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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/08/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 4-5 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. Claim 1 recites the limitations “an incision separating the second portion of the second section from the second wall”, which is drawn to the embodiment in figure 5 having a first and second section. The third section is disclosed is figure 3 and being positioned between a first and second section for aiding transition. This section does not appear to further define the tube having an incision. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, the third section will be interpreted as any portion of the seam between the first section and the second section.
Claim 10 is 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. Claim 10 recites the limitations “the longitudinal edges of the metal strip include at least one cut-out, wherein the at least one cut-out is formed by removing part of the material from the metal strip”, which is drawn to the embodiment in figures 7-10. The cutout is separate and distinct from the incision of figure 5 (“Unlike already discussed incision 7, the cutout 8 refers to removal part of the material from the metal strip 2”), wherein the specification does not describe the incision with a cutout or rather it is unclear as to how such a cutout would be implemented in addition to a non-repeating incision. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, the cutout will be interpreted as – any other removal of material from the flat tube other than the incision--.
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, 3-4, 6 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajabpour et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0011606A1) and in view of Shimizu et al. (Translation of DE1001099A1), hereinafter referred to as Rajabpour and Shimizu, respectively.
[AltContent: textbox (First Wall)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Side Wall)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second Wall)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Longitudinal Edges)]
PNG
media_image1.png
110
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rajabpour Figure 6
[AltContent: textbox (Third Section)]
[AltContent: textbox (Abscessed Portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second Section)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
113
315
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Remaining Portion)][AltContent: textbox (First Section)]
Shimizu Figure 4A
Regarding Claim 1, Rajabpour discloses a flat tube (206) for a heat exchanger for a flow of a fluid therein (shown in figure 2), the flat tube being a sheet metal strip (“the sheet 700 may be a relatively flat, planar sheet of material (e.g., metal, such as steel)” ¶53) bended along its length (“The sheet may be folded to form the tube, as shown by FIGS. 7-10”, ¶18), the metal strip including longitudinal edges (shown in annotated figure 6, being the edges of the partition contacting the “Second Wall”), the flat tube comprising:
a first wall (shown in annotated figure 6), a second wall (shown in annotated figure 6) parallel to the first wall (shown in annotated figure 6), said first and second walls being substantially flat (shown in annotated figure 6), two complementary side wall portions joining said first and second walls together (shown in annotated figure 6), wherein
the first wall includes a seam (the seam is formed at the joint (602) between the folded walls (604 and 606)) extending along a longitudinal axis of the flat tube so that juxtaposed longitudinal edges of the metal strip join together in parallel manner towards the second wall to form a closed profile of the tube (shown in figure 6, wherein the annotated “Longitudinal Edges” are attached to the annotated “Second Wall” along at least a portion of the flat tube), wherein
the seam includes a first section (shown in figure 5, being a portion of the seam along the flat tube where the partition (302) fully extends between the annotated “First Wall” and “Second Wall”) fixed to the second wall (shown in figure 5) and extending along a first portion of the seam along the longitudinal axis of the flat tube (shown in figure 5), wherein
the seam includes a second section (shown in figure 5, being the portion of the seam having the notch (300)) extending along a second portion of the seam arranged in a non-repeating series with respect to the first portion of the seam (shown in figure 5) and along the longitudinal axis of the flat tube (shown in figure 5), wherein the second section is separated from the second wall (shown in figure 5, wherein the notch creates a separation within the seam) and wherein
the seam includes an incision (300) separating the second portion of the second section from the second wall (shown in figure 5). Rajabpour fails to disclose wherein the incision divides the seam into an abscessed portion that is unitary with the longitudinal edges protruding from the first wall, and a remaining portion that remains fixed with the second wall.
Shimizu, also drawn to a flat tube heat exchanger with partitions, teaches wherein the incision (18, shown in annotated figure 4A) divides the seam into an abscessed portion that is unitary with the longitudinal edges protruding from the first wall (shown in annotated figure 4A, wherein the connecting hole (18) forms the annotated “Abscessed Portion”), and a remaining portion that remains fixed with the second wall (shown in annotated figure 4A, wherein the through opening (18) forms the annotated “Remaining Portion”).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting a notch formed on a bottom surface of a flat tube partition with a notch formed at a center of a flat tube partition; further the prior art to Shimizu teaches that a centered notch is known for allowing fluid to pass between adjacent channels thereby increasing heat exchange capability. Shimizu explicitly teaches that a centered notch (shown in figure 4A) is an equivalent structure known in the art when compared to a notch formed on a bottom surface of a flat tube partition (shown in figure 4C), wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute one notch configuration for the other. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Rajabpour with having a notch formed at a center of a flat tube partition, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat exchanger device; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Shimizu there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Rajabpour by having a notch formed at a center of a flat tube partition.
Regarding limitations “for a heat exchanger for a flow of a fluid therein” recited in Claim 1, which are directed to the intended use of the tube, 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.
Regarding Claim 3, a modified Rajabpour further teaches the second section (previously taught by Rajabpour in the rejection of Claim 1, being the portion of the seam having the notch (300)) includes two portions (being the longitudinal edges of the partition in the notched area), both of the two portions being at the same distance from the second wall (shown in annotated figure 4A of Shimizu, being the distance from the bottom of the notch to the bottom wall of the flat tube). It is noted that Rajabpour discloses the second section having the two connected partition walls (604 and 606) with corresponding longitudinal edges, wherein a modified Rajabpour having the centered connecting hole (18 of Shimizu) further teaches both of the partition walls (604 and 606) comprising the connecting hole (18 of Shimizu) and having parallel longitudinal edges.
Regarding Claim 4, a modified Rajabpour further teaches the seam includes a third section extending along third portion of the seam arranged in a non-repeating series between the first and the second portion of the seam and along the longitudinal axis of the flat tube (shown in annotated figure 4A of Shimizu).
Regarding Claim 6, a modified Rajabpour further teaches the flat tube (206 of Rajabpour) further comprises a first open end (shown in figure 5 of Rajabpour) and second open end (being the rear end as shown in figure 2), wherein the second section (shown in figure 5 of Rajabpour) is located in the vicinity (as defined by Merriam-Webster as “the quality or state of being near”) of at the first end (shown in figure 5 of Rajabpour).
Regarding Claim 9, a modified Rajabpour further teaches the incision (18 of Shimizu) is formed substantially in parallel with respect to a surface of the second wall (shown in annotated figure 4A, wherein the connecting hole (18) extends in parallel with the longitudinal direction of the tube and bottom wall).
Regarding Claim 10, as best understood, a modified Rajabpour further teaches the edges of the metal strip include at least one cut-out (“Adding the notch to one or more ends of the tubes of the heat exchanger may thermally separate the upper and lower surface of the tubes in the header-tube joint area” (¶49), wherein the cutout is the notch on the opposing end of the flat tube), wherein the at least one cut-out is formed by removing part of the material from the metal strip (shown in figure 3)).
Regarding Claim 11, Rajabpour discloses a heat exchanger (shown in figure 2) comprising a flat tube (206), the flat tube being a sheet metal strip (“the sheet 700 may be a relatively flat, planar sheet of material (e.g., metal, such as steel)” ¶53) bended along its length (“The sheet may be folded to form the tube, as shown by FIGS. 7-10”, ¶18), the metal strip including longitudinal edges (shown in annotated figure 6, being the edges of the partition contacting the “Second Wall”), the flat tube comprising:
a first wall (shown in annotated figure 6), a second wall (shown in annotated figure 6) parallel to the first wall (shown in annotated figure 6), said first and second walls being substantially flat (shown in annotated figure 6), two complementary side wall portions joining said first and second walls together (shown in annotated figure 6), wherein
the first wall includes a seam (the seam is formed at the joint (602) between the folded walls (604 and 606)) extending along a longitudinal axis of the flat tube so that juxtaposed longitudinal edges of the metal strip join together in parallel manner towards the second wall to form a closed profile of the tube (shown in figure 6, wherein the annotated “Longitudinal Edges” are attached to the annotated “Second Wall” along at least a portion of the flat tube), wherein
