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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/29/24, 4/29/24, and 3/10/25 are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/27/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The written description provides no details or examples of either materials that include the claimed elongation or treatment to create such for the claimed sections of pipe (further see the 112b below). This lack of written description results in failing to reasonable convey the claimed matter in the required detail.
Claims 2-9 are rejected for dependence form one of the above claims.
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 1-9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 6 are 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.
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” para. Para. 0024), wherein the connection pipe includes a first curved portion (per annotated figure below).
Daikin does not teach the first curved portion having an elongation greater than or equal to 30%. 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.
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.
Conclusion
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