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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3, 6 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, as stated by Applicant in the response submitted 01/29/2026, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim 5 is withdrawn as Claim 5 contains the limitations “the first end portion is lower than the second end portion in the height direction of the heat exchanger”, which is drawn to the non-elected embodiment of figures 2-3. Claim 7 is also withdrawn as being dependent on withdrawn Claim 5.
Claim 9 is withdrawn as Claim 9 contains the limitations “the heat exchanger further comprises a third heat exchange tube located between the first heat exchange tube group and the second heat exchange tube group in the length direction of the heat exchanger”, which is drawn to the non-elected embodiment. The elected embodiment contains a plurality of heat exchange tubes that are flush and comprise different heights.
Claim 10 is withdrawn as Claim 10 contains the limitations “along the length direction of the heat exchanger, heights of the flow inlets of the first heat exchange tube group increase from the end of the first tube where the inlet tube is to the other end of the first tube”, which is drawn to the non-elected embodiment. The elected embodiment contains a plurality of heat exchange tubes that are flush and comprise different heights.
Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/29/2026.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 puts forth “a height difference between the flow inlet of the first heat exchange tube and the flow inlet of the second heat exchange tube in a height direction of the heat exchanger”, wherein the elected embodiment of figure 15 shows the plurality of tubes being flush within the header. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, the height difference between the first and second heat exchange tube will be interpreted as a height difference between any two portions of said first and second heat exchange tubes.
Claim 2 puts forth “a length of the first heat exchange tube inserted into the tube cavity of the first tube is less than a length of the second heat exchange tube inserted into the tube cavity of the first tube”, wherein the elected embodiment of figure 15 shows the plurality of tubes being flush within the header. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, the insertion difference between the first and second heat exchange tube will be interpreted as an insertion difference between any two portions of said first and second heat exchange tubes.
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 of this title, 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 1-2, 4, 8, 11-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US PG Pub. 2011/0247791A1) in view of Taras (USP 8333088B2) hereinafter referred to as Jiang and Taras, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Jiang discloses a heat exchanger (shown in figures 1-2), comprising:
a first tube (1) extending and arranged along a length direction of the heat exchanger (shown in figures 1-2);
a second tube (2) extending and arranged along the length direction of the heat exchanger (shown in figures 1-2);
an inlet tube (110) connected with the first tube (shown in figures 1-2); and
a heat exchange tube (3) connected with the first tube and the second tube (shown in figures 1-2), and
having a plurality of flow channels (“Two ends of each tube 3, such as flat tube, are connected to the first header 1 and the second header 2 respectively to communicate with the first header 1 and the second header 2 via refrigerant channels formed in each tube 3” (¶29, underline for emphasis)), wherein the plurality of flow channels are communicated with the first tube and the second tube (shown in figures 1-2),
the heat exchange tube (3) at least comprises a first heat exchange tube (shown in figure 1, being the bottom most tube (3)) and a second heat exchange tube (shown in figure 1, being the topmost tube (3)),
a flow inlet of the first heat exchange tube and a flow inlet of the second heat exchange tube are both arranged in a tube cavity of the first tube (shown in figures 1 and 2, wherein the tubes (3) allow for fluid transfer between the headers (1-2)). Jiang fails to disclose there is a height difference between the flow inlet of the first heat exchange tube and the flow inlet of the second heat exchange tube in a height direction of the heat exchanger.
Taras, also drawn to a heat exchanger having tubes extending between two headers, teaches there is a height difference between the flow inlet of the first heat exchange tube (shown in figure 2, being the top most tube) and the flow inlet of the second heat exchange tube (shown in figure 2, being the bottom most tube) in a height direction of the heat exchanger (shown in figure 7, wherein a cutout (82) is provided on the tube end providing different heights).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Jiang with a height difference between the flow inlet of the first heat exchange tube and the flow inlet of the second heat exchange tube in a height direction of the heat exchanger, as taught by Taras, the motivation being “refrigerant maldistribution conditions are avoided, the entire heat transfer surface is fully utilized, pressure drop through the heat exchanger is reduced and the heat exchanger performance is improved”.
