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) 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20210199340 A1 to Park II.
Regarding claim 55. Park II teaches a heat exchanger (figs. 4 and 7) comprising:
a housing (external housing seen in fig. 7);
a combustion chamber (combustion chamber 20g), a heat exchange chamber (sensible heat exchanger 30g), and a condensation chamber (latent heat exchanger 40g) provided inside the housing and sequentially arranged along a flue gas flow direction in the housing (fig. 7);
combustion-chamber heat-exchange tubes provided in the combustion chamber (combustion chamber heat insulation pipe 24g);
heat-exchange-chamber heat-exchange tubes provided in the heat exchange chamber (sensible heat insulation pipes 34g) and in communication with the combustion-chamber heat-exchange tubes (fig. 7, heat exchanger flow path HR); and
condensation-chamber heat-exchange tubes provided in the condensation chamber (para. 79, “Similarly to the sensible heat exchanger 30g, the latent heat exchanger 40g may include a latent heat exchange pipe through which the heating-water flows and around which the combustion gas flows.”) and in communication with the heat-exchange-chamber heat-exchange tubes (fig. 7, heat exchanger flow path HR).
PNG
media_image1.png
606
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 55-57, 60-61, 64, and 74 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220221192 A1 to Park in view of US 20210199340 A1 to Park II.
Regarding claim 55. Park teaches a heat exchanger (fig. 17) comprising:
a housing (housing 510 and/or combustion chamber sidewall 21);
a combustion chamber (combustion chamber 20), a heat exchange chamber (portion labeled 300 housing sensible heat exchange pipes 320), and a condensation chamber (portion labeled 400 housing latent heat exchange pipes 420) provided inside the housing and sequentially arranged along a flue gas flow direction in the housing (fig. 17);
heat-exchange-chamber heat-exchange tubes provided in the heat exchange chamber (sensible heat exchange pipes 320); and
condensation-chamber heat-exchange tubes provided in the condensation chamber (latent heat exchange pipes 420) and in communication with the heat-exchange-chamber heat-exchange tubes (para. 206, “To connect the outlet of the latent heat flow passage exposed outside one of the side plates constituting the housing 510 and the inlet of the sensible heat flow passage exposed outside the one side plate, one of the flow passage cap plates 363 and 364 may include, between the one side plate and the one flow passage cap plate, a flow passage cap having a connection space surrounding the outlet of the latent heat flow passage and the inlet of the sensible heat flow passage.”).
PNG
media_image2.png
887
512
media_image2.png
Greyscale
But fails to teach combustion-chamber heat-exchange tubes provided in the combustion chamber and in communication with the heat-exchange-chamber heat-exchange tubes.
Park II teaches combustion-chamber heat-exchange tubes provided in the combustion chamber (fig. 4, combustion chamber heat insulation pipes 24g) and in communication with the heat-exchange-chamber heat-exchange tubes (para. 125, “A connecting adaptor 61g included in the heat exchanger unit may connect the sensible heat flow passage, which is formed by the sensible heat exchange pipe 32g and the flow passage caps of the sensible heat exchanger 30g, and the combustion chamber flow passage, which is formed by the combustion chamber heat insulation pipes 24g.”).
PNG
media_image3.png
863
689
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Park to implement suitable combustion chamber heat insulation pipes, as taught by Park II. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of improving the thermal insulation performance, as suggested by Park II in para. 112, “The combustion chamber 20g of the heat exchanger unit according to an embodiment of the present disclosure may include a combustion chamber heat insulation pipe 24g instead of the combustion chamber heat insulation part … improved thermal insulation performance may be achieved by using the combustion chamber heat insulation pipe 24g that is able to be semi-permanently used, compared to a heat insulating material for thermal insulation of the combustion chamber 20g.”
Regarding claim 56. Modified Park teaches the heat exchanger according to claim 55, wherein:
the condensation-chamber heat-exchange tubes are arranged in a plurality of rows along the flue gas flow direction (para. 154, “Referring to FIG. 15, the heat exchanger unit according to the second embodiment of the present disclosure may have a sensible heat exchanger 81 and a latent heat exchanger 82 having two rows of latent heat exchangers.”); and
PNG
media_image4.png
439
518
media_image4.png
Greyscale
at least some of the condensation-chamber heat-exchange tubes are arranged into a plurality of groups each including at least two condensation-chamber heat-exchange tubes arranged in parallel (from fig. 16, the flow through the pipes would be understood to be in parallel).
PNG
media_image5.png
584
491
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 57. Modified Park teaches the heat exchanger according to claim 56, wherein:
at least two condensation-chamber heat-exchange tubes in a same one of the plurality of rows are connected in parallel (fig. 16, copied above, all of the pipes in each row are understood to be connected in parallel);
and/or at least two condensation-chamber heat-exchange tubes respectively in at least two adjacent ones of the plurality of rows are connected in parallel (optional limitation, see mapping to alternative).
Regarding claim 60. Modified Park teaches the heat exchanger according to claim 55, wherein:
the heat-exchange-chamber heat-exchange tubes are arranged in a plurality of rows along the flue gas flow direction, the heat-exchange-chamber heat-exchange tubes in each row being arranged in series (optional limitation, see mapping to alternative); or
the combustion-chamber heat-exchange tubes are arranged in a plurality of rows along the flue gas flow direction, the combustion-chamber heat-exchange tubes in each row being arranged in parallel (Park II fig. 4, the combustion chamber heat insulation pipes 24g can be seen to be arranged in a plurality of rows in the vertical direction and are arranged in parallel, i.e. the pipes are parallel to each other).
PNG
media_image6.png
665
513
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 61. Modified Park teaches the heat exchanger according to claim 55, wherein each of the condensation-chamber heat-exchange tubes and the combustion-chamber heat-exchange tubes is an elliptical tube having a major axis parallel to the flue gas flow direction (Park fig. 20, the tubes 420 can be seen to be substantially elliptical tubes having a major axis in the vertical direction).
PNG
media_image7.png
796
727
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 64. Modified Park teaches the heat exchanger according to claim 55, further comprising:
a heat-exchange-chamber fin arranged around one or more of the heat-exchange-chamber heat-exchange tubes (fig. 20, sensible heat fin 330),
the heat-exchange-chamber fin having a heat-exchange-chamber fin through hole and a heat-exchange-chamber fin flange surrounding the heat-exchange-chamber fin through hole (para. 173, “As the sensible heat fin 330 has a shape through which the sensible heat exchange pipe 320 passes, the sensible heat exchanging part 300 may configure a heat exchanger of a fin-tube type.” Where fig. 20 additionally shows a plurality of flanges or louvers 3303 and 3304 surrounding the through holes), and
the one or more heat-exchange-chamber heat-exchange tubes penetrating through the heat-exchange-chamber fin through hole and being fixed to the heat-exchange-chamber fin flange (para. 176, “the sensible heat exchange pipe 320 may be firmly inserted into the through-hole. Furthermore, the sensible heat fin 330 may be integrally coupled with the sensible heat exchange pipe 320 through brazing welding. A method of coupling the sensible heat fin 330 and the sensible heat exchange pipe 320 through brazing welding will be described in detail in the descriptions of FIGS. 15 and 16.”).
Regarding claim 74. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale applied to claim 55, where Park additionally teaches a water heater (fig. 17).
Claim(s) 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Park II as applied to claim 56 above, and further in view of US 20210222912 A1 to Kim.
Regarding claim 58. Modified Park teaches the heat exchanger according to claim 56, wherein:
the condensation-chamber heat-exchange tubes are arranged in two rows, including an upstream row and a downstream row along the flue gas flow direction (fig. 20, para. 182, “The latent heat exchange pipe 420 may include a plurality of upstream straight portions 421 and a plurality of downstream straight portions 422 located downstream of the upstream straight portions 421 based on the reference direction D1.”);
and at least two adjacent condensation-chamber heat-exchange tubes in the upstream row are connected to each other in parallel (fig. 28, the tubes 421 are arranged in parallel).
PNG
media_image8.png
613
513
media_image8.png
Greyscale
But fails to teach the condensation chamber heat exchange tubes arranged in three rows, including a midstream row
each condensation-chamber heat-exchange tube in the downstream row is connected in parallel with a corresponding condensation-chamber heat-exchange tube in the midstream row.
Kim teaches heat exchange tubes arranged in a plurality of rows (see fig. 10, at least the bottom most portion of the heat exchanger 5 is provided with a plurality of rows, in particular 4 rows), each tube in a downstream row is connected in parallel with a corresponding tube in a midstream row (the tubes in the bottom row of the 4 are connected in parallel with a corresponding tube in a row above the bottom row).
PNG
media_image9.png
772
495
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Park to implement a suitable heat exchange structure having a plurality of tubes, as taught by Kim. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of exchanging heat in a suitable way, as suggested by Kim in para. 54. With this modification, at least the down stream portions 422 of Park would be replaced by the plurality of tubes shown in Kim, thereby enabling the down stream portion 422 to have both a midstream and downstream row.
Claim(s) 62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Park II as applied to claim 55 above, and further in view of US 20230272942 A1 to Wada.
Regarding claim 62. Modified Park teaches the heat exchanger according to claim 55, wherein at least one of the heat-exchange-chamber heat-exchange tubes is an elliptical tube having a major axis parallel to the flue gas flow direction (fig. 17 sensible heat insulation pipes 340).
But fails to teach wherein at least one of the heat exchange chamber heat exchange tubes is a circular tube.
Wada teaches heat exchange chamber heat exchange tubes being circular tubes (fig. 4, heat transfer pipes 3).
PNG
media_image10.png
596
515
media_image10.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Park to teach circular sensible heat exchange pipes 320, as taught by Wada. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of suitably exchanging the heat in a desired manner, as suggested by Wada in para. 42.
Claim(s) 65-67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Park II as applied to claim 55 above, and further in view of CN 113720191 A to Lu.
Note: Reference is made to the attached translation of Lu.
Regarding claim 65. Modified Park teaches the heat exchanger according to claim 55, further comprising:
a condensation-chamber fin disposed around one or more of the condensation-chamber heat-exchange tubes (fig. 20, latent heat fin 430),
the condensation-chamber fin having at least one row of condensation-chamber fin through holes (each of 431 and 432 are shown with one row of through holes for latent heat exchange pipe 420).
But fails to teach the condensation chamber fin being provided with condensation flow guide structures configured to guide flue gas to the condensation-chamber heat-exchange tubes.
Lu teaches a fin being provided with flow guide structures configured to guide flue gas to tubes (fig. 1, heat exchange fin 110 provided with portion 1161, see arrows indicating gas flow being at least partially directed towards the tube holes 112).
PNG
media_image11.png
434
752
media_image11.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Park such that the fins 431 and 432 have the suitable structure of Lu’s fin. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of increasing the efficiency of the heat exchanger, as suggested by Lu on p. 11 para. 2, “Further, referring to FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 … can further improve the heat exchange efficiency of the heat exchanger 10.”
Regarding claim 66. Modified Park teaches the heat exchanger according to claim 65, wherein the at least one row of condensation-chamber fin through holes is at least one of a plurality of rows of condensation-chamber fin through holes arranged along the flue gas flow direction (fig. 20, rows of latent heat exchange pipe 420 correspond to row of through holes in the latent heat fin 430),
the condensation flow guide structures being located at two longitudinal ends of a most upstream row of condensation-chamber fin through holes along the flue gas flow direction (Lu fig. 1, the portions 1161 are located at the two longitudinal ends near the upstream most row of tube holes 112).
Regarding claim 67. Modified Park teaches the heat exchanger according to claim 66, wherein the condensation flow guide structures include two condensation flow guide structures disposed obliquely relative to each other (Lu fig. 1, the portions 1161 are disposed obliquely relative to each other), and
a distance between the two condensation flow guide structures decreases along the flue gas flow direction (Lu fig. 1, the distance between portions 1161 decreases along direction F2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 59, 63, and 68-73 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 59. Park in view of Park II and Kim, applied to claim 58, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention.
Modified Park teaches the heat exchanger according to claim 58, wherein a number of condensation-chamber heat-exchange tubes in the downstream row and the midstream row that are in a parallel connection (fig. 28, 3 tubes 422 in parallel connection. This number would not be expected to change based on the modification by Kim) is less than a number of condensation-chamber heat-exchange tubes in the upstream row that are in a parallel connection (fig. 28, 4 tubes 421 in parallel connection. This number would not be expected to change based on the modification by Kim).
PNG
media_image12.png
598
510
media_image12.png
Greyscale
The prior art fails to teach, “is less than”, in addition to the rest of the claim, as noted in the mapping above.
Instead, as seen in fig. 28, Park generally teaches a heat exchanger that decreases in width along direction D1. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide more tubes in the downstream row, as claimed, since Park teaches away from that configuration.
Regarding claim 63. Park in view of Park II and Wada, applied to claim 62, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention.
Modified Park teaches the heat exchanger according to claim 62, wherein:
the heat-exchange-chamber heat-exchange tubes are arranged in a plurality of rows along the flue gas flow direction (Wada fig. 4, pipes 3 in a plurality of rows).
The prior art fails to teach, “a number of circular tubes in an upstream row of the heat-exchange-chamber heat-exchange tubes is smaller than a number of circular tubes in an adjacent downstream row of the heat-exchange-chamber heat-exchange tubes, and two tubes located at two ends in the upstream row of the heat-exchange-chamber heat-exchange tubes are elliptical tubes”, in addition to the rest of the claim.
Instead, Wada fig. 4 shows the upstream row of tubes having a higher number of tubes compared to a downstream row. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the invention as claimed, and considering the sensible heat insulation pipes 340 of Park as the claimed elliptical tubes does not overcome the deficiencies of the prior art noted above.
PNG
media_image13.png
596
515
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 68. Park in view of Park II and Lu, applied to claim 65, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention.
Modified Park teaches the heat exchanger according to claim 65, wherein:
the condensation flow guide structures are first condensation flow guide structures (Lu fig. 1, portions 1161 being first condensation flow guide structures); and
the condensation-chamber fin is further provided with second condensation flow guide structures (Lu fig. 2, elliptical spoiler 114).
The prior art fails to teach, “one or each of two sides of a lower middle part of each of the condensation-chamber fin through holes being provided with one of the second condensation flow guide structures, and each of the second condensation flow guide structures being configured to guide flue gas to a lower middle part of the corresponding condensation-chamber heat-exchange tube”, in addition to the rest of the claim.
Instead, modified Park teaches the suitable elliptical spoiler 114 of Lu only being disposed between some of the heat exchange tubes. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange these spoilers 114 around each through hole, as claimed.
Furthermore, attention is directed to CN 214468731 U to Wang, which teaches a triangular seam 13 positioned around each liquid guide slit 12. It would not have been obvious to further modify the suitable fin of Lu given the teachings of Wang, in addition to this arrangement failing to teach a second flow guide configured to guide flue gas to a lower middle part of the tube, as claimed, since it is arranged substantially after the tube in the flow direction.
Regarding claim 71. Park in view of Park II and Lu, applied to claim 65, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention.
Modified Park teaches the heat exchanger according to claim 65, wherein:
the condensation flow guide structures are first condensation flow guide structures (Lu fig. 1, portions 1161 could be considered as first condensation flow guide structures);
the at least one row of condensation-chamber fin through holes is at least one of a plurality of rows of condensation-chamber fin through holes arranged along the flue gas flow direction (Park teaches a plurality of rows of condensation chamber tubes, and therefore a plurality of a row of through holes, see fig. 20).
The prior art fails to teach, “the condensation-chamber fin is further provided with a second condensation flow guide structure between two adjacent rows of condensation-chamber fin through holes, the second condensation flow guide structure being configured to guide flue gas from an upstream side to the condensation-chamber heat-exchange tubes at a downstream side”, in addition to the rest of the claim.
Instead, the suitable structure of Lu only teaches second condensation flow guide structures, elliptical turbulent flow members 114, not being between two adjacent rows of through holes, as claimed. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the flow members 114, as claimed, based on the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 73. Park in view of Park II and Lu, applied to claim 65, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention.
Modified Park teaches the heat exchanger according to claim 65, wherein:
at least one row of condensation-chamber heat-exchange tubes adjacent to an upstream side among the plurality of rows of condensation-chamber heat-exchange tubes is fit in at least one corresponding row of condensation-chamber fin through holes (Park fig. 20, the tubes 422 are within fin 432).
The prior art fails to teach, “a number of rows of condensation-chamber fin through holes arranged on the condensation-chamber fin is smaller than a number of rows of condensation-chamber heat-exchange tubes; at least one row of condensation-chamber heat-exchange tubes located at a downstream side is entirely located at the downstream side of the condensation-chamber fin.”, in addition to the rest of the claim.
Instead, Park teaches all of the heat exchange tubes within the fin, to achieve the desired heat exchange. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure some of the tubes outside of the fin, as claimed, given the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt J Wolford whose telephone number is (571)272-9945. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 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, Michael G Hoang can be reached at (571)272-6460. 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.
/KURT J WOLFORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights