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 .
Response to Arguments
Examiner notes that claim 3 is currently Amended while the status identifier recites (Original). Therefore, Examiner notes that each claim must be shown with the appropriate status identifier (i.e. Currently Amended, New, Withdrawn, Canceled, etc.).
In view of Applicant remarks, the previously set forth claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed with respect to the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the Amendment. Accordingly, the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn. Please see below for new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), necessitated by Amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument in pages 9-11 regarding the limitation of “a distance between the heat absorbing tube…”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that HIROTSU was relied upon as the evidence that it’s an engineering design choice to have the distances between the heat absorbing tubes to be the same or different. Moreover, in response to Applicant's argument that there is no suggestion to combine the references, the Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one skilled in the art would be motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. In re Nomiya, 184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975). However, there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be expressly articulated. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures, taken as a whole, would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA. 1969). Furthermore, it has been held that the motivation to combine the references to arrive at the claimed invention may be found in the “nature of the problem to be solved” when each reference is directed "to precisely the same problem" Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The court also rejected the notion that “an express written motivation to combine must appear in prior art references….” Id. at 1276, 69 USPQ2d at 1690. Examiner also note thar the motivation for modifying a primary reference need not come from the primary reference itself, but may come from a secondary reference. In re Laskowski, 10 USPQ2d 1397 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Therefore, the previous rejection is maintained, modified as necessitated by Amendment.
Examiner notes that Applicant may wish to discuss proposed amendments with the Examiner by scheduling an interview using the contact information below.
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 1-6 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.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “a meander passage is provided in each of the two stages consisting of a first stage at an upstream side and a second stage at a downstream side in the flow direction of the combustion gas, each stage comprising a plurality of the heat absorbing tubes arranged in the Y-axis direction and connected in series from an outermost side of one side to an outermost side of the other side in the Y-axis direction, the plurality of heat absorbing tubes in each stage being connected by a connecting portion located outside the casing at both ends of the stage” is unclear. First, it’s unclear as to what Applicant is referring to by “each stage comprising a plurality of the heat absorbing tubes arranged in the Y-axis direction and connected in series from an outermost side of one side to an outermost side of the other side in the Y-axis direction” since the claim already recites “a plurality of heat absorbing tubes” and “wherein the heat absorbing tubes are divided into two stages”. Second, it’s unclear as to what Applicant is referring to by “the plurality of heat absorbing tubes in each stage being connected by a connecting portion” since the claim already recites “a connecting portion connecting the heat absorbing tubes in series at outsides”. Moreover, it’s unclear as to what Applicant is referring to by “at both ends of the stage” since the claim defines two stages, which stage of the two stages is being referred to in “at both ends of the stage” ? To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as if Applicant is claiming that the heat absorbing tubes are divided into two stages and the connecting portion in both recitations is the same structure.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “a heat absorbing tube at the downstream end in the one of the first and second stages and the heat absorbing tube at the upstream end, which is positioned at the outermost side of the other side in the Y-axis direction, of the meander passage in the other of the first and second stages are connected to each other, allowing the fluid to be heated to flow between the meander passage in the first and second stages” is unclear. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the heat absorbing tube at the upstream” in the claim. Second, it’s unclear as to what Applicant is referring to by “allowing the fluid to be heated to flow between the meander passage in the first and second stages”. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as if Applicant is claiming a heat absorbing tube at the downstream end in the one of the first and second stages and another heat absorbing tube at the upstream end, which is positioned at the outermost side of the other side in the Y-axis direction, of the meander passage in the other of the first and second stages are connected to each other, allowing the fluid to be heated while flowing in the meander passage between the first and second stages.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “a distance between the heat absorbing tube at the upstream end positioned at the outermost side of the one side in the Y-axis direction of the meander passage in the one of the stages and the heat absorbing tube at the downstream end positioned at the outermost side of the same side in the Y-axis direction of the meander passage in the other stages is longer than any distance between each heat absorbing tube other than the heat absorbing tube at the upstream end of the meander passage in the one of the stages and each heat absorbing tube other than the heat absorbing tube at the downstream end of the meander passage in the other of the stages that is the closest to the each heat absorbing tube other than the heat absorbing tube at the upstream end of the meander passage in the one of the stages” is unclear. First, it’s unclear as to what Applicant is referring to by “in the other stages” since the claim recites only two stages. Moreover, it’s unclear as to what Applicant is referring to by “any distance between each heat absorbing tube other than the heat absorbing tube at the upstream end of the meander passage in the one of the stages and each heat absorbing tube other than the heat absorbing tube at the downstream end of the meander passage in the other of the stages that is the closest to the each heat absorbing tube other than the heat absorbing tube at the upstream end of the meander passage in the one of the stages” since “any distance between each heat absorbing” would includes distances that are not equivalent, in measurement locations perspective, to the respective distance between adjacent heat absorbing tubes, which makes the above limitation ambiguous and may raise new matter issue under 112(a). To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as if Applicant is claiming that the distance between the heat absorbing tube at the upstream end positioned at the outermost side of the one side in the Y-axis direction of the meander passage in the one of the stages and the heat absorbing tube at the downstream end positioned at the outermost side of the same side in the Y-axis direction of the meander passage in the other stage is longer than respective distance between any other adjacent heat absorbing tubes.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation of “an upstream side” is unclear since claim 1 already recites “an upstream side”. Therefore, it’s unclear the upstream side in both recitations is the same side or different. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as “the upstream side”
