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 § 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(s) 1, 5, 7, 10-11, 14, 16, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanekawa (JP 2012141108), hereinafter referred to as Kanekawa.
Re claim 1 and 14, Kanekawa teaches a refrigerant distributor (1) comprising a mixing portion (8) having a cylindrical shape (see Fig 1-7), wherein
the mixing portion has an inlet (10) for inflow therethrough of a refrigerant (e.g. description, “non-uniform gas-liquid two-phase refrigerant”) at a first end (e.g. Fig 1-2, 4) of the mixing portion,
the mixing portion has a plurality of outlets (7) for outflow therethrough of the refrigerant at a second end of the mixing portion opposite to the first end (e.g. Fig 1-2, 4),
the mixing portion has a recess (5) facing the inlet at the second end of the mixing portion (e.g. Fig 2),
the mixing portion guides a gas-phase refrigerant (see the arrow representing the flow of refrigerant in Fig 5; also see description “a non-uniform gas-liquid two-phase fluid”) contained in the refrigerant flowing into the recess from the inlet to hit a liquid-phase refrigerant (see description “a non-uniform gas-liquid two-phase fluid”) contained in the refrigerant flowing in from the inlet, thereby pressing the liquid-phase refrigerant against the first end of the mixing portion to guide the liquid-phase refrigerant to flow along the first end of the mixing portion and a side wall (see Fig 5 for the trajectory of the refrigerant also the side wall of 8c) of the mixing portion to diffuse the liquid-phase refrigerant in a circumferential direction (see e.g. Fig 3) of the second end, and then sends out the liquid-phase refrigerant from the plurality of outlets (see description “As shown by a solid line arrow in FIG. 5, a non-uniform gas-liquid two-phase fluid flows from the introduction pipe connected to the introduction port 10 into the branch space 8 through the introduction port 10 and faces the introduction port 10. It collides with the cone top part 5a of the concave-shaped part 5 which was made. The collided gas-liquid two-phase fluid is agitated to become a uniform gas-liquid two-phase mixed fluid, flows backward along the peripheral surface 5b of the concave portion 5, and is provided on the inner peripheral surface 8C of the branch space 8. It flows out to each recess 15. In each recess 15, the fluid flows along the wall surface of the recess 15 as shown in FIG. Since each recessed part 15 is the same size, the natural vortex to generate has the same flow velocity vector, and the pressure and flow rate in the vicinity of each recessed part 15 are substantially the same. Thereby, the flow volume of the fluid which flows out from the outlet 7 corresponding to each recessed part 15 can be made equal. Here, although the recessed part 15 is recessed in circular arc shape in the horizontal cross sectional view shown in FIG. 5, it may be provided angularly for triangular shapes or the like”),
the refrigerant distributor further comprises a guide (6) located at the second end of the mixing portion, and
the guide guides, from the second end of the mixing portion toward the first end of the mixing portion, the gas-phase refrigerant guided by the mixing portion to hit the liquid-phase refrigerant (see description, “By providing the rectifying plate 6 as described above, when the fluid flowing in from the inlet 10 collides with the conical apex 5a of the concave portion 5, A non-uniform gas-liquid two-phase refrigerant flows from the introduction port 10 a into the branch space 8 through the inflow path 10 and collides with the conical apex 5 a of the concave portion 5. The collided gas-liquid two-phase refrigerant is agitated to become a uniform gas-liquid two-phase mixed fluid and flows back along the peripheral surface 5 b of the concave portion 5 and the rectifying plate 6. Here, when the fluid flows along the current plate 6, the flow to the recessed portion 14 (15) provided in the branch space 8 is rectified, and the flow loss is reduced. Thereby, a natural vortex can be efficiently generated in the recessed portion 14 (15), and the flow rate of the fluid flowing out from the outlet 7 facing each recessed portion 14 (15) can be equalized”);
a diameter of the recess is larger than an inner diameter of the inlet (see Fig. 2-3).
Re claim 5 and 16, Kanekawa teaches the refrigerant distributor according to claim 1 and 14, wherein the plurality of outlets are located apart from the recess outwardly in a radial direction of the second end of the mixing portion (see Fig 2-3), and a first distance (see Fig 3, “distance between the recess and an axial center of each of the plurality of outlets”) being a distance between the recess and an axial center of each of the plurality of outlets is larger than a second distance (see Fig 3, “distance between the axial center of each of the plurality of outlets and the side wall of the mixing portion”) being a distance between the axial center of each of the plurality of outlets and the side wall of the mixing portion (see Fig 3).
Re claim 7, Kanekawa teaches the refrigerant distributor according to claim 1, further comprising: an inlet tube (tube coupled to 104 and 1) connected to the inlet; and outlet tubes (see outlet tubes in Fig 7) connected to the plurality of outlets (see Fig 3).
Re claim 10 and 19, Kanekawa teaches a heat exchanger comprising: the refrigerant distributor according to claim 1 and 14; and a plurality of heat transfer tubes (see tubes in Fig 7 from the heat exchanger to the distributor) connected to the plurality of outlets.
Re claim 11 and 20, Kanekawa teaches a refrigeration cycle device comprising a refrigerant circuit (see circuit 100) to circulate the refrigerant, the refrigerant circuit comprising: the heat exchanger according to claim 10 and 14, a compressor (101) to compress the refrigerant, and a throttle device (104) to expand the refrigerant.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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(s) 6, 8, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanekawa.
Re claim 6, Kanekawa teaches the refrigerant distributor according to claim 1 and 14. Kanekawa teaches a height h of the mixing portion (see Fig 1-2). Kanekawa does not explicitly teach the limitation of wherein the height h of the mixing portion is 2.5 to 4 mm inclusive. However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that a height h of the mixing portion is a result effective variable (see e.g. JP 2014081149, Fig 6), falls within the realm of common knowledge as obvious mechanical expedient. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the height h of the mixing portion is 2.5 to 4 mm inclusive, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II)
Re claim 8 and 17, Kanekawa teaches the refrigerant distributor according to claim 1 and 14. Kanekawa teaches a height h of the mixing portion (see Fig 1-2). Kanekawa does not explicitly teach the limitation of wherein the height h of the mixing portion is larger than 10/3 mm. However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that a height h of the mixing portion is a result effective variable (see e.g. JP 2014081149, Fig 6), falls within the realm of common knowledge as obvious mechanical expedient. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the height h of the mixing portion is larger than 10/3 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II)
Claim(s) 12-13, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanekawa, in view of Horiba et al. (US 20190056158), hereinafter referred to as Horiba et al. (US 20190056158), hereinafter referred to as Horiba.
Re claim 12 and 21, Kanekawa teaches a heat exchanger comprising: the refrigerant distributor according to claim 1 and 14; and an internal refrigerant pipe (pipe from 104 to 1) connected to the inlet. Kanekawa does not teach the limitation of wherein the internal refrigerant pipe comprises a straight tube portion that has a linear shape and is connected to the inlet, and a curved portion that is located upstream from the straight tube portion, is U-shaped, and is connected to the straight tube portion. However, Horiba teaches a refrigerant distributor comprising a straight tube portion (see Fig below, “straight portion”) that has a linear shape and is connected to an inlet (inlet of the distributor), and a curved portion (see Fig below, “U turn portion”) that is located upstream from the straight tube portion, is U-shaped, and is connected to the straight tube portion (see Fig below reproduced from Fig 2). Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kanekawa and integrated wherein the internal refrigerant pipe comprises a straight tube portion that has a linear shape and is connected to the inlet, and a curved portion that is located upstream from the straight tube portion, is U-shaped, and is connected to the straight tube portion, as taught by Horiba, in order to account for space constraints.
[AltContent: arrow]
Re claim 13 and 22, Kanekawa teaches a refrigeration cycle device comprising a refrigerant circuit (100) to circulate the refrigerant, the refrigerant circuit comprising the heat exchanger according to claim 12 and 21, a compressor (e.g. 101) to compress the refrigerant, and a throttle device (e.g. 104) to expand the refrigerant.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 9, 15, 18 are 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON NIEVES whose telephone number is (571)270-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/NELSON J NIEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 3/5/2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763