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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-17 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 1 and 9 recite that the gills are arranged relative to one another so that the equation given in each claim is “substantially satisfied”. It is unclear what level of deviation from the values would “substantially satisfy” the given equation. While claims 10 and 17 define the angle β as having a specific tolerance above and below the valued defined by the equation these limitations are not read into the independent claim and as such it is unclear where the metes and bounds of claim 1 and 9 lie. Claims 2-8 and 10-17 are rejected for their dependency from either claims 1 or 9.
Claims 3 and 12 recite fin density in terms of a unit that is not clearly defined in the specification, “Ri/dm”, which is not a common unit in English and it is unclear if this is a common unit in German. Specifically it is unclear what Ri refers to or if dm is supposed to be decimeter which would be the most obvious meaning for “dm”, however, neither is expressly defined in the specification. As it is unclear where the metes and bounds of this limitation lie these claims remain so indefinite that considerable speculation as to the meaning of the terms employed and assumptions as to the scope of such claims, and thus preclude a prior-art rejection thereon.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-11, 13, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamauchi (WO 2004/102102 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamauchi discloses (Figure 1-11) a corrugated fin (corrugated fin 3) for a heat exchanger, comprising a fin sheet (of louver fin 4) of corrugated configuration which along a flow direction (the air introduction direction X) can be flowed through by a first fluid (air), in particular a gas, on which fin sheet (4) a gill structure (at louvers 5) with a plurality of in each case longitudinally shaped gills (louvers 5) are arranged in a grid-like manner relative to one another (as seen in figure 3 and 11), wherein the gill structure with the gills (louvers 5) includes a plurality of grid lines and a plurality of grid columns wherein each respective grid line of the plurality of grid lines extend in parallel to the flow direction (louvers 5 are arranged in a line along the body of each louver fin section 4 extending in parallel with the airflow direction X as seen in figure 1, 3, and 11) and each respective grid column of the plurality grid columns extend perpendicularly to the flow direction (where louvers 5 are spaced apart perpendicularly to the direction of airflow X across the airflow passage 6 as seen in figure 3 and 11, where louvers are stacked one above the other as seen by the perspective in figure 3 and 11), wherein the individual gills ( louvers 5) each extend along an extension direction and each have a gill depth measured along the extension direction (along the extension of the louvers at with a gill depth, KT, equivalent to the louver width Lwl or Lws as seen in figure 3), wherein the individual gills (5) of a respective grid line are arranged with a predetermined fin density following one another perpendicularly to the flow direction (where the fin pitch, Fp, defined as the distance between adjacent heat transfer plates, which is equivalent to 1/fin density, RD as claimed, is seen in figure 3 and described in page 21, line 9-15 ), wherein the flow direction (X) and the extension direction are arranged at an acute gill angle (angle La as seen in figure 3) relative to one another, wherein the individual gills are arranged relative to one another so that the following gill relationship is substantially satisfied: β = arctan ((1/RD) / (2* KT)) (in this case the individual values disclosed for fin pitch, which is 1/ fin density, RD, is disclosed page 21, line 9-15 as preferably 1 to 2 mm or more preferably 1.6mm or less, and the gill depth, KT is either given at Lwl can be 0.8 to 1.3mm or Lws can be 0.1 to 0.6 per page 20 line 13-18 and the angle, La, can be 22 to 36° per page 21, line 2-5, with specific examples for values given in the table 4 on page 28. Example 10 and 11 of table 4 appears to meet claim limitations with the gill depth being Lwl in those examples give an angle value of 26.57° being calculated, which “substantially satisfies” the relationship equation as the actual angle is within a degree of 26 degrees per table 4; this is obtained from the calculation of Lwl being 1.0 mm, for KT, and the fin pitch being 1mm, equivalent to 1 fin per millimeter for RD, since the fin pitch was varied from 1 to 2.4mm in these examples per page 28 line 13-17 and the figures 9 and 10. When these values are plugged into the equation it leads to: arctan((1/(1/1.0))/(2*1.0)) = arctan(0.5)=26.566° which is within a degree of the 26° given for examples 10 and 11, which “substantially satisfies” the equation, as it lies within the narrowest tolerance range of +3°/-1° claimed in claim 17).
