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
Applicant's election with traverse of Species D (Claims 1, 3-4, 7 and 10) in the reply filed on 10/26/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal on the grounds that the claimed technical features of the instant application are not found in the prior art is not found persuasive. The Prior Art clearly indicates no special technical features exist within the instant application and therefore demonstrates a lack of unity in accordance with the rules and regulations that govern such instances. Please see the Office Action submitted herein.
As stated by the Applicant, the expression special technical feature is defined in PCT Rule 13.2 as meaning “those technical features that define the contribution which each of the inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the cited references” (underline for emphasis). Therefore, in a posteriori analysis, the prior art is utilized to determine the viability of any “special technical feature” and whether the aforementioned “special technical feature” makes a “contribution” over the prior art. Unity of invention is demonstrated to exist a posteriori only after the prior art has been searched and the corresponding special technical feature is construed to be novel and nonobvious in view of said prior art. Therefore, in a posteriori analysis, novelty and inventive step are linked to the Unity of invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 3-4, 7 and 10 recite the limitation "or", wherein the limitation “or” is interpreted within this Action as being associated with alternative limitations. Consequently, within any given Claim, if the term “or” is proffered in conjunction with conflicting limitation sets, only one limitations set will be Examined herein.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hughes et al. (USP 5341870A), hereinafter referred to as Hughes.
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Air Duct)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2nd Heat Exchange Portion)][AltContent: textbox (2nd Heat Exchange Tube Section)][AltContent: textbox (1st Heat Exchange Tube Section)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
317
310
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hughes Figure 14
Regarding Claim 1, Hughes discloses a heat exchanger, comprising:
a first heat exchange portion (shown in annotated figure 14, containing the annotated “1st Heat Exchange Tube Section” and “2nd Heat Exchange Tube Section”), wherein the first heat exchange portion comprises a plurality of first flat tubes (20) disposed at intervals (shown in figure 13), each of the plurality of first flat tubes comprises a first heat exchange tube section (shown in annotated figure 14) and a second heat exchange tube section (shown in annotated figure 14) connected with each other (the annotated sections are connected via the bend, shown in figure 14), and the first heat exchange tube section and the second heat exchange tube section are disposed at a preset angle (shown in annotated figure 14);
a first manifold (12-x) and a second manifold (10-x), wherein first heat exchange tube sections of the plurality of first flat tubes are all connected with the first manifold (shown in annotated figure 14), and second heat exchange tube sections of the plurality of first flat tubes are connected with the second manifold (shown in annotated figure 14); and
a second heat exchange portion (shown in annotated figure 14) disposed at an end portion of the first heat exchange portion (shown in annotated figure 14, wherein the end portion being the inner surface of the V-Shape formed by the annotated “1st Heat Exchange Tube Section” and “2nd Heat Exchange Tube Section”), the first heat exchange portion and the second heat exchange portion enclosing to form an air duct (shown in annotated figure 14); wherein
an installation region is provided between the first heat exchange tube sections and the second heat exchange tube sections (shown in annotated figure 14), and the second heat exchange portion is disposed in the installation region (shown in annotated figure 14); wherein
the installation region is a triangular region (shown in annotated figure 14).
Regarding Claim 3, Hughes further discloses the installation region is a triangular region (shown in annotated figure 14), the second heat exchange portion is of a triangular structure (shown in annotated figure 14), and the second heat exchange portion is at least partially fitted to the first heat exchange tube sections and the second heat exchange tube sections (shown in annotated figure 14).
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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al. (Translation of CN206959637U) in view of Mercer et al. (US PG Pub. 2017/0130974A1), hereinafter referred to as Hughes and Mercer, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Zhong discloses a heat exchanger, comprising:
a first heat exchange portion (10), wherein the first heat exchange portion comprises a plurality of first flat tubes (12) disposed at intervals (shown in figure 5), each of the plurality of first flat tubes comprises a first heat exchange tube section (shown in figure 5, being the left most heat exchanger) and a second heat exchange tube section (shown in figure 5, being the right most heat exchanger), and the first heat exchange tube section and the second heat exchange tube section are disposed at a preset angle (shown in figure 5);
a first manifold (11, front left manifold as shown in figure 5) and a second manifold (11, front right manifold as shown in figure 5), wherein first heat exchange tube sections of the plurality of first flat tubes are all connected with the first manifold (shown in figure 5), and second heat exchange tube sections of the plurality of first flat tubes are connected with the second manifold (shown in figure 5); and
a second heat exchange portion (20) disposed at an end portion of the first heat exchange portion (shown in figure 5, being the front and rear of the heat exchanger assembly), the first heat exchange portion and the second heat exchange portion enclosing to form an air duct (shown in figure 5); wherein
an installation region is provided between the first heat exchange tube sections and the second heat exchange tube sections (shown in figure 5), and the second heat exchange portion (20) is disposed in the installation region (shown in figure 5); wherein
the installation region is a trapezoidal region (shown in figure 4).
