DETAILED ACTION
Amendments filed on 12/18/2025 have been entered. Claims 16, 19 cancelled,
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 § 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-3, 6, 9-15, 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui (CN 107504837 A), in view of Park (US 2020/0284482 A1), and in view of Komiya (WO 2019130394 A1).
Claim 1: Cui discloses a heat exchanger (FIG.2) comprising:
a plurality of front refrigerant tubes (22) to flow a refrigerant and that extend in a first direction (left-right);
a plurality of rear refrigerant tubes (21) to flow the refrigerant and that extend in the first direction (left-right), the plurality of rear refrigerant tubes spaced apart from the plurality of front refrigerant tubes in a second direction (front-rear) that crosses the first direction (left-right);
fins (32) that are disposed between the plurality of front refrigerant tubes (22) and the plurality of rear refrigerant tubes (21) to conduct heat, and that extend in a third direction (up-down) that crosses the first direction (left-right) and the second direction (front-rear);
a pair of front headers (1) that are connected with respective ends of the plurality of front refrigerant tubes (22) to supply the refrigerant (first tubes 21 and second tubes 22 respectively connected with four headers 1); and
a pair of rear headers (1) that are connected with respective ends of the plurality of rear refrigerant tubes (21) to supply the refrigerant, wherein the front headers (1) and the rear headers (1) extend in the third direction (up-down).
[AltContent: textbox (left-right)][AltContent: textbox (up-down)][AltContent: textbox (front-rear)]
PNG
media_image1.png
613
807
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cui discloses the claimed limitations in claim 1, but fails to disclose an air intake port that is disposed lower than the fins and through which air is suctioned; and an air discharge port that is disposed higher than the fins and through which suctioned air is discharged, wherein the fins are divided into a left region, a right region, and a central region between the left region and the right region, and the density of the fins at the central region is lower than the density of the fins at the left region and the density of the fins at the right region.
However, Park teaches an air intake port (inflow portion 31) through which air is suctioned; and an air discharge port (outflow portion 32) through which suctioned air is discharged (paragraph [60]: inflow and outflow portions may be provided at rear cover so to be disposed at different positions) for the purpose of circulating air through the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Cui to include an air intake port through which air is suctioned; and an air discharge port and through which suctioned air is discharged as taught by Park in order to circulate air through the system.
Further, concerning air intake/air discharge ports disposed lower/higher than the fins. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Lim to include air intake/air discharge ports disposed lower/higher than the fins in order to enhance the air flow through the system, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art - Location of Parts: MPEP 2144.04 VI-C.
Further, Komiya teaches the fins (fins in three regions 31b/31a/41a based on air flow direction and arrangement of the heat exchanger it is interpreted that 31b is left region, 31a is center region and 41a is right region) are divided into a left region (31b is left region), a right region (41a is right region), and a central region (31a is center region) between the left region and the right region (see FIG.3) for the purpose of improving the performance of the heat exchanger (paragraph [3]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Cui to include the fins are divided into a left region, a right region, and a central region between the left region and the right region as taught by Komiya in order to improve the performance of the heat exchanger.
Further, Komiya teaches the claimed limitations in claim 19, except for the density of the fins at the central region is lower than the density of the fins at the left region and the density of the fins at the right region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Komiya to include the density of the fins at the central region is lower than the density of the fins at the left region and the density of the fins at the right region in order to improve the performance of the heat exchanger, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art - Optimum value: MPEP 2144.05 II-B.
Claim 2: Cui as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein a width of the front refrigerant tubes (22) in the third direction (up-down) is wider than a width of the front refrigerant tubes in the second direction (front-rear) (to clarify, as shown in FIG.2 width of each tube in up-down direction is longer than width of each tube front-rear direction).
Claim 3: Cui as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein a width of the rear refrigerant tubes (21) in the third direction (up-down) is wider than a width of the rear refrigerant tubes in the second direction (front-rear) (to clarify, as shown in FIG.2 width of each tube in up-down direction is longer than width of each tube front-rear direction).
Claim 6: Cui as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of front refrigerant tubes (22) are spaced apart from each other (see FIG.2) in the third direction (up-down).
Claim 9: Cui as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein a flow direction of air is in the third direction (to clarify, air flow can be applied in third direction).
Claim 10: Cui as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 6, wherein a pitch of the plurality of front refrigerant tubes (22) is wider than a width of the front refrigerant tubes (22) in the third direction (to clarify, pitch is a length from a center of one tube to the center of another tube, therefore pitch of tube 22 is wider than width of each tube in up-down direction).