the seam includes a first section (shown in figure 5, being a portion of the seam along the flat tube where the partition (302) fully extends between the annotated “First Wall” and “Second Wall”) fixed to the second wall (shown in figure 5) and extending along a first portion of the seam along the longitudinal axis of the flat tube (shown in figure 5), wherein
the seam includes a second section (shown in figure 5, being the portion of the seam having the notch (300)) extending along a second portion of the seam arranged in a non-repeating series with respect to the first portion of the seam (shown in figure 5) and along the longitudinal axis of the flat tube (shown in figure 5), wherein the second section is separated from the second wall (shown in figure 5, wherein the notch creates a separation within the seam) and wherein
the seam includes an incision (300) separating at least the portion of the second section at least from the second wall (shown in figure 5), the heat exchanger (shown in figure 2) further comprising: a first manifold (shown in figures 2-3, comprising the header (204)), a second manifold (shown in figures 2-3, comprising the header (224)), wherein the flat tube is configured to provide a fluidal communication between the first and second manifolds (shown in figures 2-3). Rajabpour fails to disclose wherein the incision divides the seam into an abscessed portion that is unitary with the longitudinal edges protruding from the first wall, and a remaining portion that remains fixed with the second wall
Shimizu, also drawn to a flat tube heat exchanger with partitions, teaches wherein the incision (18, shown in annotated figure 4A) divides the seam into an abscessed portion that is unitary with the longitudinal edges protruding from the first wall (shown in annotated figure 4A, wherein the connecting hole (18) forms the annotated “Abscessed Portion”), and a remaining portion that remains fixed with the second wall (shown in annotated figure 4A, wherein the through opening (18) forms the annotated “Remaining Portion”).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting a notch formed on a bottom surface of a flat tube partition with a notch formed at a center of a flat tube partition; further the prior art to Shimizu teaches that a centered notch is known for allowing fluid to pass between adjacent channels thereby increasing heat exchange capability. Further, Shimizu explicitly teaches that a centered notch (shown in figure 4A) is an equivalent structure known in the art when compared to a notch formed on a bottom surface of a flat tube partition (shown in figure 4C), wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute one notch configuration for the other. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Rajabpour with having a notch formed at a center of a flat tube partition, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat exchanger device; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Shimizu there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Rajabpour by having a notch formed at a center of a flat tube partition.
Regarding limitations “for a heat exchanger for a flow of a fluid therein” recited in Claim 1, which are directed to the intended use of the tube, 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.
Regarding Claim 12, a modified Rajabpour further teaches wherein the heat exchanger further comprises a secondary flat tube (shown in figures 2-3 of Rajabpour, being the second top most tube), the secondary flat tube being a sheet metal strip bended along its length, the metal strip including longitudinal edges, the secondary flat tube including: a first wall, a second wall parallel to the first wall, said first and second walls being substantially flat, two complementary side wall portions joining said first and second walls together, wherein the first wall includes a seam extending along a longitudinal axis of the secondary flat tube so that juxtaposed longitudinal edges of the metal strip join together in parallel manner towards the second wall to form a closed profile of the tube, wherein the seam includes a first section fixed to the second wall and extending along a first portion of the seam along the longitudinal axis of the secondary flat tube extending between open ends of the secondary flat tube (see rejection of Claim 11, wherein Rajabpour discloses the structure of the flat tube extending between opposing manifolds for a heat exchanger).
Regarding Claim 13, a modified Rajabpour further teaches a plurality of flat tubes (shown in figures 2-3), wherein the first (shown in figures 2-3, comprising the header (204)) and second manifolds (shown in figures 2-3, comprising the header (224)) include slots (407) for receiving at least the plurality of flat tubes (shown in figure 3, see also ¶34), wherein second sections extend through and beyond outlines of the slots on both sides of the heat exchanger (shown in figure 3, wherein the tubes extend past a respective header plate and the openings therein).
Regarding Claim 14, a modified Rajabpour further teaches the heat exchanger further comprises at least one fin (208) interlaced between any of the flat tubes of the plurality of flat tubes (shown in figures 2-3), wherein the second sections extend from the slots at least to the outlines delimited by terminal ends of the fin (shown in figure 3 of Rajabpour, as previously put forth in the rejection of Claim 13).
