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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 9/30/21. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2021-161764 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 3 is 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.
Claims 3 is unclear in what exactly is claimed. It is unclear if the claimed elongation is a physical capability of the curved section or a method of creating the curved sections, further it is unclear if applicant is claiming an inherent material feature or a process of production of the pipe. Applicant provides no information or description of how such is accomplished or specific (or examples of) materials that have the claimed elongation. It is further unclear if the elongation quality is either a capability before curving or a result of the curving. Applicant provides no clear understanding of how different parts of the same pipe have different qualities as claimed. Thus one skilled in the art is not clear on when or how the claimed elongation is determined or accomplished. Thus it is indefinite, and the claims will be examined as any reading of the claimed elongation will be applicable. It is noted that claim 1 defines the elongation for the first curved portion, but does not define elongation for the second curved portion. The claim will be examined as the elongation meaning the same style.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the elongation". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is the first claimed elongation of the second curved portion, the term “the elongation” would only be proper with the elongation already claimed of the first curved portion. The claim will be examined as reading “the second curved portion has an elongation less than or equal to 20%” (note here the “an elongation” is clearly part of the second curved portion, and confusion would only occur if other claims did not reference an elongation tied to either the first or second curved portion).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daikin Industries LTD. (JP2015-140998) in view of Kobe Steel LTD (JP5-70870/H05070870).
Regarding claim 1, Daikin teaches an indoor heat exchanger (fig. 1-4) comprising: a heat exchanger body (element 2); and a connection pipe (element 7) connected to the heat exchanger body through a connection portion (“dividing junction” per para. 0024), wherein the connection pipe includes: a vertical section (element 7a) extending in a vertical direction of the indoor heat exchanger or a direction inclined relative to the vertical direction (per fig. 4); a horizontal section (element 7c) extending in a horizontal direction of the indoor heat exchanger or a direction inclined relative to the horizontal direction (per fig. 4) ; and a first curved portion (element 5b), the first curved portion is disposed between the vertical section and the horizontal section (per fig. 4).
Daikin does not teach that the first curved portion has been subjected to a bending process, wherein the first curved portion has an elongation greater than or equal to 30% and the elongation is expressed as a percentage of a ratio between an increase in a distance between gauge marks on a test specimen at fracture and an initial length of a tensile test.
The limitation of “the first curved portion has been subjected to a bending process” isa product by process limitation and “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Kobe teaches coolant pipes having elongation greater than 35% (para. 0029-0031). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the pipe of Daikin such that one curved portion has an elongation of greater than 35% (reading on the claim), the motivation is the workability of that section.
Regarding claim 2, Daikin teaches the connection pipe further includes a second curved portion (per the annotated figure below) between the connection portion and the first curved portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
312
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Daikin teaches a tubular member covering the first curved portion (“heat insulating material” of para. 0034, notes state coving pipe, thus considered all the pipe including the curved sections).
Regarding claim 5, Daikin teaches the connection pipe is made of aluminum or an aluminum alloy (per para. 0020).
Regarding claim 6, Kobe further teaches the elongation of the first curved portion is greater than or equal to 40%, as this is within their teaching of 35% or greater and for the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 8, Daikin further teaches an indoor unit comprising the indoor heat exchanger (para. 0027).
Regarding claim 9, Daikin further teaches an air conditioner comprising the indoor unit (para. 0027).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daikin Industries LTD. (JP2015-140998) in view of Kobe Steel LTD (JP5-70870/H05070870), and further view of Wakaguri et al. (U.S. PGPub 2016/0002754).
Regarding claim 3, Daikin does not teach the second curved portion has an elongation less than or equal to 20%.
Wakaguri teaches that pipe sections closest to connection points (para. 0003) having elongation less than or equal to 20% (table 2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the second bend, which in Daikin is close to the connection point to have the claimed elongation as taught by Wakaguri, the motivoant would be to improve the strength of connection area (table 2).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daikin Industries LTD. (JP2015-140998) in view of Kobe Steel LTD (JP5-70870/H05070870), and further view of Taguchi et al. (U.S. Patent 6,962,632).
Regarding claim 7, Daikin does not expressly teach the connection pipe has an outer diameter less than or equal to 9.52 mm.
Pipes of this size are well known in the art as shown by Taguchi (col. 13-16), it would have been obvious to apply known pipe sizes, the motivation would be to apply available pipes toa system for the necessary refrigerant flow.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 112a/b rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive with regards to the amendments. The prior 112a/b of the 1/13/26 has been withdrawn. Note there isa new 112b issue3 due to amendment.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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
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 JOEL M ATTEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8-5 and Friday 8-10 and 2-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson be reached on (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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights