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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-8 are pending and have been examined in this application. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/27/2026 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110678660A to Murakami in view of JP2005106329A to Wada.
A) As per Claim 1, Murakami teaches an air conditioner for a railway vehicle (Murakami: Figures 1A-1B), the air conditioner comprising:
a first heat exchanger and a second heat exchanger facing each other (Murakami: Figures 1A-1B, Items 21a-21b); and
a blower (Murakami: Figure 1A-1B, Item 30) located between the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger and configured to generate airflow passing through the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger.
Murakami does not teach each of the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger including a body including a stacked structure in which refrigerant pipes and fins are alternately stacked in a direction perpendicular to a thickness direction in which the airflow passes through the first heat exchanger or the second heat exchanger, each of the refrigerant pipes internally defining a plurality of refrigerant flow paths, the plurality of refrigerant flow paths in each of the refrigerant pipes being arranged in the thickness direction,
a first header pipe located at a first end of the body in a length direction of the refrigerant pipes, the first header pipe connecting the plurality of refrigerant flow paths in each of the refrigerant pipes to one another at the first end, and
a second header pipe located at a second end of the body in the length direction of the refrigerant pipes, the second header pipe directly connecting, entirely within a flow path in the second header pipe, the plurality of refrigerant flow paths in each of the refrigerant pipes to one another at the second end.
However, Wada teaches a heat exchanger (Wada: Figure 1) including a body including a stacked structure in which refrigerant pipes and fins are alternately stacked in a direction perpendicular to a thickness direction in which the airflow passes through the first heat exchanger or the second heat exchanger (Wada: best shown in Figure 11, Item 105 and 104 alternates), each of the refrigerant pipes internally defining a plurality of refrigerant flow paths, the plurality of refrigerant flow paths in each of the refrigerant pipes being arranged in the thickness direction (Wada: best shown in Figure 3, Item 16),
a first header pipe (Wada: Figure 1, Item 2) located at a first end of the body in a length direction of the refrigerant pipes, the first header pipe connecting the plurality of refrigerant flow paths in each of the refrigerant pipes to one another at the first end, and
a second header pipe (Wada: Figure 1, Item 3 fully connected through hole in Item 12) located at a second end of the body in the length direction of the refrigerant pipes, the second header pipe directly connecting, entirely within a flow path in the second header pipe, the plurality of refrigerant flow paths in all of the refrigerant pipes to one another at the second end.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Murakami by having heat exchanger structure, as taught by Wada, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Murakami with these aforementioned teachings of Wada since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the heat exchanger structure of Wada for the heat exchanger structure of Murakami.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
B) As per Claim 2, Murakami in view of Wada teaches that the first header pipe of the first heat exchanger has an inlet through which a refrigerant to be used by the first heat exchanger for heat exchange flows in, and an outlet through which the refrigerant used by the first heat exchanger for the heat exchange flows out (Wada: Figure 1, Item 2, with Items 9-10, formed in one of Items 21a-21b in Murakami),
the first header pipe of the second heat exchanger has an inlet through which a refrigerant to be used by the second heat exchanger for heat exchange flows in, and an outlet through which the refrigerant used by the second heat exchanger for the heat exchange flows out, and the first header pipe of the first heat exchanger and the first header pipe of the second heat exchanger face each other (Wada: Figure 1, Item 2, with Items 9-10, formed in one of Items 21a-21b in Murakami).
C) As per Claim 3, Murakami in view of Wada teaches that a housing defining a first compartment and a second compartment, the first compartment accommodating the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger, the second compartment accommodating a first cooperative device and a second cooperative device, the first cooperative device providing a first refrigeration cycle in cooperation with the first heat exchanger, the second cooperative device providing a second refrigeration cycle in cooperation with the second heat exchanger, the housing including a partition wall partitioning the first compartment and the second compartment from each other, wherein the first header pipe of the first heat exchanger and the first header pipe of the second heat exchanger face the partition wall (Murakami: best shown in Figure 8A).
D) As per Claims 4 & 8, Murakami in view of Wada teaches that the inlet of the first header pipe of the first heat exchanger and the inlet of the first header pipe of the second heat exchanger face each other, and the outlet of the first header pipe of the first heat exchanger and the outlet of the first header pipe of the second heat exchanger face each other (Wada: Figure 1, Item 2, with Items 9-10, formed in one of Items 21a-21b in Murakami).
E) As per Claim 5, Murakami in view of Wada teaches that the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger are condensers to condense a refrigerant (Murakami: Figure 1, Items 21a-21b, are both condensers).
F) As per Claim 6, Murakami in view of Wada teaches that the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger are symmetric to each other with respect to an imaginary plane extending through a position of the blower (Murakami: Figure 1, Items 21a-21b).
G) As per Claim 7, Murakami in view of Wada teaches a bottom plate on which the first heat exchanger, the second heat exchanger, and the blower are installed, wherein each of the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger is at an angle greater than or equal to 0 degrees and less than or equal to 90 degrees with respect to a surface of the bottom plate (Murakami: Figure 1, Items 21a-21b are both at angle with respect to bottom plate).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN SCHULT whose telephone number is (571)272-8511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, STEVE MCALLISTER can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762