Claims 5 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajabpour et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0011606A1) and in view of Shimizu et al. (Translation of DE1001099A1) as applied in Claims 1, 3-4, 6 and 9-14 above and in view of Han et al. (EP1939571A2), hereinafter referred to as Han.
Regarding Claim 5, Rajabpour fails to discloses the third section extends on an incline from the first section towards the second section.
Han, also drawn to a heat exchanger having channels separated by perforated guide ribs, teaches a third section (shown in figure 8 being the right half of the hole (50)) extends on an incline (shown in figure 8, wherein the hole (50) is inclined from right to left) from the first section (shown in figure 8 being the portion of guide rib to the right of the hole (50)) towards the second section (shown in figure 8 being the left half of the hole (50)).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting an incision being situated between flow channels having a rectangular shape with an incision being situated between flow channels having an inclined shape; further the prior art to Han teaches an incision being situated between flow channels having an inclined shape is known for allowing fluid flow to cross between fluid flow paths to offset pressure non-uniformity. Therefore, since modifying the incision to having an inclined shape, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat exchanger; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Han there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Rajabpour/Shimizu by having an inclined shape in order "to offset pressure non-uniformity" thereby mitigating degradation or failure that results from excessive pressures.
Alternately, Rajabpour discloses the claimed invention except for an inclined shaped incision. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to have an inclined shaped incision, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV (B).
Regarding Claims 20-21, although a modified Rajabpour further teaches the incision is rectangular shaped (see figure 4A of Shimizu), Rajabpour fails to disclose the incision is V-shaped.
Han, also drawn to a heat exchanger having channels separated by perforated partitions, teaches a partition (212) having an incision being V-shaped (50, shown in figure 8).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting an incision being situated between flow channels having a rectangular shape with an incision being situated between flow channels having a triangular or V shape; further the prior art to Han teaches an incision being situated between flow channels having a triangular or V shape is known for allowing fluid flow to cross between fluid flow paths to offset pressure non-uniformity. Therefore, since modifying the incision to have a triangular or V shape, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat exchanger; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Han there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Rajabpour/Shimizu by having a triangular or V shape in order "to offset pressure non-uniformity" thereby mitigating degradation or failure that results from excessive pressures.
Alternately, Rajabpour discloses the claimed invention except for a v-shaped incision. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to have a v-shaped incision, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV (B).
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajabpour et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0011606A1) in view of Shimizu et al. (Translation of DE1001099A1) and in further view of Han et al. (EP1939571A2).
Regarding Claim 15, Rajabpour discloses a flat tube (206) for a heat exchanger for a flow of a fluid therein (shown in figure 2), the flat tube being a sheet metal strip (“the sheet 700 may be a relatively flat, planar sheet of material (e.g., metal, such as steel)” ¶53) bended along its length (“The sheet may be folded to form the tube, as shown by FIGS. 7-10”, ¶18), the metal strip including longitudinal edges (shown in annotated figure 6, being the edges of the partition contacting the “Second Wall”), the flat tube comprising:
a first wall (shown in annotated figure 6), a second wall (shown in annotated figure 6) parallel to the first wall (shown in annotated figure 6), said first and second walls being substantially flat (shown in annotated figure 6),
the first wall includes a seam (the seam is formed at the joint (602) between the folded walls (604 and 606)) extending along a longitudinal axis of the flat tube so that juxtaposed longitudinal edges of the metal strip join together in parallel manner towards the second wall to form a closed profile of the flat tube (shown in figure 6, wherein the annotated “Longitudinal Edges” are attached to the annotated “Second Wall” along at least a portion of the flat tube), wherein
the seam includes a first section (shown in figure 5, being a portion of the seam along the flat tube where the partition (302) fully extends between the annotated “First Wall” and “Second Wall”) fixed to the second wall (shown in figure 5), wherein
the seam includes a second section (shown in figure 5, being the portion of the seam having the notch (300)) extending along a second portion of the seam arranged in a non-repeating series with respect to the first portion of the seam (shown in figure 5) and along the longitudinal axis of the flat tube (shown in figure 5), wherein the second section is separated from the second wall (shown in figure 5, wherein the notch creates a separation within the seam) and wherein
the seam includes an incision (300) separating the second portion of the second section from the second wall (shown in figure 5). Rajabpour fails to disclose wherein the incision divides the seam into an abscessed portion that is unitary with the longitudinal edges protruding from the first wall, and a remaining portion that remains fixed with the second wall.
