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 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.
Claim 7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “manifolds arranged at one and the same longitudinal end are aligned relative to one another along a direction parallel to the main elongation dimension of the plurality of tubes”. According to the drawings tubes are parallel to longitudinal direction L and manifolds are parallel to vertical direction V; meaning that manifolds and tubes are perpendicular to each other. It is not clear how the manifolds are parallel to the tubes. The bolded phrase makes the claimed limitations indefinite. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that the manifolds are perpendicular to the tubes according to the drawings.
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 1-8, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taras (US 2011/0056667 A1).
Claim 1: Taras discloses a heat exchanger for a refrigerant loop (FIG.1A), comprising
a heat exchange surface (21) with a plurality of tubes (34) extending from one longitudinal end (inherent) of the heat exchange surface (21) to another longitudinal end (inherent) of the heat exchange surface (21),
a first refrigerant circuit (paragraph [22]) and a second refrigerant circuit (paragraph [22]), wherein each of the tubes of the plurality of tubes (34) being configured to form part of at least the first refrigerant circuit (paragraph [22]) or the second refrigerant circuit through which one and the same refrigerant flows,
wherein at least two refrigerant manifolds (manifolds 26/22) are disposed at each of the longitudinal ends of the heat exchange surface (21) such that the at least two refrigerant manifolds (manifolds 26/22) are connected to the first refrigerant circuit (paragraph [22]: inlet pipe 24 into manifold 22 inlet pipe 28 into manifold 26, inlet pipes 24/28 connected to separate refrigerant circuit, or can be connected to a common refrigerant source of single refrigerant circuit) and two other at least two refrigerant manifolds (manifolds 30/32) are connected to the second refrigerant circuit (paragraph [22]: manifolds 30/32 lead into outlet pipes 29/31 communicate refrigerant to independent refrigerant circuits, or to a single refrigerant circuit respectively).
Claim 2: Taras discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the same number of refrigerant manifolds (26/22 & 30/32) is disposed at each of the longitudinal ends of the heat exchange surface (21).
Claim 3: Taras discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the refrigerant manifolds (26/22 & 30/32; to clarify, manifolds includes inlet manifold 22/inlet manifold 26 and outlet manifold 30/outlet manifold 32) include
a refrigerant inlet manifold (paragraph [22]: inlet manifold 22/inlet manifold 26) and
a refrigerant outlet manifold (paragraph [22]: outlet manifold 30/outlet manifold 32), wherein each of the first and second refrigerant circuits (paragraph [22]) includes
the refrigerant inlet manifold (inlet manifold 22/inlet manifold 26) communicating with at least one tube (34) of the heat exchange surface (21) and the refrigerant outlet manifold (outlet manifold 30/outlet manifold 32) communicating with the at least one tube (34) of the heat exchange surface (21), and wherein the refrigerant inlet manifold (inlet manifold 22/inlet manifold 26) of each refrigerant circuit (paragraph [22]) are configured is configured for connection to one and the same refrigerant inflow, and the refrigerant outlet manifolds (outlet manifold 30/outlet manifold 32) of each refrigerant circuit (paragraph [22]) are configured for connection to one and the same refrigerant outflow.
Claim 4: Taras discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 3, wherein each of the refrigerant inlet manifolds (inlet manifold 22/inlet manifold 26) is arranged at a first longitudinal end of the heat exchange surface (21), each of the refrigerant outlet manifolds (outlet manifold 30/outlet manifold 32) being arranged at a second longitudinal end of the heat exchange surface (21).
Claim 5: Taras discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 3, wherein each longitudinal end of the heat exchange surface (21) comprises includes at least one refrigerant inlet manifold (inlet manifold 22/inlet manifold 26) and at least one refrigerant outlet manifold (outlet manifold 30/outlet manifold 32).
Claim 6: Taras discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 3, wherein the refrigerant inlet manifolds (inlet manifold 22/inlet manifold 26) have one and the same passage crosssection and/or and the refrigerant outlet manifolds (outlet manifold 30/outlet manifold 32) have one and the same passage cross section.
Claim 7: Taras discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the refrigerant manifolds (22/26 & 30/32) arranged at one and the same longitudinal end are aligned relative to one another along a direction parallel (see FIG.1A has same configuration as instant application) to the main elongation dimension of the plurality of tubes (34).
[AltContent: textbox (V)][AltContent: textbox (L)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
525
521
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 8: Taras discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the refrigerant manifolds (22/26 & 30/32) arranged at one and the same longitudinal end are aligned relative to one another along a direction perpendicular (see FIG.1A has same configuration as instant application) to the main elongation dimension of the plurality of tubes (34).
Claim 11: Taras discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 3, wherein the refrigerant inlet manifolds (inlet manifold 22/inlet manifold 26) have one and the same passage cross section or the refrigerant outlet manifolds (outlet manifold 30/outlet manifold 32) have one and the same passage cross section.
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, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taras (US 2011/0056667 A1), in view of Pelletier (US 11,549,762 B2).
Claim 9: Taras fails to disclose wherein the refrigerant manifolds disposed at one and the same longitudinal end are disposed concentrically with one another.
However, Pelletier teaches the refrigerant manifolds disposed at one and the same longitudinal end are disposed concentrically with one another (two first manifolds 3A/two second manifolds 3B; as shown in figure 2 manifolds consist of multiple cross sections with different diameter within each manifold) for the purpose of improving heat exchange capacity of the heat exchanger.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Taras to include the refrigerant manifolds disposed at one and the same longitudinal end are disposed concentrically with one another as taught by Pelletier in order to improve heat exchange capacity of the heat exchanger.
PNG
media_image2.png
276
739
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taras (2011/0056667 A1).
Claim 10: Taras discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the refrigerant manifolds (22/26 & 30/32) have a cylindrical shape (FIG.1A), the refrigerant manifolds disposed at one and the same longitudinal end being mutually arranged.
Taras discloses the claimed limitations in claim 10, except for a smaller bulk owing to the complementing respective shapes of the manifolds. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Taras to include a smaller bulk owing to the complementing respective shapes of the manifolds in order to enhance heat transfer process, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art - Optimum value: MPEP 2144.05 II-B.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure which is relevant to heat exchanger:
Huang (US 2019/0368817 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMRAN TAVAKOLDAVANI whose telephone number is (313)446-6612. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
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 on (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 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.
/KAMRAN TAVAKOLDAVANI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763