Claims 2 and 4-6 are rejected at least insofar as they are dependent on rejected claim(s), and therefore include the same error(s).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KONDO (US 20190154300 A1: Previously cited) in view of HIROTSU (JP2014137208A: Machine Translation was previously provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 1, KONDO teaches a heat exchanger (10: see Figures 1-4) heated by a combustion gas (see ¶ [0038]), comprising,
a rectangular cylindrical casing (12) an inside of which the combustion gas flows in (see ¶ [0038]); on a premise that two orthogonal directions crossing a flow direction of the combustion gas in the casing (see Figures 7 and 8 where XD crossing YD) are defined as an X-axis direction (XD as shown in Figure 7) and a Y-axis direction (XD as shown in Figure 8: hereinafter XD2), respectively;
a plurality of heat absorbing fins (11a) stacked and arranged in the X-axis direction in the casing (see Figure 3);
a plurality of heat absorbing tubes (11b) piercing through the heat absorbing fins (11a) and side plates (12a and 12b) of both sides in the X-axis direction of the casing (see Figure 7), and an inside of which (inside 11b) a fluid (water) to be heated flows in (¶ [0043]), and a connecting portion (15) connecting the heat absorbing tubes (11b) in series at outsides of the side plates (12a and 12b) of both sides in the X-axis direction of the casing (see Figure 5),
wherein the heat absorbing tubes (11b) are divided into two stages (11b in upper row and lower row) and arranged in the flow direction of the combustion gas (see Figure 3),
a meander passage (passage of 11b and 15) is provided in each of the two stages consisting of a first stage at an upstream side and a second stage at a downstream side in the flow direction of the combustion gas (see in Figures 3-5 where the passage of 11b and 15 is provided 11b of upper row and lower row as two stages), each stage comprising a plurality of the heat absorbing tubes arranged in the Y-axis direction and connected in series from an outermost side of one side to an outermost side of the other side in the Y-axis direction, the plurality of heat absorbing tubes in each stage being connected by a connecting portion located outside the casing at both ends of the stage (see in Figures 3-5 where plurality of heat absorbing tubes (11b) in the upper and the lower rows are connected from an outermost side of one side in the Y-axis direction to an outermost side of the other side via connecting portion (15)),
the heat absorbing tubes at upstream and downstream ends of the meander passage in one of the first and second stages are positioned at the outermost sides of the one and the other sides in the Y-axis direction, respectively, and a heat absorbing tube at the downstream end in the one of the first and second stages and the heat absorbing tube at the upstream end, which is positioned at the outermost side of the other side in the Y-axis direction, of the meander passage in the other of the first and second stages are connected to each other, allowing the fluid to be heated to flow between the meander passage in the first and second stages (see in Figures 3-5 where the passage of 11b and 15 starts at the outermost sides of the one and the other sides in the Y-axis direction to the outermost side of the other side in the Y-axis direction forming two stages (i.e. upper row and lower row of 11b) allowing the fluid to be heated to flow between the meander passage in the first and second stages).
KONDO does not teach a distance between the heat absorbing tube at the upstream end positioned at the outermost side of the one side in the Y-axis direction of the meander passage in the one of the stages and the heat absorbing tube at the downstream end positioned at the outermost side of the same side in the Y-axis direction of the meander passage in the other stages is longer than any distance between each heat absorbing tube other than the heat absorbing tube at the upstream end of the meander passage in the one of the stages and each heat absorbing tube other than the heat absorbing tube at the downstream end of the meander passage in the other of the stages that is the closest to the each heat absorbing tube other than the heat absorbing tube at the upstream end of the meander passage in the one of the stages.
However, it’s an engineering design choice to have the distances between the heat absorbing tubes to be the same or different, as evidenced by HIROTSU, see HIROTSU’s Figure 8 where the distances (PP1 and PP2) between the heat absorbing tubes (115, 115a, 116a) are the same (see Figure 8 and ¶ [0028]) or Figure 7 where the distances (P1 and P2) between the heat absorbing tubes (115, 115a, 116a) are different (see HIROTSU’s Figure 13 annotated and edited by Examiner and cf. Figure 7: also see ¶ [0022]) where a distance (P2) between the heat absorbing tube (15U1) and the heat absorbing tube (15L1) is longer than a respective distance between the heat absorbing tube (15U2) and the heat absorbing tube (15L2), the heat absorbing tube (15U3) and the heat absorbing tube (15L3), the heat absorbing tube (15U4) and the heat absorbing tube (15L4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distances between the heat absorbing tubes of KONDO to have a distance between the heat absorbing tube at the upstream end positioned at the outermost side of the one side in the Y-axis direction of the meander passage in the one of the stages and the heat absorbing tube at the downstream end positioned at the outermost side of the same side in the Y-axis direction of the meander passage in the other stages is longer than any distance between each heat absorbing tube other than the heat absorbing tube at the upstream end of the meander passage in the one of the stages and each heat absorbing tube other than the heat absorbing tube at the downstream end of the meander passage in the other of the stages that is the closest to the each heat absorbing tube other than the heat absorbing tube at the upstream end of the meander passage in the one of the stages as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
1048
1337
media_image1.png
Greyscale
HIROTSU’s Figure 13 annotated and edited by Examiner
Regarding claim 2, KONDO as modified further teaches wherein a direction for lengthening the distance between the heat absorbing tube at the upstream end of the meander passage in the one of the stages and the heat absorbing tube at the downstream end of the meander passage in the other of the stages is set to the flow direction of the combustion gas (see HIROTSU’s Figure 13 annotated and edited by Examiner and cf. Figure 7 where the direction for lengthening the distance between 15U1 and 15L1 is set to the flow direction of the combustion gas (i.e. vertical direction)).