Zhong fails to disclose a first heat exchange tube section and a second heat exchange tube section are connected with each other and the installation region is a triangular region.
Mercer, also drawn to a multiple core heat exchanger assembly having a v-shape and both vertical and horizontal tube orientations, teaches a first heat exchange tube section (25a) and a second heat exchange tube section (25b) connected with each other (shown in figure 7) and the installation region is a triangular region (shown in figure 7). Mercer states, “In embodiments including a plurality of heat exchanger coils 25, the plurality of heat exchanger coils 25 may be fluidly coupled to or fluidly separate from one another. In embodiments where at least a portion of the plurality of heat exchanger coils 25 are fluidly coupled, the coils 25 may be coupled via an intermediate manifold or header 46, as shown in FIG. 7”, ¶49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Zhong with a first heat exchange tube section and a second heat exchange tube section connected with each other and the installation region is a triangular region, as taught by Mercer, the motivation being to increase the cooling capacity with an extended cooling fluid path thereby increasing the maximum cooling provided by a single circuit, wherein the fluid flow path is extended by the additional heat exchanger core forming the triangular installation area.
Regarding Claim 7, a modified Zhong further teaches an inlet end (21, shown in figure 2) of the second heat exchange portion (20) is in communication with the first manifold (11, see subsequent annotation), and an outlet end of the second heat exchange portion (21, shown in figure 2) is in communication with the second manifold (“the first collecting pipe 11 or second header 21 is provided with inlet and outlet pipe for the refrigerant into and out of each of the first heat exchanger 10 and second heat exchanger 20 can be provided with a refrigerant inlet pipe and a refrigerant outlet pipe is… or adjacent to the first heat exchanger 10 and second heat exchanger 20 also can share one refrigerant inlet pipe and a refrigerant outlet pipe, for adjusting the first heat exchanger and the refrigerant distribution in the second heat exchanger”, underline for emphasis).
Regarding limitations “inlet” and “outlet” recited in Claim 7, which are directed to a fluid flow direction, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al. (Translation of CN206959637U) in view of Mercer et al. (US PG Pub. 2017/0130974A1) as applied in Claims 1 and 7 above and in further view of Yamamoto et al. (Translation of JP2021063599A), hereinafter referred to as Yamamoto.
Regarding Claim 3, a modified Zhong further teaches the installation region is a triangular region (shown in figure 7 of Mercer as put forth in the rejection of Claim 1), and the second heat exchange portion is at least partially fitted to the first heat exchange tube sections and the second heat exchange tube sections (shown in figure 5 of Zhong). Zhong fails to disclose the second heat exchange portion is of a triangular structure.
Yamamoto, also drawn to a heat exchanger core, teaches a second heat exchange portion is of a triangular structure (shown in figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the second heat exchange portion of Zhong with a triangular structure, as taught by Yamamoto, the motivation being to increase the cooling capacity of the core within a predetermined area through the increase of heat exchanger tubes and fins.
Alternately, Zhong discloses the claimed invention except that the heat exchanger core has a trapezoidal shape instead of a triangular shape. Yamamoto shows that a triangular shape is an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two heat exchanger core shapes were art recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a triangular heat exchanger core for a trapezoidal heat exchanger core.
Regarding Claim 4, a modified Zhong further teaches an angle between the first heat exchange tube section (shown in figure 5, being the left most heat exchanger of Zhong) and the second heat exchange tube section (shown in figure 5, being the right most heat exchanger of Zhong) forms an apex angle of the triangular region (the triangular region is previously taught by Mercer in the rejection of Claim 1), and the apex angle of the triangular region is as same as an apex angle of the triangular structure (the triangular structure is previously taught by Yamamoto in the rejection of Claim 3). It is noted that a modified Zhong having a triangular structure and triangular region further teaches the respective apex angles being the same, as the first and second heat exchange portions of Zhong extend parallel to the installation region as shown in figure 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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
Prosecution Insights