Shimizu, also drawn to a flat tube heat exchanger with partitions, teaches wherein the incision (18, shown in annotated figure 4A) divides the seam into an abscessed portion that is unitary with the longitudinal edges protruding from the first wall (shown in annotated figure 4A, wherein the connecting hole (18) forms the annotated “Abscessed Portion”), and a remaining portion that remains fixed with the second wall (shown in annotated figure 4A, wherein the through opening (18) forms the annotated “Remaining Portion”).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting a notch formed on a bottom surface of a flat tube partition with a notch formed at a center of a flat tube partition; further the prior art to Shimizu teaches that a centered notch is known for allowing fluid to pass between adjacent channels thereby increasing heat exchange capability. Further, Shimizu explicitly teaches that a centered notch (shown in figure 4A) is an equivalent structure known in the art when compared to a notch formed on a bottom surface of a flat tube partition (shown in figure 4C), wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute one notch configuration for the other. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Rajabpour with having a notch formed at a center of a flat tube partition, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat exchanger device; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Shimizu there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Rajabpour by having a notch formed at a center of a flat tube partition.
Rajabpour fails to disclose the incision is V-shaped.
Han, also drawn to a heat exchanger having channels separated by perforated partitions, teaches a partition (212) having an incision being V-shaped (50, shown in figure 8).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting an incision being situated between flow channels having a rectangular shape with an incision being situated between flow channels having a V-shape; further the prior art to Han teaches an incision being situated between flow channels having a V-shape is known for allowing fluid flow to cross between fluid flow paths to offset pressure non-uniformity. Therefore, since modifying the incision to have a V-shape, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat exchanger; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Han there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Rajabpour/Shimizu by having a V-shape in order "to offset pressure non-uniformity" thereby mitigating degradation or failure that results from excessive pressures.
Alternately, Rajabpour discloses the claimed invention except for a V-shaped incision. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to have a V-shaped incision, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV (B).
Regarding Claim 16, a modified Rajabpour further teaches the first section (shown in figure 5, being a portion of the seam along the flat tube where the partition (302) fully extends between the annotated “First Wall” and “Second Wall”, also shown in annotated figure 4A of Shimizu) extends along a first portion of the seam along the longitudinal axis of the flat tube (shown in figure 5 of Rajabpour and shown in annotated figure 4A of Shimizu).
Regarding Claim 17, a modified Rajabpour further teaches wherein the V-shaped (previously taught by Han in the rejection of Claim 15) incision is formed along the longitudinal axis of the flat tube in a continuous manner (shown in figure 8 of Han).
Regarding Claim 18, a modified Rajabpour further teaches the second portion is arranged in series with respect to the first portion of the seam and along the longitudinal axis of the flat tube (shown in figure 5 of Rajabpour).
Regarding Claim 19, a modified Rajabpour further teaches the V-shaped (previously taught by Han in the rejection of Claim 15) incision is formed substantially in parallel with respect to the surface of the second wall (shown in figure 8 of Han).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajabpour et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0011606A1) in view of Shimizu et al. (Translation of DE1001099A1) as applied in Claims 1, 3-4, 6 and 9-14 above and in further view of Rottmann et al. (US PG Pub. 2005/0067156A1), hereinafter referred to as Rottmann.
Regarding Claim 22, Rajabpour fails to disclose one or more dimples are located along one or more of the first section and the second section.
Rottmann, also drawn to a flat tube for a heat exchanger, teaches one or more dimples (3a, 3b) are located along one or more of a first section and a second section (shown in figures 1, 9A and 12, wherein the indentations are shown to be situated along the longitudinal direction of the flat tube).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Rajabpour with one or more dimples, being located along one or more of the first section and the second section, as taught by Rottmann, the motivation being to increase heat exchange capability through increased turbulence and to increase the structural integrity of the flat tube by increasing the contact area between the top and bottom walls of the flat tube.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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
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