Regarding Claim 2, a modified Jiang further teaches the first heat exchange tube and the second heat exchange tube are arranged in parallel (shown in figures 1-2 of Jiang),
the first heat exchange tube (shown in figure 1, being the bottom most tube (3)) has a first end portion (shown in figure 1 being inserted into the header (1)) and a second end portion (shown in figure 1 being the bent portion) in the height direction of the heat exchanger (shown in figure 1), and the first end portion is inserted into the tube cavity of the first tube (shown in figure 1); and
the first end portion is higher than the second end portion in the height direction of the heat exchanger (shown in figure 1), and a length of the first heat exchange tube inserted into the tube cavity of the first tube is less than a length of the second heat exchange tube inserted into the tube cavity of the first tube (as previously taught by Taras in the rejection of Claim 1, wherein the lateral portions of the tube (80) extend further into the header (30) on the second heat exchange tube than the central portion of the first heat exchange tube having the cutout (82), as shown in figure 7).
Regarding Claim 4, Jiang further discloses the first tube (1) is arranged in flush with the second tube (2, shown in figures 1-2).
Regarding Claim 8, Jiang further discloses a plurality of first heat exchange tubes (shown in figure 1, being the bottom half of the tubes (3)) are arranged at intervals along the length direction of the heat exchanger to form a first heat exchange tube group (shown in figure 1),
a plurality of second heat exchange tubes (shown in figure 1, being the top half of the tubes (3)) are arranged at intervals along the length direction of the heat exchanger to form a second heat exchange tube group (shown in figure 1), and
the inlet tube (110) is arranged at an end of the first tube (shown in figure 1), and the first heat exchange tube group is closer to the inlet tube than the second heat exchange tube group (shown in figure 1).
Regarding Claim 11, a modified Jiang further teaches the first heat exchange tube (shown in figure 2 of Taras, being the top most tube) comprises a first side portion (center portion of the tube of Taras having the cutout (82) as shown in figure 7) and a second side portion (lateral/longer side of the tube (80) of Taras as shown in figure 7) sequentially arranged along a width direction of the heat exchanger (shown in figure 7 of Taras), and in the height direction of the heat exchanger, the first side portion is lower than the second side portion (shown in figure 7 of Taras, wherein the lateral side of the tube of Taras extends into the header at a greater distance than the central portion having the cutout (82)).
Regarding Claim 12, a modified Jiang further teaches the second heat exchange tube (shown in figure 2 of Taras, being the bottom most tube) comprises a third side portion (center portion of the tube of Taras having the cutout (82) as shown in figure 7) and a fourth side portion (lateral/longer side of the tube (80) of Taras as shown in figure 7) sequentially arranged along a width direction of the heat exchanger (shown in figure 7 of Taras), and in the height direction of the heat exchanger, a height of the third side portion is smaller a height of the fourth side portion (shown in figure 7 of Taras, wherein the lateral side of the tube of Taras extends into the header at a greater distance than the central portion having the cutout (82)).
Regarding Claim 13, a modified Jiang further teaches the first heat exchange tube (shown in figure 2 of Taras, being the top most tube) comprises a first side portion (center portion of the tube of Taras having the cutout (82) as shown in figure 7) and a second side portion (lateral/longer side of the tube (80) of Taras as shown in figure 7) sequentially arranged along a width direction of the heat exchanger (shown in figure 7 of Taras), and in the height direction of the heat exchanger, the first side portion is lower than the second side portion (shown in figure 7 of Taras, wherein the lateral side of the tube of Taras extends into the header at a greater distance than the central portion having the cutout (82)); and
the second heat exchange tube (shown in figure 2 of Taras, being the bottom most tube) comprises a third side portion (center portion of the tube of Taras having the cutout (82) as shown in figure 7) and a fourth side portion (lateral/longer side of the tube (80) of Taras as shown in figure 7) sequentially arranged along a width direction of the heat exchanger (shown in figure 7 of Taras), and in the height direction of the heat exchanger, a height of the third side portion is smaller a height of the fourth side portion (shown in figure 7 of Taras, wherein the lateral side of the tube of Taras extends into the header at a greater distance than the central portion having the cutout (82)).
Regarding Claim 14, a modified Jiang further teaches a section of the first heat exchange tube (shown in figure 2 of Taras, being the top most tube) inserted into the tube cavity of the first tube (30 of Taras) has a first through hole (82), and the flow inlet of the first heat exchange tube includes the first through hole (shown in figures 2 and 7).
Regarding Claim 15, a modified Jiang further teaches a section of the second heat exchange tube (shown in figure 2, being the bottom most tube) inserted into the tube cavity of the first tube (30) has a second through hole (82), and the flow inlet of the second heat exchange tube comprises the second through hole (shown in figures 2 and 7).
Regarding Claim 16, a modified Jiang further teaches a section of the first heat exchange tube (shown in figure 2 of Taras, being the top most tube) inserted into the tube cavity of the first tube (30) has a first through hole (82), and the flow inlet of the first heat exchange tube includes the first through hole (shown in figures 2 and 7); and
a section of the second heat exchange tube (shown in figure 2, being the bottom most tube) inserted into the tube cavity of the first tube (30) has a second through hole (82), and the flow inlet of the second heat exchange tube comprises the second through hole (shown in figures 2 and 7).
Regarding Claim 17, a modified Jiang further teaches the height difference between the flow inlet of the first heat exchange tube and the flow inlet of the second heat exchange tube in the height direction of the heat exchanger is △H (shown in figure 7 of Taras, wherein a difference between the tubes heights is formed), a hydraulic diameter of the first tube is D (shown in figure 7 of Taras), and △H and D satisfy a condition: 1/12D＜△H＜D.
Regarding Claim 17, Jiang fails to disclose △H and D satisfy a condition: 1/12D＜△H＜D. Taras does, however, teach a height difference between the flow inlet of the first heat exchange tube and the flow inlet of the second heat exchange tube in the height direction of the heat exchanger is △H and a hydraulic diameter of the first tube is D. Taras further teaches extending the first heat exchange tube too shallow into the first tube “would create additional impedance for the refrigerant flow through the heat transfer tubes, reduce heat transfer due to only partial utilization of the heat transfer surface, promote refrigerant maldistribution conditions and degrade the heat exchanger performance” (col. 5 ll. 1-4) and extending the first heat exchange tube further into the first tube would provide “additional refrigerant pressure drop within the manifold 30 and potential refrigerant maldistribution make a negative impact on the heat exchanger performance” (col. 5 ll. 6-8). Therefore, the height difference between the flow inlet of the first heat exchange tube and the flow inlet of the second heat exchange tube relative to the hydraulic diameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that with an increased height difference or rather extending the second heat exchange tube further into the first tube would create more pressure drop and more refrigerant maldistribution, other parameters remaining consistent. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a height difference between the flow inlet of the first heat exchange tube and the flow inlet of the second heat exchange tube in the height direction exists and the first tube has a hydraulic diameter, was disclosed in the prior art by Taras, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the height difference between the flow inlet of the first heat exchange tube and the flow inlet of the second heat exchange tube in the height direction of the heat exchanger is △H, a hydraulic diameter of the first tube is D, and △H and D satisfy a condition: 1/12D＜△H＜D. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding Claim 20, Jiang further discloses a plurality of first heat exchange tubes (shown in figure 1, being the bottom half of the tubes (3)) and a plurality of second heat exchange tubes (shown in figure 1, being the top half of the tubes (3)) are arranged (shown in figures 1-2), at least a part of each first heat exchange tube and at least a part of each second heat exchange tube comprise a bent section (32, shown in figure 2), one end of the bent section is communicated with the first tube, and the other end of the bent section is communicated with the second tube (shown in figures 1-2).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US PG Pub. 2011/0247791A1) in view of Taras (USP 8333088B2) as applied in Claims 1-2, 4, 8, 11-17 and 20 above and in further view of Pautler et al. (US PG Pub. 2016/0370119A1), hereinafter referred to as Pautler.
Regarding Claim 18, Jiang fails to disclose a ratio of a total cross-sectional area of the flow channels of the second heat exchange tube to a total cross-sectional area of the flow channels of the first heat exchange tube is greater than or equal to 0.05 and less than or equal to 0.5.
Pautler, also drawn to a heat exchanger having tubes connecting headers, teaches a ratio of a total cross-sectional area of the flow channels of a second heat exchange tube (shown in figure 4 being the top most tube (206)) to a total cross-sectional area of the flow channels of a first heat exchange tube (shown in figure 4 being the bottom most tube (206)) is greater than or equal to 0.05 and less than or equal to 0.5 (shown in figure 4, wherein half of the tube ports (211a) are closed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Jiang with a ratio of a total cross-sectional area of the flow channels of the second heat exchange tube to a total cross-sectional area of the flow channels of the first heat exchange tube is greater than or equal to 0.05 and less than or equal to 0.5, as taught by Pautler, the motivation being “to achieve uniform distribution of refrigerant through the core is the potential elimination for the need of one or more refrigerant distribution tubes. This would reduce the cost of the heat exchanger due to the reduction in costs of materials required, reduction in labor for assembly, and shipping cost due to overall weight reduction. Another advantage of selectively closing the tube ports would allow for greater flexibility in the design of the heat exchanger assembly since a different sized collector is not required for different heat exchanger configurations” (¶8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0930-1800.
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.
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763