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 Group II in the reply filed on 2026 February 04 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 13 has been amended to be an air conditioner claim. This is not found persuasive. The rejection below demonstrates that independent claim 4 lacks novelty and therefore cannot share a special technical feature with claim 13. However, if claim 4 is determined to be allowable, all claims including the same or corresponding special technical feature will be rejoined.
Applicant additionally cites MPEP 806.03. This is not found persuasive. MPEP 806 is directed to U.S. restriction practice. This application is a national stage application filed under 35 U.S.C. 371 and is restricted according to PCT rules.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-3, and 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2023/0147134 A1 (herein “Nakao”).
Regarding claim 4. Nakao provides an air conditioner (Fig. 1) comprising:
a parallel-flow-type heat exchanger (Fig. 3; [0022] arranged in a single line) comprising:
a core (Fig. 3; located between headers 33 and 34), in which a plurality of flat, multi-hole pipes (31 and 41) configured such that a coolant can circulate therethrough is arranged in parallel with fins interposed therebetween (Fig. 3; fins 32 and 42) and in which the flat, multi-hole pipes and the fins are stacked alternately in an up-down direction (shown in Fig. 3);
a first header (33), which is disposed at one end of the core in a longitudinal direction of the flat, multi-hole pipes and is connected to the flat, multi-hole pipes; and
a second header (34), which is disposed at the other end of the core in the longitudinal direction and is connected to the flat, multi-hole pipes;
wherein:
the plurality of flat, multi-hole pipes is divided into a plurality of flat, multi-hole pipe groups, which include a first flat, multi-hole pipe group (pipes 41), which is located most upward of the core (41 are located upstream), and a second flat, multi-hole pipe group (pipes 31), which is downward of and adjacent to the first flat, multi-hole pipe group (the groups are separated at partition line 23);
the first header and the second header are configured such that the coolant sequentially passes through the plurality of flat, multi-hole pipe groups from upward to downward (Figs. 2 and 3; flow path includes entering left side of header 33, traveling through pipes 41 to header 34, traveling through pipes 31 to header 33, and then exiting right side of 33);
the number of the flat, multi-hole pipes belonging to the second flat, multi-hole pipe group is 14 or more (example shown in Fig. 3 has twenty-five pipes 31); and
the number of the flat, multi-hole pipes belonging to the first flat, multi-hole pipe group is less than the number of the flat, multi-hole pipes belonging to the second flat, multi-hole pipe group (example shown in Fig. 3 has eleven pipes 41); and
the coolant (refrigerant), which exists in the interior of the parallel-flow-type heat exchanger.
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.
Claims 5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakao in view of US 2013/0284415 A1 (herein “Katoh”), and US 2024/0219039 A1 (herein “Onaka”).
Regarding claim 5. Nakao does not provide the claimed inequality for determining a total number of pipes and number of pipes belonging to the first pipe group.
The claimed inequality is drawn to the following 10 variables:
total number of pipes [number]
number of pipes belonging to the first pipe group [number]
mass-flow rate of coolant [kg/s]
cross-sectional area of the flat pipes [m2]
hydraulic diameter of the flat pipes [m]
length of the flat pipes [m]
viscosity of the coolant in liquid phase
viscosity of the coolant in gas phase
density of the coolant in the liquid phase
density of the coolant in gas phase
Nakao seeks to provide a heat exchanger having a reduced likelihood of pressure loss of refrigerant in the heat transfer tubes to improve heat exchange performance ([0004]), and provides a number expressions relied upon to achieve that goal. See paragraph [0006] titled “Solution to Problem” and Expressions (1)-(5).
Regarding variables 1 and 2, number of tubes/pipes:
In Expression 1, Nakao utilizes variable N1 to represent a first number of heat transfer tubes, and variable N2 which represents a second number of heat transfer pipes. Therefore, the number of coolant pipes is recognized by the prior as a result effective variable and it is not considered inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges thereof. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding variable 3, mass-flow rate:
In Expressions 4 and 5, Nakao utilizes variable Gr1 to represent the mass flow rate of refrigerant through the heat exchanger. Therefore, the mass-flow rate of coolant through the heat exchanger is recognized by the prior as a result effective variable and it is not considered inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges thereof. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding variable 4, cross-sectional area:
In Expressions 4 and 5, Nakao utilizes variable AT to represent the cross-sectional area of the flow passage of the tubes/pipes. Therefore, the cross-sectional area of the pipes is recognized by the prior as a result effective variable and it is not considered inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges thereof. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding variable 5, hydraulic diameter:
In Expressions 4 and 5, Nakao utilizes variable D to represent the equivalent (hydraulic) diameter of a cross-section of the flow passages of the tubes/pipes. Therefore, the hydraulic diameter of the pipes is recognized by the prior as a result effective variable and it is not considered inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges thereof. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding variable 6, length of the pipes:
Onaka discloses a refrigeration system having a parallel piped heat exchanger and provides that Fig. 4 illustrates a relationship between height H, which is the length of the flat tubes 38, and a differential pressure ratio of refrigerant in the heat exchanger ([0051], [0052]). Therefore, the length of the pipes is recognized by the prior as a result effective variable and it is not considered inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges thereof. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding variables 7 and 8, viscosity of the coolant in liquid phase and in the gas phase:
Katoh discloses a refrigeration system having a parallel piped heat exchanger and seeks to overcome loss in pressure of the refrigerant in the tubes caused by condensed refrigerant staying in the tubes. In Formula 2, Katoh utilizes variable µl to represent the viscosity of liquid phase refrigerant in the heat exchanger, and variable µm to represent the viscosity of the gas phase refrigerant in the heat exchanger. Therefore, the liquid phase coolant viscosity and the gas phase coolant viscosity are recognized by the prior as a result effective variable and it is not considered inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges thereof. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding variables 9 and 10, density of the coolant in the liquid phase and in the gas phase:
In Expressions 4 and 5, Nakao utilizes variable ρL to represent the density of liquid refrigerant in the heat exchanger, and variable ρG to represent the density of the gas refrigerant in the heat exchanger. Therefore, the liquid phase coolant density and the gas phase coolant density are recognized by the prior as a result effective variable and it is not considered inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges thereof. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Additionally, in Formula 2, Katoh utilizes variable ρi to represent the density of liquid phase refrigerant in the heat exchanger, and variable ρg to represent the density of the gas phase refrigerant in the heat exchanger. Therefore, the liquid phase coolant density and the gas phase coolant density are recognized by the prior as a result effective variable and it is not considered inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges thereof. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Therefore, the combined teachings of Nakao, Katoh, and Onaka establish that the variables of claim 5 are all recognized by the prior art as result effective variables and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to experiment with these variables in an attempt to optimize the refrigeration system.
