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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “downward” appears to be in error for “downstream”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 10-13, 14, and 15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein an angle φ from a vertical line that extends from a center of the inner tube to a line that extends to the dispersion hole is set to satisfy the following formulas (1) and (2):
Θ -20 < φ<180 (1)
α = 1 - Θ / 180 + sinΘ cosΘ / π (2)
where Θ is an estimated liquid level angle, and α is a void fraction”.
This limitation is unclear in that angle φ appears to be fully defined by equation (1), making equation (2) redundant, since Θ does not appear to be a function of α. Also, liquid level and void fraction are not linked back to prior claim elements. It is presumed that liquid level and void fraction are intended to refer back to the refrigerant, but this should be made clear. Examiner has attempted to apply prior art to the claim as best it could be understood as presented. Claims 10-13, 14, and 15 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on or incorporate claim 1 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claim 14 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a heat exchanger comprising the refrigerant distributor of claim 1”. This claim is unclear in that claim 1 appears to require/reference component(s)from a heat exchanger, even though they are not labeled as such, i.e. heat transfer tube. Note also, that as set forth, it appears that claim 14 could be objected to as a substantial duplicate of claim 1 since there is no additional heat exchanger structure is required beyond that of claim 1.
Claim 15 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “an air-conditioning apparatus comprising the heat exchanger of claim 14”. This claim is unclear in that claim 15 appears to require/reference component(s)from a heat exchanger, even though they are not labeled as such, i.e. heat transfer tube. Note also, that as set forth, it appears that claim 15 could be objected to as a substantial duplicate of claim 1 since there is no additional air-conditioning/heat exchanger structure is required beyond that of claims 1/14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang et al. (US 2011/0203780).
Regarding claim 6, Jiang et al. shows a refrigerant distributor (see at least header(s) #1/#2; tube(s) #5/#6) comprising:
an outer tube to which a heat transfer tube is connected (see at least header(s) #1/#2); and
an inner tube accommodated in the outer tube and having a dispersion hole that allows
refrigerant to flow to the outer tube (see at least tube(s) #5/#6 with opening(s) #7A/#7B),
wherein
the inner tube has an inner wall on which a projection is formed to extend in an extending direction of the inner tube (see at least flanging projections #8A/#8B, best seen in Figures 3a-3j),
a plurality of projections including the projection are formed on the inner wall of the
inner tube and arranged in a circumferential direction of the inner tube (see at least paragraphs [0055]; [0062]-[0063]: the openings #7A/#7B are helically (circumferentially) disposed and each opening includes a flanging projection #8A/#8B, thus the projections are circumferentially disposed), and
the inner tube is provided on an upstream side in a flow of two-phase gas-liquid
refrigerant (see at least paragraphs [0046]; [0048]: depending on mode, one or the other of headers #1/#2 are on an upstream side of two-phase-gas-liquid refrigerant), and has a projection formation portion in which the projection is formed (see at least adjacent each opening #7A/#7B) and a smooth portion which is located downstream of the projection formation portion in the flow of the two-phase gas-liquid refrigerant and in which the inner wall of the inner tube is smooth (see at least regions both upstream and downstream of openings #7A/#7B).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang et al. (US 2011/0203780).
Regarding claim 7, Jiang et al. shows Jiang et al. shows a refrigerant distributor (see at least header(s) #1/#2; tube(s) #5/#6) comprising:
an outer tube to which a heat transfer tube is connected (see at least header(s) #1/#2); and
an inner tube accommodated in the outer tube and having a dispersion hole that allows
refrigerant to flow to the outer tube (see at least tube(s) #5/#6 with opening(s) #7A/#7B),
wherein
the inner tube has an inner wall on which a projection is formed to extend in an extending direction of the inner tube (see at least flanging projections #8A/#8B, best seen in Figures 3a-3j),
a plurality of projections including the projection are formed on the inner wall of the
inner tube and arranged in a circumferential direction of the inner tube (see at least paragraphs [0055]; [0062]-[0063]: the openings #7A/#7B are helically (circumferentially) disposed and each opening includes a flanging projection #8A/#8B, thus the projections are circumferentially disposed), and
the inner tube is provided on an upstream side in a flow of two-phase gas-liquid
refrigerant (see at least paragraphs [0046]; [0048]: depending on mode, one or the other of headers #1/#2 are on an upstream side of two-phase-gas-liquid refrigerant), and has a smooth portion in which the inner wall of the inner tube is smooth (see at least regions both upstream and downstream of openings #7A/#7B) and a projection formation portion which is located downward of the smooth portion in the flow of the two-phase gas-liquid refrigerant and in which the projection is provided (see at least adjacent each opening #7A/#7B both upstream and downstream of the regions without openings #7A/#7B)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 2011/0203780) in view of Lundberg (US 2006/0236718).