Regarding claim 6, KONDO as modified further teaches further comprising an exhaust gas gathering portion covering an opening at the downstream end in the flow direction of the combustion gas (see in Figures 1 and 2 where 20 is covering an opening at the downstream end in the flow direction of the combustion gas of the casing).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KONDO (US 20190154300 A1: Previously cited) in view of HIROTSU (JP2014137208A: Machine Translation was previously provided by Examiner) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of YAGI (JP 2903144 B2: Machine Translation was previously provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 5, KONDO as modified further teaches wherein in a case where the one of the stages is the first stage and the other of the stages is the second stage, an exhaust gas gathering portion covering an opening at the downstream end in the flow direction of the combustion gas of the casing is provided (see in Figures 1 and 2 where 20 is covering an opening at the downstream end in the flow direction of the combustion gas of the casing), and an exhaust port for discharging the combustion gas is opened at the exhaust gas gathering portion (see in Figures 1 and 2 where 20 lower side has exhaust port for discharging the combustion gas).
KONDO does not teach wherein: the exhaust port is provided at a deviated portion of the other side in the Y-axis direction of the exhaust gas gathering portion.
However, it’s old and well known for heat exchangers to have the exhaust port is provided at a deviated portion of the other side in the Y-axis direction of the exhaust gas gathering portion, as evidenced by YAGI, see in YAGI’s Figure 2 where the exhaust port (21) is provided at a deviated portion (right side of the heat exchanger) of the other side in the Y-axis direction of the exhaust gas gathering portion (upper end of 2a).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the exhaust port of KONDO to be at a deviated portion of the other side in the Y-axis direction of the exhaust gas gathering portion, since as evidenced by YAGI, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of directing the exhaust gas to the desired location based on intended use location of the heat exchanger.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KONDO (US 20190154300 A1: Previously cited) in view of HIROTSU (JP2014137208A: Machine Translation was previously provided by Examiner) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KONDO’071 (US 20200033071 A1: Previously cited: hereinafter KONDO’071).
Regarding claim 3, KONDO as modified further teaches wherein in a case where the one of the stages is the first stage and the other of the stages is the second stage, wherein: notches are provided with each heat absorbing fin at portions positioned at a more upstream side in the flow direction of the combustion gas than each heat absorbing tube of the meander passage in the second stage, the notches corresponding to the heat absorbing tube at the downstream end of the meander passage in the second stage are defined as first notches and the notches corresponding to each heat absorbing tube other than the heat absorbing tube at the downstream end of the meander passage in the second stage are defined as second notches (KONDO’s Figure 8 annotated by Examiner).
KONDO does not teach the first notches are formed larger than the second notches.
KONDO’071 teaches fins (5) having notches (51) closest to casing (2: see Figures 2 and 3A) are provided with large notches with longer extension portion (51a’), and small notches with shorter extension portion (51a).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KONDO’s first notches to be formed larger than the second notches, as taught by KONDO’071, in order to reduce stress generated in fins (see KONDO’071 ¶ [0041]).
KONDO’s Figure 8 annotated by Examiner
PNG
media_image2.png
597
645
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, KONDO does not teach wherein in a case where the one of the stages is the first stage and the other of the stages is the second stage, wherein: a ventilation resistant portion which suppresses the combustion gas from being directed to the heat absorbing tube at the downstream end of the meander passage in the second stage is provided.
KONDO’071 teaches fins (5) having a ventilation resistant portion (53: see Figure 3A) which suppresses the combustion gas from being directed to the heat absorbing tube (4B) at the downstream end (see KONDO’071 ¶ [0040]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide KONDO’s fins with a ventilation resistant portion which suppresses the combustion gas from being directed to the heat absorbing tube at the downstream end of the meander passage in the second stage is provided, as taught by KONDO’071, to improve the thermal efficiency by performing an action for obstructing the flow of the combustion gas (see KONDO’071 ¶ [0040]).
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 KHALED AL SAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-8685. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM~3:30PM, M-F (E.S.T.).
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.
/KHALED AHMED ALI AL SAMIRI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763