Claim 11: Cui as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein an area of the fins (32) when viewed in the first direction (left-right) is larger than an area of the fins when viewed in the third direction (as shown in figures area of fins in left-right direction is larger than in up-down direction, number of walls or bents section 323 of fins larger in left-right direction).
Claim 12: Cui as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the fins (32) are in contact with one surface (inherent) of the plurality of front refrigerant tubes (22) and one surface (inherent) of the plurality of rear refrigerant tubes (21).
Claim 13: Cui as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 12, wherein the fins (32) are in contact with a surface (inherent) of the plurality of front refrigerant tubes (22) in the third direction that is wider than a surface (inherent) of the plurality of front refrigerant tubes in the second direction, and are in contact with a surface (inherent) of the plurality of rear refrigerant tubes (21) in the third direction that is wider than a surface (inherent) of the plurality of front refrigerant tubes in the second direction (to clarify, surface of both set of tubes viewed in up-down direction is wider than surface viewed in front-rear direction because in up-down direction the longer sides of tubes viewed and in front-rear direction the shorter side of tubes viewed).
Claim 14: Cui as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein a flow direction of air is in the third direction (to clarify, air flow can be applied in third direction).
Claim 15: Cui discloses a heat exchanger (FIG.2) comprising:
a plurality of refrigerant tubes (21/22) to flow a refrigerant and that extend in a left-right direction (left-right);
fins (32) that are connected with the plurality of refrigerant tubes (21/22) to conduct heat; and
a pair of headers (1) (first tubes 21 and second tubes 22 respectively connected with four headers 1) that are connected with respective ends of the plurality of refrigerant tubes (21/22) to supply the refrigerant;
wherein a width (in up-down direction the longer side of width shown and in front-rear direction the shorter side of width shown) of the refrigerant tubes (21/22) in an up-down direction is wider than a width of the refrigerant tubes (21/22) in a front-rear direction,
Cui discloses the claimed limitations in claim 15, but fails to disclose an air intake port that is disposed lower than the fins and through which air is suctioned; and an air discharge port that is disposed higher than the fins and through which suctioned air is discharged, wherein the fins are divided into a left region, a right region, and a central region between the left region and the right region, and the density of the fins at the central region is lower than the density of the fins at the left region and the density of the fins at the right region.
However, Park teaches an air intake port (inflow portion 31) through which air is suctioned; and an air discharge port (outflow portion 32) through which suctioned air is discharged (paragraph [60]: inflow and outflow portions may be provided at rear cover so to be disposed at different positions) for the purpose of circulating air through the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Cui to include an air intake port through which air is suctioned; and an air discharge port and through which suctioned air is discharged as taught by Park in order to circulate air through the system.
Further, concerning air intake/air discharge ports disposed lower/higher than the fins. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Lim to include air intake/air discharge ports disposed lower/higher than the fins in order to enhance the air flow through the system, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art - Location of Parts: MPEP 2144.04 VI-C.
Further, Komiya teaches the fins (fins in three regions 31b/31a/41a based on air flow direction and arrangement of the heat exchanger it is interpreted that 31b is left region, 31a is center region and 41a is right region) are divided into a left region (31b is left region), a right region (41a is right region), and a central region (31a is center region) between the left region and the right region (see FIG.3) for the purpose of improving the performance of the heat exchanger (paragraph [3]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Cui to include the fins are divided into a left region, a right region, and a central region between the left region and the right region as taught by Komiya in order to improve the performance of the heat exchanger.
Further, Komiya teaches the claimed limitations in claim 19, except for the density of the fins at the central region is lower than the density of the fins at the left region and the density of the fins at the right region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Komiya to include the density of the fins at the central region is lower than the density of the fins at the left region and the density of the fins at the right region in order to improve the performance of the heat exchanger, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art - Optimum value: MPEP 2144.05 II-B.