Regarding claim 2, Yamauchi discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 above and Yamauchi further discloses the plurality of individual gills (5) are arranged relative to one another so that at least one first gill is arranged in a certain grid column and is arranged substantially in a virtual extension along the extension direction of a second gill that, is arranged in a grid column next to but one relative to the defined grid column with the first gill (where as seen in figure 3 the louver in the fourth column of louvers from the left in the top most louver fin 4 is aligned along a virtual extension with a louver in the first column from the left in the bottom most louver fin 4 in figure 3).
Regarding claim 4, Yamauchi discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 above and Yamauchi further discloses the gill depth (KT) is at least 1.1mm (1.1mm is disclosed in example 1 of table 1).
Regarding claim 7, Yamauchi discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 above and Yamauchi further discloses a heat exchanger (per page 9, line 11-24, where the heat exchanger is formed of tubes 1 and 2 disposed at an interval and in contact with fins in parallel with each other at intervals where the refrigerant in the tubes exchanges heat with the air passing over the fins 3) in particular for a motor vehicle (where the heat exchanger is for used in a car per page 3 line 9-11), comprising multiple first and second fluid paths (for air through the corrugated fins 3 and refrigerant in the tubes) alternately following one another along a stack direction which are fluidically separated from one another for being flowed through by a first and second fluid (air and refrigerant) respectively, wherein in at least one first fluid path (for air), the corrugated fin of claim 1 is arranged (as seen in figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Yamauchi discloses the claim limitations of claim 7 above and Yamauchi further discloses the at least one corrugated fin (3) supports itself on two boundary elements (tubes 1 or 2 on opposite sides of the fin 3 as seen in figure 1) located opposite one another in the stack direction and delimiting the first fluid path with the corrugated fin arranged therein (for air flow in the X direction and the airflow arrow A as seen in figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, Yamauchi discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 above and Yamauchi further discloses a method for producing a corrugated fin (corrugated fin 3) according to Claim 1 providing a fin sheet (of louver fin 4) of corrugated design that is configured to be flowed through along a flow direction (the air introduction direction X) by a first fluid (air), in particular a gas, forming a gill structure (at louvers 5) having a plurality of longitudinally shaped gills (louvers 5) arranged grid-like relative to one another, wherein the gills (5) are arranged upon the fin sheet with a plurality of grid lines and a plurality of grid columns so that the individual grid lines extend parallel to the flow direction (louvers 5 are arranged in a line along the body of each louver fin section 4 extending in parallel with the airflow direction X as seen in figure 1, 3, and 11) and the individual grid columns are disposed perpendicularly to the flow direction (where louvers 5 are spaced apart perpendicularly to the direction of airflow X across the airflow passage 6 as seen in figure 3 and 11, where louvers are stacked one above the other as seen by the perspective in figure 3 and 11), wherein the individual gills (5) each extend along an extension direction and have a gill depth (KT) measured along the extension direction (along the extension of the louvers at with a gill depth, KT; equivalent to the louver width Lwl or Lws as seen in figure 3), wherein the individual gills (5) of a respective grid line are arranged with a predetermined fin density (RD) following one another perpendicularly to the flow direction (where the fin pitch, Fp, defined as the distance between adjacent heat transfer plates, which is equivalent to fin density, RD as claimed, is seen in figure 3 and described in page 21, line 9-15), so that the flow direction (X) and the extension direction are arranged at an acute gill angle (angle La as seen in figure 3) relative to one another, wherein the individual gills (5) are arranged relative to one another so that the following gill relationship is substantially satisfied: β = arctan ((1/RD) / (2* KT)), wherein KT is the gill depth and RD the gill density (in this case the individual values disclosed for fin pitch, which is 1/ fin density, RD, is disclosed page 21, line 9-15 as preferably 1 to 2 mm or more preferably 1.6mm or less, and the gill depth, KT is either given at Lwl can be 0.8 to 1.3mm or Lws can be 0.1 to 0.6 per page 20 line 13-18 and the angle, La, can be 22 to 36° per page 21, line 2-5, with specific examples for values given in the table 4 on page 28. Example 10 and 11 of table 4 appears to meet claim limitations with the gill depth being Lwl in those examples give an angle value of 26.57° being calculated, which “substantially satisfies” the relationship equation as the actual angle is within a degree of 26 degrees per table 4; this is obtained from the calculation of Lwl being 1.0 mm, for KT, and the fin pitch being 1mm, equivalent to 1 fin per millimeter for RD, since the fin pitch was varied from 1 to 2.4mm in these examples per page 28 line 13-17 and the figures 9 and 10. When these values are plugged into the equation it leads to: arctan((1/(1/1.0))/(2*1.0)) = arctan(0.5)=26.566° which is within a degree of the 26° given for examples 10 and 11, which “substantially satisfies” the equation, as it lies within the narrowest tolerance range of +3°/-1° claimed in claim 17).
Regarding claim 10, Yamauchi discloses the claim limitations of claim 9 above and Yamauchi further discloses an actually realised angle β* of at least one gill deviates by up to +/-3°, from the gill relationship β= arctan ((1/RD) / (2* KT)) (as described in the rejection of claim 9 above with respect to the example 10 and 11 in table 4 on page 28).
Regarding claim 11, Yamauchi discloses the claim limitations of claim 9 above and Yamauchi further discloses wherein the individual gills (5) of the plurality of gills are arranged and oriented relative to one another so that at least one first gill arranged in a grid line of the plurality of grid lines is substantially arranged in a virtual extension along the extension direction of a second gill which is arranged in a grid column adjacent to the certain grid column with the first gill (where as seen in figure 3 the louver in the fourth column of louvers from the left in the top most louver fin 4 is aligned along a virtual extension with a louver in the first column from the left in the bottom most louver fin 4 in figure 3).
Regarding claim 13, Yamauchi discloses the claim limitations of claim 9 above and Yamauchi further discloses the gills are provided with of gill depth KT of at least 1.1mm ((1.1mm is disclosed in example 1 of table 1).
Regarding claim 15, Yamauchi discloses the claim limitations of claim 7 above and Yamauchi further discloses the corrugated fin (3) is provided in multiple first fluid paths (per page 9, line 11-24, where the heat exchanger has fins in parallel with each other at intervals) .
Regarding claim 15, Yamauchi discloses the claim limitations of claim 7 above and Yamauchi further discloses the corrugated fin (3) is provided in all first fluid paths (per page 9, line 11-24, where the heat exchanger is formed of tubes 1 and 2 disposed at an interval and in contact with fins in parallel with each other at intervals where the refrigerant in the tubes exchanges heat with the air passing over the fins 3).
Regarding claim 17, Yamauchi discloses the claim limitations of claim 10 above and Yamauchi further discloses the actually realised angle β* of at least one gill deviates by up to +3°/-1° from the gill relationship β= arctan ((1/RD) / (2* KT)) (as described in the rejection of claim 9 above with respect to the example 10 and 11 in table 4 on page 28).
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi (WO 2004/102102 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Yamauchi discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 above However, Yamauchi does not expressly disclose a material thickness of the fin sheet is between 0.05 mm and 0.1 mm. As Yamauchi is silent as to the fin thickness as defined above.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Yamauchi to have a material thickness of the fin sheet is between 0.05 mm and 0.1 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. In the instant case, the device of Yamauchi would not operate differently with the claimed thickness and since the disclosed fin dimension are of a similar scale the device would function appropriately having the claimed fin thickness. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the thickness is practically within the claimed ranges (per page 8, line 6-7 of the substitute specification).
Regarding claim 6 and 14, Yamauchi discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 above However, Yamauchi does not expressly disclose a fin depth of the corrugated fin measured in the flow direction is between 15 mm and 80 mm, or is between 15 mm and 55 mm. As Yamauchi is silent as to the fin depth as defined above.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Yamauchi to have a fin depth of the corrugated fin measured in the flow direction is between 15 mm and 80 mm, or is between 15 mm and 55 mm, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. In the instant case, the device of Yamauchi would not operate differently with the claimed fin depth and since the disclosed fin dimension are of a similar scale the device would function appropriately having the claimed fin depth. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the depth is in an exemplary scenario within the claimed ranges (per page 7, line 20-22 of the substitute specification).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Antonijevic (US 20050077036 A1), Averous et al. (US 20040173344 A1), Iino et al. (EP 1832832 A1), Kohl et al. (DE 102009021179 A1), and Yuan (WO 2005075917 A1) disclose similar louvered fins.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANS R. WEILAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-3 EST and alternating Fridays.
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.
/HANS R WEILAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763