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 Interpretation
In the absence of any indication that an intermediate product is being claimed, apparatus claims are interpreted to be directed to the final product and not some intermediate product (see MPEP 806). To make the point clear, it is the final product that is being examined here, not what could have occurred in the remote past that cannot be seen in the final product. Stated another way, as understood by the examiner, the would-be infringer's conduct is measured against the final product in an apparatus claim, not against the method by which the product was assembled. Further, claim 11 recites “the connecting pipe assembly is formed from a pipe, wherein the inner side of the pipe is covered with a composite layer that functions as solder” (see also Page 5 of the instant application) which is directed to the process by which the heat exchanger is made, prior to brazing in a furnace, and is interpreted as a “product-by-process” limitation. MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different processes."
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyama (JP2021025747A) in view of Scarella (FR2359359A).
Regarding claim 1, Toyama teaches a heat exchanger (see Fig. 4), comprising: a manifold (header pipe 10) extending in a first direction (z direction), the manifold having a first opening (openings to 16) penetrating a pipe wall of the manifold; a tubular member (header pipe 15) arranged side by side with the manifold, the tubular member having a second opening (openings to 16) penetrating the pipe wall of the tubular member; and a connecting pipe assembly (connection pipes 16), wherein the connecting pipe assembly comprises a connecting pipe, the connecting pipe extending in a second direction (x direction) that intersects with the first direction and being provided with a first end portion and a second end portion which are opposite each other (see respective ends), and a plurality of heat exchange pipes (flat tubes 2) in contact and in fluid communication with the manifold (see ends of flat tubes 10 in contact with and in fluid communication therewith), so that the manifold and the tubular member are in fluid communication by means of the first opening, the connecting pipe, and the second opening.
Toyama does not teach the connecting pipe assembly including a first flange portion and a second flange portion which extend radially outward from the first end portion and the second end portion, respectively, wherein the surface of the first flange portion that faces the manifold is connected to the outer surface of the pipe wall of the manifold, and the surface of the second flange portion that faces the tubular member is connected to the outer surface of the pipe wall of the tubular member.
Scarella teaches (see Fig. 1-5) the connecting pipe assembly including a flange portion (4) which extend radially outward from the end portion, wherein the surface of the flange portion that faces a pipe (2) is connected to the outer surface of the pipe wall of the pipe, in order to provide means to connect a T-shaped fitting that is easily manufactured and avoids deformation of the pipes (¶[0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the end parts of the connecting pipe assembly of Toyama in light of the teachings of Scarella, in order to provide means to connect a T-shaped fitting that is easily manufactured and avoids deformation of the pipes (¶[0007]).
Regarding claim 2, Toyama as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Toyama as modified further teaches wherein: the surface of the first flange portion that faces the manifold has the same shape as the corresponding part surrounding the first opening of the outer surface of the pipe wall of the manifold, and the surface of the second flange portion that faces the tubular member has the same shape as the corresponding part surrounding the second opening of the outer surface of the pipe wall of the tubular member (see respective surfaces of the flanges, as modified above).
Regarding claim 3, Toyama as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Toyama further teaches an angle between the axis of the manifold and the axis of the tubular member is within the range of 0 degrees to 5 degrees (see 0 degree angle as seen in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Toyama as modified teaches the limitations of claim 3, and Toyama further teaches an angle between the axis of the connecting pipe and the axis of the manifold is within the range of 85 degrees to 90 degrees (see 90 degree angle as seen in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Toyama as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Toyama further teaches a plurality of fins (fins 3) arranged alternately with the plurality of heat exchange pipes.
Regarding claim 6, Toyama as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Toyama further teaches the tubular member is a manifold, a distribution header, a collecting header (header pipe 15).
Regarding claim 7, Toyama as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Toyama as modified further teaches the ratio of each of the diameter of the first opening and the diameter of the second opening to the inner diameter of the connecting pipe ranges from 0.95 to 1.05 (as gleaned from Fig. 3/5 of Scarella).
Regarding claim 8, Toyama as modified teaches the limitations of claim 7, and Toyama as modified further teaches the inner diameter of the connecting pipe remains the same over its entire length (as gleaned from Fig. 3/5 of Scarella).
Regarding claim 9, Toyama as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Toyama further teaches the axis of the manifold is parallel to the axis of the tubular member, and the axis of the connecting pipe is perpendicular to the axis of the manifold and the axis of the tubular member (as seen in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Toyama as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Toyama as modified further teaches the outer surface of the pipe wall of the manifold and the outer surface of the pipe wall of the tubular member are cylindrical, and the surface of the first flange portion that faces the manifold and the surface of the second flange portion that faces the tubular member are partially cylindrical (see respective surfaces, as modified above).
Regarding claim 11, Toyama as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Toyama as modified further teaches the connecting pipe assembly is formed from a pipe, wherein the inner side of the pipe is covered with a composite layer that functions as solder (brazed - ¶[0007] of Scarella), which is considered to teach the limitations of the implied final product, see claim interpretation above).
Regarding claim 12, Toyama as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Toyama as modified further teaches a thickness of the pipe wall of the connecting pipe is equal to a thickness of the first flange portion and/or the second flange portion, and the pipe wall of the connecting pipe has a uniform thickness (as gleaned from Fig. 3/5 of Scarella).
Regarding claim 13, Toyama as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Toyama as modified further teaches the connecting pipe assembly is located on the outer side in a radial direction of the manifold and on the outer side in a radial direction of the tubular member (as modified above).
Regarding claim 14, Toyama as modified teaches an air conditioning system (air conditioners - see Page 1), comprising: the heat exchanger according to claim 1 (as detailed above).
Response to Arguments
It is noted the amendments filed 1/30/2026 have obviated the previous 35 USC 112 (b) rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S RUPPERT whose telephone number is (571)272-9911. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm.
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.
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763