Regarding claim 8. Nakao does not specify the refrigerant used.
Onaka also discloses a parallel piped heat exchanger utilizing R-32 refrigerant (abstract).
R-32 is a commonly used refrigerant and is recognized as being non-ozone-depleting and having less influence on global warming compared to other traditional refrigerants. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Nakao to utilize R-32 as taught by Tada.
Regarding claim 9. Nakao does not disclose the claimed mass-flow rate. However, in Expressions 4 and 5, Nakao utilizes variable Gr1 to represent the mass flow rate of refrigerant through the heat exchanger. Therefore, the mass-flow rate of coolant through the heat exchanger is recognized by the prior as a result effective variable and it is not considered inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges thereof. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 10. Nakao does not disclose the claimed hydraulic diameter and pipe length.
In Expressions 4 and 5, Nakao utilizes variable D to represent the equivalent (hydraulic) diameter of a cross-section of the flow passages of the tubes/pipes. Therefore, the hydraulic diameter of the pipes is recognized by the prior as a result effective variable and it is not considered inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges thereof. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Onaka provides that Fig. 4 illustrates a relationship between height H, which is the length of the flat tubes 38, and a differential pressure ratio of refrigerant in the heat exchanger ([0051], [0052]). Therefore, the length of the pipes is recognized by the prior as a result effective variable and it is not considered inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges thereof. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakao in view of US 2018/0306515 A1 (herein “Tada”) and/or Onaka.
Regarding claim 6. Nakao does not specify the refrigerant used.
Tada discloses a parallel piped heat exchanger for a refrigeration system utilizing R-32 refrigerant ([0130]).
Onaka also discloses a parallel piped heat exchanger utilizing R-32 refrigerant (abstract).
R-32 is a commonly used refrigerant and is recognized as being non-ozone-depleting and having less influence on global warming compared to other traditional refrigerants. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Nakao to utilize R-32 as taught by Tada.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakao in view of Tada.
Regarding claim 7. Nakao does not specify the mass-flow rate of the coolant.
Tada discloses a refrigerant flow rate between 0.003 kg/s and 0.035 kg/s (Inequality 3; [0107]). “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakao alone.
Regarding claim 7. Nakao does not specify the claimed mass-flow rate of the coolant.
However, Nakao seeks to provide a heat exchanger having a reduced likelihood of pressure loss of refrigerant in the heat transfer tubes to improve heat exchange performance ([0004]), and provides a number expressions relied upon to achieve that goal. See [0006] titled “Solution to Problem” and Expressions (1)-(5). Nakao utilizes variable Gr1 which represents the mass flow rate of refrigerant through the heat exchanger.
Therefore, the mass-flow rate of coolant through the heat exchanger is recognized by the prior as a result effective variable and it is not considered inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges thereof. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakao in view of Katoh, Onaka, and Tada.
Regarding claim 9. Nakao does not specify the mass-flow rate of the coolant.
Tada discloses a refrigerant flow rate between 0.003 kg/s and 0.035 kg/s (Inequality 3; [0107]). “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 11. Nakao does not disclose that the heat exchanger has a rated capacity of 2kW or more and 12kW or less.
Tada provides that the rated cooling capacity Q satisfies the inequality 0.75<Q/N<2.5 kW when N is at least one (claim 2). “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakao in view of Katoh, Onaka, and CN 104620069 B (herein “Ueno”).
Regarding claim 11. Nakao does not disclose that the heat exchanger has a rated capacity of 2kW or more and 12kW or less.
Ueno discloses a refrigeration system having a parallel piped heat exchanger and provides examples of the heat exchanger having a rated capacity between 1 kW and 6 kW (Figs. 6-9). “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” MPEP 2144.05 I.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jon T. Schermerhorn Jr. whose telephone number is (571)270-5283. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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.
/JON T. SCHERMERHORN JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763