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Claims 4, 7, 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species/subspecies, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/22/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B/SubSpecies AD in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged. In response to applicant arguments in the election, Subspecies AD now correspond to figs 12-13 and SubSpecies AC correspond to Fig 14.
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 6-8, 12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation " the first partitioned tube inserted into the tube cavity of the first tube " . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation " the second partitioned tube inserted into the tube cavity of the first tube " . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the first tube 1". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency from a claim that has been rejected.
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, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lao CN 112524986 A in view of Park US 6073686 A.
Re claim 1, Lao teach a heat exchanger, comprising: a first tube (100) extending along a length direction of the heat exchanger; a second tube (200) extending along the length direction of the heat exchanger; and a first heat exchange tube (301) having a plurality of flow channels, two ends of the first heat exchange tube being correspondingly inserted into a tube cavity of the first tube and a tube cavity of the second tube, a section of the first heat exchange tube inserted into the first tube having a flow inlet (331, 332), and a first part of the flow inlet having a height difference relative to a second part of the flow inlet in a height direction of the heat exchanger (fig 6).
Lao fail to explicitly teach inlet details.
Park teach an inlet tube (16) connected to the first tube to provide fluid flow in or out of heat exchanger core.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include inlet details as taught by Park in the Lao invention in order to advantageously allow for a loop system to be connected.
Re claim 16, Lao teach wherein the first heat exchange tube comprises a first tube section extending along the height direction of the heat exchanger, and a port of the first tube section is inclined relative to the height direction of the heat exchanger, so that one part of the port of the first tube section has a height difference relative to the other part of the port of the first tube section in the height direction of the heat exchanger (Park fig 6 noting multiple ports with different height differences).
Claim(s) 2, 9, 12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lao CN 112524986 A in view of Park US 6073686 A and Knight et al. US 2008/0141707 Al.
Re claim 2, Lao, as modified, fail to explicitly teach inlet details.
Knight et al. teach wherein the first heat exchange tube comprises a first partitioned tube and a second partitioned tube successively arranged along a width direction of the heat exchanger, a section of the first partitioned tube inserted into the first tube has a first flow inlet, a section of the second partitioned tube inserted into the first tube has a second flow inlet, and the first flow inlet is lower than the second flow inlet in the height direction of the heat exchanger (fig 7, annotated fig) to provide different depths (fig 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include inlet details as taught by Knight et al. in the Lao, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow to maximize the heat transfer with latent and sensible heat (para 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
728
541
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 9, Lao, as modified, fail to explicitly teach inlet details.
Knight et al. teach wherein the first heat exchange tube further comprises a third partitioned tube (110), a section of the third partitioned tube inserted into the first tube has a third flow inlet, and in the height direction of the heat exchanger, the third flow inlet is lower than at least one of the first flow inlet and the second flow inlet (figs) to provide different depths (fig 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include inlet details as taught by Knight et al. in the Lao, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow to maximize the heat transfer with latent and sensible heat (para 4).
Re claim 10, Lao, as modified, teach wherein the first partitioned tube, the second partitioned tube and the third partitioned tube are successively arranged in the width direction of the height direction (in the instant combination of claim 9, see Knight figs).
Re claim 12, It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a height difference between a length of the first partitioned tube inserted into the tube cavity of the first tube and a length of the second partitioned tube inserted into the tube cavity of the first tube 1 is △H, a hydraulic diameter of the first partitioned tube is D, and △H and D satisfy a condition: 1/12D＜ΔH＜D, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, section IV, part A. Noting a change in △H would naturally have a situation satisfying the equation.
Re claim 15, Knight teach wherein a plurality of the first partitioned tubes and a plurality of the second partitioned tubes are provided, at least part of each first partitioned tube and at least part of each second partitioned tubes comprise a bent section (left and right ends, or bends at end of tube to form perpendicularly angled end where channels open), 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 (noting all parts are fluidically communicated, see the rejection of claim 2).
Claim(s) 3, 5-6, 8, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lao CN 112524986 A in view of Park US 6073686 A and Knight et al. US 2008/0141707 Al and Yamamoto et al. US 5,479,985.
Re claim 3, Lao, as modified, fail to explicitly teach core details.
Yamamoto et al. teach the first partitioned tube has a first end portion and a second end portion in the height direction of the heat exchanger (annotated fig), and the first end portion is inserted in the tube cavity of the first tube; and the first end portion is higher than the second end portion in the height direction of the heat exchanger, and a length of the first partitioned tube inserted into the tube cavity of the first tube is less than a length of the second partitioned tube (79 section end) inserted into the tube cavity of the first tube (fig 22) to integrate inlet and outlet tubes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include core details as taught by Yamamoto et al. in the Lao, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for different core structure heat exchangers.
For clarity, the recitation “…and the first end portion is higher than the second end portion in the height direction of the heat exchanger …” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. It is noted a height direction can change due to relative angle of installation, and thus a simple rotation of the same structure relative to the ground should not affect patentability.
PNG
media_image2.png
541
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 5, Lao teach wherein the first tube is flush with the second tube in the height direction of the heat exchanger (figs). Additionally, Lao, as modified, teach the first tube is flush with the second tube in the height direction of the heat exchanger (noting the integration in the instant combination makes the items flush).
Re claim 6, Lao, as modified, fail to explicitly teach core details.
Yamamoto et al. teach wherein the first partitioned tube has a first end portion and a second end portion in the height direction of the heat exchanger (annotated fig), and the first end portion is inserted in the tube cavity of the first tube; and the first end portion is lower than the second end portion in the height direction of the heat exchanger, and a length of the first partitioned tube inserted into the tube cavity of the first tube is greater than a length of the second partitioned tube inserted into the tube cavity of the first tube (fig 22) to integrate inlet and outlet tubes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include core details as taught by Yamamoto et al. in the Lao, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for different core structure heat exchangers.
For clarity, the recitation “…and the first end portion is lower than the second end portion in the height direction of the heat exchanger …” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. It is noted a height direction can change due to relative angle of installation, and thus a simple rotation of the same structure relative to the ground should not affect patentability.
PNG
media_image3.png
541
640
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re claim 8, Lao teach wherein the first tube is flush with the second tube in the height direction of the heat exchanger (figs). Additionally, Lao, as modified, teach the first tube is flush with the second tube in the height direction of the heat exchanger (noting the integration in the instant combination makes the items flush).
Re claim 13, Lao, as modified, fail to explicitly teach core details.
Yamamoto et al. teach a ratio of a total sectional area of the flow channels in the second partitioned tube to a total sectional area of the flow channels in the first partitioned tube is greater than or equal to 0.05 and less than or equal to 0.5 (noting the left section extending about twice as far which would give a ratio of about .5, fig 22) to integrate inlet and outlet tubes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include core details as taught by Yamamoto et al. in the Lao, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for different core structure heat exchangers.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lao CN 112524986 A in view of Park US 6073686 A and Matter, III et al. US 9,267,737 B2.
Re claim 17, Lao, as modified, fail to explicitly teach flush port.
Matter, III et al. teach wherein the first heat exchange tube comprises a first tube section inclined relative to the height direction of the heat exchanger, and the first tube section has a flush port (240, fig 13), so that the flow inlet that is inclined is formed at the port of the first tube section (noting “formed at” is broad and is interpreted as close to, and when combined the limitations are met) to add a distribution section.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include flush port as taught by Matter, III et al. in the Lao, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow to maximize the heat transfer with latent and sensible heat (col 1).
Re claim 18, Lao teach a second heat exchange tube (figs, see the rejection of claim 1), but fail to explicitly teach flush port.
Matter, III et al. a second heat exchange tube (noting multiple tubes fig 8 ), and the second heat exchange tube having a flush port (240, fig 13) to add a distribution section.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include flush port as taught by Matter, III et al. in the Lao, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow to maximize the heat transfer with latent and sensible heat (col 1).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lao CN 112524986 A in view of Park US 6073686 A and Knight et al. US 2008/0141707 Al and Matter, III et al. US 9,267,737 B2.
Re claim 11, Lao, as modified, fail to explicitly teach flush port.
Matter, III et al. teach wherein the first flow inlet of the first partitioned tube comprises at least one of a port (240, fig 13) of the first partitioned tube and a first flow hole (bottom channel(s) of Knight et al. which open into port upwardly in instant combination) arranged on the first partitioned tube, the second flow inlet of the second partitioned tube comprises at least one of a port of the second partitioned tube (240, fig 13, noting Matter teach the port extending all the way across and therefore the port of the first partitioned and second partitioned is considered to be the portion adjacent to the left and right sections) and a second flow hole (bottom channel(s) of Knight et al. which open into port upwardly in instant combination) arranged on the second partitioned tube, and at least part of the first flow hole on the first partitioned tube is lower than the port of the second partitioned tube in the height direction of the heat exchanger (noting the lower channels flowing upwardly into the same horizontal level is below) to add a distribution section.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include flush port as taught by Matter, III et al. in the Lao, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow to maximize the heat transfer with latent and sensible heat (col 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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.
/GORDON A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3763