferential part from the first end region, and an outer boundary of the end circumferential part, which is a boundary that distinguishes the end circumferential part from the outside of the fin main body.
Regarding claim 1, Lee does not discloses that a minimum distance from a point on the inner boundary of the end circumferential part to the outer boundary of the end circumferential part gradually decreases along the inner boundary of the end circumferential part in a direction opposite to the second direction.
Park’s 142 discloses (figures 1 and 2) a heat transfer fin (1) that has a minimum distance from a point on the inner boundary (1112) of the end circumferential part to the outer boundary (1113) of the end circumferential part gradually decreases along the inner boundary of the end circumferential part in a direction opposite to the second direction D2 (paragraph 51, the width W3 is smallest at the outmost upstream of the end circumferential part, W2 gradually decreases to W3) for a purpose of improving the temperature distribution of the heat transfer fin and reducing lime formation within the tube. (paragraph 11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Park 142’s teaching in Lee’s device for a purpose of improving the temperature distribution of the heat transfer fin and reducing lime formation within the tube
Regarding claim 2, Lee further disclose (figure C) that an inner boundary of the intermediate circumferential part, which is a boundary that distinguishes the intermediate circumferential part from the intermediate region, has a parabolic shape (which is similar shape to the applicant’s drawing shown in figures 1 and 2 of the inner boundary 132).
Regarding claim 3, Lee further discloses (figure C) that an outer boundary of the intermediate circumferential part, which is a boundary that distinguishes the intermediate circumferential part from the outside of the fin main body, has a linear shape.
Regarding claim 4, Lee further discloses (figure C) that an inner boundary of the end circumferential part, which is a boundary that distinguishes the end circumferential part from the first end region, and an outer boundary of the end circumferential part, which is a boundary that distinguishes the end circumferential part from the outside of the fin main body.
Regarding claim 5, Lee further discloses (figure B) that wherein a minimum distance between the inner boundary of the end circumferential part and the outer boundary of the end circumferential part, which is obtained in a region, which is disposed at the uppermost upstream side on the basis of the second direction, of regions on the end circumferential part is less than a minimum distance between the inner boundary end of the end circumferential part and the outer boundary of the end of the circumferential part, which is obtained in another region of the regions of the end circumferential part (see figure B , the minimum distance of the end part is smaller than the minimum distance of the intermediate part).
Regarding claim 6, Lee further discloses (figure B) a minimum distance between the inner boundary of the end circumferential part and the outer boundary of the end circumferential part and the outer boundary of the end circumferential part, which is obtained in a region, which is disposed at the uppermost upstream side on the basis of the second direction, of regions on the end circumferential part is less than a minimum distance between the inner boundary and the outer boundary, which is obtained in a region, which is disposed at the lowermost downstream side on the basis of the second direction, of the regions on the end circumferential part (see figure B, the minimum distance of the end part is smaller than the minimum distance of the intermediate part).
Regarding claim 8, Lee further discloses (figure B) that the outer boundary of the intermediate circumferential part is a boundary that distinguishes the intermediate circumferential part from the outside air of the fin main body, the outer boundary of the end circumferential part and the outer boundary of the intermediate circumferential part, at an outer contact point, and the outer boundary of the end circumferential part and the outer boundary of the intermediate circumferential part are represented as curved lines that are defined to be different from each other at the outer contact point.. (the outer boundary of the intermediate and the end part connects at a point at a minimum distance of the intermediate part, considered as an outer contact point, see in figure C, the intermediate circumferential part is part of a concave curve and the end part is part of the convex curve)
Regarding claim 9, Lee further discloses (figure C) a through-region (side groove), which passes through the fin main body so as to be opened from inside of the fin main body in the direction opposite to the second direction, is defined between two end circumferential parts that surround first end regions of two through holes disposed to be adjacent to each other in the first direction respectively.
Regarding claim 10, Lee does not disclose two main body outer parts, each of which protrudes outward from at least a partial region of each of both ends of the fin main body in the first direction. Park’s 142 discloses (figure 1) the plate fin (1) further has two main body outer parts (30) equipped with louvers (311,312), each of which protrudes outward from at least one partial region of each of both end of the fin main body in the first direction for a purpose of guiding the hot combustion gas flowing toward the tube to enhance the heat transfer performance of the heat transfer fin. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Park 142’s teaching in Lee’s device for a purpose of guiding the hot combustion gas flowing toward the tube to enhance the heat transfer performance of the heat transfer fin
Regarding claim 11, Lee further discloses (figure C) that a fin side groove is defined to be recessed in the second direction in an upper end of a main body outer part, which is disposed at an upstream side of the main body outer part on the basis of the second direction.
Regarding claim 12, Lee further discloses (figure C) a groove end disposed at a downstream side of the fin side groove on the basis of the second direction has a semicircular profiled.
PNG
media_image3.png
626
857
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure C: the modified figure corresponds to figure 2 of reference to Lee with limitations shown.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 THO V DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4793. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 10-6PM.
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, Atkisson Jianying 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.
/THO V DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763