Claim 20: Cui discloses a heat exchanger (FIG.2) comprising:
a plurality of front refrigerant tubes (21/22) to flow a refrigerant and that extend in a first direction (left-right);
a plurality of rear refrigerant tubes (21) to flow the refrigerant and that extend in the first direction, the plurality of rear refrigerant tubes (21) spaced apart from the plurality of front refrigerant tubes (22) in a second direction (front-rear) that crosses the first direction (left-right);
fins (32) that are disposed between the plurality of front refrigerant tubes (22) and the plurality of rear refrigerant tubes (21) to conduct heat;
a pair of front headers (1) that are connected with respective ends of the plurality of front refrigerant tubes (22) to supply the refrigerant;
a pair of rear headers (1) (first tubes 21 and second tubes 22 respectively connected with four headers 1) that are connected with respective ends of the plurality of rear refrigerant tubes (21) to supply the refrigerant;
wherein the fins (32) define surfaces crossing between the first direction (left-right) and the second direction (front-rear) and define air flow paths to pass air in a third direction (up-down),
Cui discloses the claimed limitations in claim 20, but fails to disclose an air intake port that is disposed lower than the fins and through which air is suctioned; and an air discharge port that is disposed higher than the fins and through which suctioned air is discharged, wherein the fins are divided into a left region, a right region, and a central region between the left region and the right region, and the density of the fins at the central region is lower than the density of the fins at the left region and the density of the fins at the right region.
However, Park teaches an air intake port (inflow portion 31) through which air is suctioned; and an air discharge port (outflow portion 32) through which suctioned air is discharged (paragraph [60]: inflow and outflow portions may be provided at rear cover so to be disposed at different positions) for the purpose of circulating air through the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Cui to include an air intake port through which air is suctioned; and an air discharge port and through which suctioned air is discharged as taught by Park in order to circulate air through the system.
Further, concerning air intake/air discharge ports disposed lower/higher than the fins. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Lim to include air intake/air discharge ports disposed lower/higher than the fins in order to enhance the air flow through the system, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art - Location of Parts: MPEP 2144.04 VI-C.
Further, Komiya teaches the fins (fins in three regions 31b/31a/41a based on air flow direction and arrangement of the heat exchanger it is interpreted that 31b is left region, 31a is center region and 41a is right region) are divided into a left region (31b is left region), a right region (41a is right region), and a central region (31a is center region) between the left region and the right region (see FIG.3) for the purpose of improving the performance of the heat exchanger (paragraph [3]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Cui to include the fins are divided into a left region, a right region, and a central region between the left region and the right region as taught by Komiya in order to improve the performance of the heat exchanger.
Further, Komiya teaches the claimed limitations in claim 19, except for the density of the fins at the central region is lower than the density of the fins at the left region and the density of the fins at the right region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Komiya to include the density of the fins at the central region is lower than the density of the fins at the left region and the density of the fins at the right region in order to improve the performance of the heat exchanger, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art - Optimum value: MPEP 2144.05 II-B.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui (CN 107504837 A), in view of Park (US 2020/0284482 A1), in view of Komiya (WO 2019130394 A1), and in view of Steinbach (US 2017/0146299 A1).
Claim 4: Cui fails to disclose wherein the front refrigerant tubes overlap with the rear refrigerant tubes when viewed in the second direction.
However, Steinbach teaches the front refrigerant tubes overlap with the rear refrigerant tubes when viewed in the second direction (paragraph [29]: heat exchanger with tubes 2 in column 28 and tubes 2 in column 27; as shown in figures 1 and 2 tubes of column 28 overlap with tubes of column 27) for the purpose of increasing heat transfer effectiveness over cross flow arrangement (paragraph [29]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Cui to include the front refrigerant tubes overlap with the rear refrigerant tubes when viewed in the second direction as taught by Steinbach in order to increase heat transfer effectiveness over cross flow arrangement.
PNG
media_image2.png
406
551
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui (CN 107504837 A), in view of Park (US 2020/0284482 A1), in view of Komiya (WO 2019130394 A1), and in view of Seo (US 2018/0073809 A1).
Claim 5: Cui fails to disclose wherein the front refrigerant tubes and the rear refrigerant tubes include a plurality of microchannels therein to flow the refrigerant.
However, Seo teaches the front refrigerant tubes and the rear refrigerant tubes include a plurality of microchannels therein to flow the refrigerant (paragraph [57]: a plurality of micro-tubes provided inside the flat shape and refrigerant flows through the tubes 10 through the micro-tubes) for the purpose of enhancing the refrigerant flow through the tubes (paragraph [57]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Cui to include the front refrigerant tubes and the rear refrigerant tubes include a plurality of microchannels therein to flow the refrigerant as taught by Seo in order to enhance the refrigerant flow through the tubes.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui (CN 107504837 A), in view of Park (US 2020/0284482 A1), in view of Komiya (WO 2019130394 A1), and in view of Huang (US 2019/0368817 A1).