Regarding claim 1, Jiang et al. discloses a refrigerant distributor (see at least header(s) #1/#2; tube(s) #5/#6) comprising:
an outer tube to which a heat transfer tube is connected (see at least header(s) #1/#2); and
an inner tube accommodated in the outer tube and having a dispersion hole that allows
refrigerant to flow to the outer tube (see at least tube(s) #5/#6 with opening(s) #7A/#7B).
Jiang et al. does not disclose wherein an angle φ from a vertical line that extends from a center of the inner tube to a
line that extends to the dispersion hole is set to satisfy the following formulas (1) and (2):
Θ -20 < φ<180 (1)
α = 1 - Θ / 180 + sinΘ cosΘ / π (2)
where Θ is an estimated liquid level angle, and α is a void fraction.
However, angle from a vertical line to a dispersion hole is a results effective variable, as evidenced by Lundberg (see at least paragraphs [0028]-[0032]: hole angle with respect to liquid height controls the flow into the remainder of the distributer and controls the evenness of that flow).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the distributer of Jiang et al. with wherein an angle φ from a vertical line that extends from a center of the inner tube to a line that extends to the dispersion hole is set to satisfy the following formulas (1) and (2):
Θ -20 < φ<180 (1)
α = 1 - Θ / 180 + sinΘ cosΘ / π (2)
where Θ is an estimated liquid level angle, and α is a void fraction, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding claim 10, Jiang et al. further discloses the inner tube has an inner wall on which a projection is formed to extend in an extending direction of the inner tube (see at least flanging projections #8A/#8B, best seen in Figures 3a-3j), and a plurality of projections including the projection are formed on the inner wall of the inner tube and arranged in a circumferential direction of the inner tube (see at least paragraphs [0055]; [0062]-[0063]: the openings #7A/#7B are helically (circumferentially) disposed and each opening includes a flanging projection #8A/#8B, thus the projections are circumferentially disposed).
Regarding claim 11, Jiang et al. further discloses wherein the projection is formed to helically extend in the extending direction of the inner tube (see at least paragraphs [0055]; [0062]-[0063]: the openings #7A/#7B are helically (circumferentially) disposed and each opening includes a flanging projection #8A/#8B, thus the projection(s) helically extend).
Regarding claim 12, Jiang et al. further discloses wherein the projection is formed to extend in a direction inclined to the extending direction of the inner tube (see at least Figures 3a-3j, flanging projections #8A/#8B are each inclined with respect to a lengthwise extending direction of the tube(s) #5/#6 and thus extend in an inclined direction).
Regarding claim 13, Jiang et al. further discloses wherein part of the projection that is located on a downstream side in a flow of two-phase gas-liquid refrigerant has a greater height than a height of part of the projection that is located on an upstream side in the flow of the two-phase gas-liquid refrigerant (see at least Figures 3a-3j, depending on the flow direction, one or the other of flanging projections #8A/#8B will have a greater height on the downstream side than on the upstream side).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 2011/0203780) in view of Lundberg (US 2006/0236718).
Regarding claim 14, Jiang et al. in view of Lundberg discloses a heat exchanger comprising the refrigerant distributor of claim 1 (see at least Jiang et al. Abstract; Figure 1, see also rejection of claim 1, above).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 2011/0203780) in view of Lundberg (US 2006/0236718).
Regarding claim 15, Jiang et al. in view of Lundberg discloses an air-conditioning apparatus comprising the heat exchanger of claim 14 (see at least paragraph [0002]: use as evaporator and condenser is indicative of air-conditioning apparatus; see also rejection of claim 14, above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 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 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763