Claim 7: Cui fails to disclose wherein the plurality of front refrigerant tubes overlap with each other when viewed in the third direction.
However, Huang teaches the plurality of front refrigerant tubes (tubes 102/104) overlap with each other when viewed in the third direction (paragraph 67]: tubes 102 and tubes 104 overlap with one another along length 106 of heat exchanger 100) for the purpose of increasing efficiency of multiple circuit system by alternating arrangement of the set of microchannels tubes (paragraph [50]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Cui to include the plurality of front refrigerant tubes overlap with each other when viewed in the third direction as taught by Huang in order to increase efficiency of multiple circuit system by alternating arrangement of the set of microchannels tubes.
PNG
media_image3.png
384
562
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui (CN 107504837 A), in view of Park (US 2020/0284482 A1), in view of Komiya (WO 2019130394 A1), and in view of Lim (US 2024/0102745 A1).
Claim 8: Cui fails to disclose wherein the front headers and the rear headers overlap with each other when viewed in the second direction.
However, Lim teaches the front headers and the rear headers overlap with each other when viewed in the second direction (as shown in FIG.2 headers 100 overlap each other respect to front-rear direction) for the purpose of preventing damage due to thermal stress and easy to assemble (paragraph [6]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Cui to include the front headers and the rear headers overlap with each other when viewed in the second direction as taught by Lim in order to prevent damage due to thermal stress and easy to assemble.
Claims 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui (CN 107504837 A), in view of Park (US 2020/0284482 A1), in view of Komiya (WO 2019130394 A1), and in view of Horii (WO 2015174055 A1).
Claim 17: Cui as modified further fails to disclose wherein a density of the fins is decreased toward the air intake port.
However, Horii teaches a density of the fins is decreased toward the air intake port (fins 3 as shown in FIG.1 density of fins 3 decreases towards the inlet where the air flows to the heat exchanger) for the purpose of improving the heat transfer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Cui to include a density of the fins is decreased toward the air intake port as taught by Horii in order to improve the heat transfer.
Claim 18: Cui as modified further fails to disclose wherein the fins are divided into a lower region and an upper region disposed higher than the lower region, and a density of the fins at the lower region is lower than a density of the fins at the upper region.
However, Horii teaches the fins (3) are divided into a lower region (lower region is at lower section of the heat exchanger shown in FIG.1) and an upper region (upper region is at top section of heat exchanger shown in FIG.1) disposed higher than the lower region (see FIG.1), and a density of the fins at the lower region is lower than the density of the fins at the upper region (shown in FIG.1 density of fins 3 in lower section is less than density of the fins at the upper section) for the purpose of achieving high efficiency.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Cui to include the fins are divided into a lower region and an upper region disposed higher than the lower region, and a density of the fins at the lower region is lower than the density of the fins at the upper region as taught by Horii in order to achieve high efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to all the claims under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument on pages 7-8: “the cited references do not disclose or suggest the above-noted features of claim 1. Horii does not disclose or suggest the density of the fins at the central region is lower than the density of the fins at the left region and the density of the fins at the right region as recited in claim 1. Komiya fails to disclose or suggest the density of the fins at the central region is lower than the density of the fins at the left region and the density of the fins at the right region as recited in claim 1. Komiya, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to derive to the claimed features to achieve the synergistic technical effect. Komiya is not about localized mitigation and drainage. Why was it not even mentioned in Komiya or other cited references if it improves performance?”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees: Cui is only modified by Komiya to teach the fins are divided into a left region, a right region, and a central region between the left region and the right region as indicated in the office action, in order to improve the performance of the heat exchanger in paragraph [3] of Komiya, further it is known in heat transfer that the main function of fins is to increase heat exchange therefore improving the performance of exchanging the heat, also different motivations are used for other references recited in the office action. There is no substitution of any other components of Cui with the reference. Further concerning the density of the fins at the central region is lower than the density of the fins at the left region and the density of the fins at the right region, based on broadest reasonable interpretation, it is known in the art that by increasing the number of fins would increase the heat exchange in the desired regions/areas. Therefore, it is obvious since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art in order to achieve a certain density based on the required heat transfer rate to increase or decrease number fins used in certain regions. Further, as indicated above Komiya was only used to teach fins in various regions, and all the other limitations disclosed by Cui, plus “localized mitigation and drainage” are not claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 KAMRAN TAVAKOLDAVANI whose telephone number is (313)446-6612. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 pm 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, Len Tran can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAMRAN TAVAKOLDAVANI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights