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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. — The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1, 5, 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, 5, 8 and 21, call for the limitation of the "substantially”; this word renders the claim indefinite because the meaning of “substantially” is unclear and potentially could lead to multiple interpretations; the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-7, 10-14 and 16-21 are dependent from claims 1, 5 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 above and therefore inherit the deficiencies of the parent claims 1, 5 and 8, respectively.
Claim 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15, call for the limitation of “such that”. The phrase “such as” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-7, 10-14 and 16-21 are rejected based upon their dependency from claims 1, 8 and 15, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, 13, 15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gorbounov et al (U.S. PG Pub No.: 2006/0016214 A1), hereinafter referred to as Gorbounov et al ‘214.
Regarding claim 1, Gorbounov et al ‘214disclose a heat exchanger assembly of a climate control system {as shown in Fig. 3: ¶ [0012] and [0031]; wherein one evaporator unit constitutes a heat exchanger assembly} that is configured to condition an airflow that is provided to an interior space, the heat exchanger assembly comprising: an inlet line (12) for receiving a refrigerant in a substantially liquid phase; an expansion device (13) positioned along the inlet line, the expansion device configured to expand the refrigerant {as shown in Fig. 3: ¶ [0026]}; and a heat exchanger (14) positioned downstream of the expansion device, the heat exchanger configured to transfer heat from the airflow to the refrigerant and discharge the refrigerant in a substantially gaseous state (18) {as shown in Fig. 3: ¶¶ [0026-0028]}; and a discharge line (17) configured to receive the refrigerant from the heat exchanger, wherein the discharge line includes an outlet header (2) {as shown in Fig. 3: ¶ [0027]}, the outlet header coupled to the heat exchanger (14) such that the refrigerant discharged from the heat exchanger is received in the outlet header, the outlet header further including an outlet tube (18) {as shown in Fig. 3: ¶ [0027]}, wherein the inlet line and the discharge line are arranged to define a superheater (15) that is configured to transfer heat from (i) the refrigerant within the inlet line upstream of the expansion device to (ii) the refrigerant in the discharge line to thereby superheat the refrigerant in the discharge line {as shown in Fig. 3: ¶¶ [0026-0028]},wherein the outlet header (2) includes the superheater (15) and the outlet tube (18) directs the superheated refrigerant out the outlet header {as shown in Fig. 3: ¶¶ [0026-0028]}.
Regarding claim 2, Gorbounov et al ‘214 the heat exchanger assembly of claim 1, wherein a length (15a) of the inlet line upstream of the expansion device is abutted along a length (15b) of the discharge line to define the superheater {as shown in Fig. 3: ¶ [0028]}.
Regarding claim 3, Gorbounov et al ‘214 the heat exchanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the inlet line passes within the outlet header to define the superheater {as shown in Fig. 3: ¶ [0027-0028]}.
Regarding claim 4, Gorbounov et al ‘214 the heat exchanger assembly of claim 3, wherein the heat exchanger comprises a micro-channel heat exchanger comprising a plurality of channels configured to discharge the refrigerant into the outlet header see {as ¶ [0022]}.
Regarding claim 15, Gorbounov et al ‘214 disclose a climate control system for conditioning an airflow provided to an interior space {as shown in Fig. 3: ¶ [0012] and [0031]; wherein one evaporator unit constitutes a heat exchanger assembly}, the climate control system comprising: a compressor (10) that is configured to compress a refrigerant {as shown in Fig. 3: ¶ [0024]}; a condenser (11) that is arranged to receive the refrigerant from the compressor {as shown in Fig. 3: ¶ [0024]}; and an evaporator assembly comprising: an inlet line (12) configured to receive the refrigerant from the condenser {as shown in Fig. 3: ¶ [0026]}; an expansion device (13) positioned along the inlet line that is configured to expand the refrigerant {as shown in Fig. 3: ¶ [0026]}; a micro-channel heat exchanger (14) downstream of the expansion device and configured to transfer heat from the airflow to the refrigerant {as shown in Figs. 1A, 1B and 3: Fig. 3: ¶¶ [0022], [0026-0027]}; and a discharge line (17) arranged to receive the refrigerant from the micro-channel heat exchanger and discharge the refrigerant toward the compressor, wherein the inlet line and discharge line are arranged to define a superheater (15) that is configured to transfer heat from (i) the refrigerant in the inlet line upstream of the expansion device to (ii) the refrigerant in the discharge line to thereby superheat the refrigerant in the discharge line {as shown in Fig. 3: ¶ [0028]}, wherein the discharge line includes an outlet header (2), the outlet header coupled to the heat exchanger such that the refrigerant discharged from the heat exchanger is received in the outlet header, the outlet header further including an outlet tube (18),wherein the outlet header includes the superheater (15) and the outlet tube directs the superheated refrigerant out the outlet header {as shown in Fig. 3: ¶¶ [0026-0028]}.
Regarding claim 16, Gorbounov et al ‘214 disclose the climate control system of claim 15, wherein the inlet line passes within the outlet header to define the superheater {as shown in Figs. 1A, 1B and 3: Fig. 3: ¶¶ [0022] and [0027]}.
Regarding claim 17, Gorbounov et al ‘214 disclose the climate control system of claim 16, wherein the expansion device is positioned along the inlet line downstream of the outlet header {as shown in Fig. 3}.
Regarding claim 20, Gorbounov et al ‘214 disclose the climate control system of claim 15, wherein a length of the inlet line upstream of the expansion device is abutted along a length of the discharge line to define the superheater {as shown in Fig. 3}.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
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.
Claims 8, 10, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorbounov et al ‘214, in view of AKCHURIN et al (English Translated Russian Patent No.:2009139240 A), hereinafter referred to as AKCHURIN et al ‘240.
Regarding claim 8, Gorbounov et al ‘214 a method comprising: (a) expanding a substantially liquid refrigerant stream (12) with an expansion device (13) into a mixed phase refrigerant stream {as shown in Fig. 3: ¶¶ [0026-0028]}}; (b) boiling the mixed phase refrigerant stream with a heat exchanger (14) to produce a substantially gaseous refrigerant stream (18) {as shown in Fig. 3: ¶¶ [0026-0028]}; and (c) superheating (15) the substantially gaseous refrigerant stream downstream of the heat exchanger by use of heat of the substantially liquid refrigerant stream (17){as shown in Fig. 3: ¶¶ [0026-0028]}; (d) receiving the substantially liquid refrigerant stream in an inlet line (12) {see Fig. 4: {as shown in Fig. 3: ¶ [0026]}; and (e) receiving the substantially gaseous refrigerant stream from the heat exchanger in a discharge line (18), wherein the discharge line includes an outlet header (2) {as shown in Fig. 3: ¶ [0027]}, the outlet header coupled to the heat exchanger such that the refrigerant discharged from the heat exchanger is received in the outlet header, the outlet header further including an outlet tube (3), wherein (c) further comprises transferring heat from the substantially liquid refrigerant stream to the substantially gaseous refrigerant stream via the inlet line and the discharge line, wherein the transferring heat occurs within a superheater (15) located within the outlet header {as shown in Fig. 3: ¶ [0026] and [0028]}.
However, Gorbounov et al ‘214 fail to disclose the limitation of wherein the superheater located within the outlet header.
AKCHURIN et al ‘240 teach: the concept of the superheater (41) located within the outlet header (13) {see Fig. 7: Page 1, Abstract}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Gorbounov et al ‘214 outlet header by the outlet header of AKCHURIN et al ‘240 so as to include the use of the superheater located within the outlet header, in order to improve energy utilization and efficiency of outlet gases {AKCHURIN et al ‘240 - Fig. 7: Page 1, Abstract}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Gorbounov et al ‘214 in view of AKCHURIN et al ‘240 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Gorbounov et al ‘214 and AKCHURIN et al ‘240 disclose and teach the method of claim 8, Gorbounov et al ‘214 disclose wherein (b) further comprises: (b1) flowing the mixed phase refrigerant stream through a plurality of micro-channels (3) of the heat exchanger {as shown in Fig. 1B: ¶ [0022]}; (b2) boiling the mixed phase refrigerant stream to produce the substantially gaseous refrigerant stream (8) in the plurality of micro-channels during (b1) {as shown in Fig. 1B: ¶ [0022]}; and (b3) flowing the substantially gaseous refrigerant stream into a header (2) of the discharge line {as shown in Figs. 1B and 3: ¶ [0006], [0022] and [0027-0028]}.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Gorbounov et al ‘214 and AKCHURIN et al ‘240 disclose and teach the method of claim 10, Gorbounov et al ‘214 disclose wherein (c) further comprises flowing the substantially liquid refrigerant stream (17) through a portion (18) of the inlet line that passes into the header (2) {as shown in Fig. 3}.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Gorbounov et al ‘214 and AKCHURIN et al ‘240 disclose and teach the method of claim 11, Gorbounov et al ‘214 disclose wherein (a) further comprises expanding the substantially liquid refrigerant stream after flowing the substantially liquid refrigerant stream within the header via the inlet line during {as shown in Fig. 8: ¶¶ [0040-0041]; wherein the substantially liquid refrigerant stream is further expanded by the expanding device (24)}.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorbounov et al ‘214, in view of Khanania (U.S. PG Pub No.: 2023/0397765 A1), hereinafter referred to as Khanania ‘765.
Regarding claim 5, Gorbounov et al ‘214 the heat exchanger assembly of claim 4, EXCEPT for the limitations of wherein the inlet line passes into a first end of the outlet header, bends substantially 180º, and returns out of the first end of the header.
Khanania ‘765 teaches: the concept of inlet line (168) passes into a first end (161a) of the header (167), bends substantially 180º, and returns out of the first end of the header {as shown in Fig. 14: ¶¶ [0084-0085]}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Gorbounov et al ‘214 header by the header of Khanania ‘765 so as to include the use of an inlet line passes into a first end of the header, bends substantially 180º, and returns out of the first end of the header, in order to facilitate cost serving because U-tube type heat exchangers have only requires one set of inlet/outlet channels.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Gorbounov et al ‘214 in view of Khanania ‘765 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 12, Gorbounov et al ‘214 the method of claim 11, wherein (c) further comprises flowing the substantially liquid refrigerant stream (17), via the inlet line (IL): (c1) into a first end (FE) of the header (2).
However, Gorbounov et al ‘214 fail to disclose the limitation of the substantially liquid refrigerant stream out of the first end of the header.
Khanania ‘765 teaches: the concept of inlet line (168) passes into the first end (161a) of the header (167), and returns out of the first end of the header {as shown in Fig. 14: ¶¶ [0084-0085]}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Gorbounov et al ‘214 header by the header of Khanania ‘765 so as to include the inlet line passes into the first end of the header, and returns out of the first end of the header, in order to facilitate cost serving because U-tube type heat exchangers have only requires one set of inlet/outlet channels.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Gorbounov et al ‘214 in view of Khanania ‘765 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorbounov et al ‘214 and Khanania ‘765 as applied to claim 5 above, further in view of Mercer (U.S. PG Pub No.: 2020/0348091 A1), hereinafter referred to as Mercer ‘091.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the combination of Gorbounov et al ‘214 and Khanania ‘765 disclose and teach the heat exchanger assembly of claim 5, EXCEPT for the limitations of further comprising a distributor coupled between the expansion device and the heat exchanger, the distributor configured to divide the refrigerant among the plurality of channels, and wherein the expansion device comprises a thermostatic expansion valve (TXV) or an orifice.
Mercer ‘091 teaches: the concept of a distributor (30) coupled between the expansion device (22) and the heat exchanger (10), the distributor configured to divide the refrigerant among the plurality of channels (18), and wherein the expansion device comprises a thermostatic expansion valve (TXV) {as shown in Figs. 1-3: ¶¶ [0003], [0031-0032]}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Gorbounov et al ‘214 heat exchanger assembly in view of Mercer ‘091 to include the use of so as to include the use of a distributor coupled between the expansion device and the heat exchanger, the distributor configured to divide the refrigerant among the plurality of channels, and wherein the expansion device comprises a thermostatic expansion valve, in order to facilitate nominalized refrigerant flowrate conditions within the heat exchanger {Mercer ‘091 - ¶ [0005]}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Gorbounov et al ‘214 in view of Mercer ‘091 to obtain the invention as specified in claims 6 and 7.
Claims 14, 18 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorbounov et al ‘214, further in view of Mercer ‘091.
Regarding claim 14, Gorbounov et al ‘214 the method of claim 10, wherein (b1) comprises distributing the mixed phase refrigerant stream into the plurality of micro-channels (3) {as shown in Fig. 1B: ¶ [0022]}, EXCEPT for the limitation of the plurality of micro-channels with a distributor.
Mercer ‘091 teaches: the concept of the plurality of micro-channels (18) with a distributor (30) {as shown in Figs. 1-3: ¶¶ [0029], [0032] and [0034]}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Gorbounov et al ‘214 plurality of micro-channels in view of Mercer ‘091 to include a distributor, in order to facilitate nominalized refrigerant flowrate conditions within the heat exchanger {Mercer ‘091 - ¶ [0005]}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Gorbounov et al ‘214 in view of Mercer ‘091 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Gorbounov et al ‘214 the climate control system of claim 17, EXCEPT for the limitation of wherein the expansion device comprises a thermostatic expansion valve (TXV) or an orifice.
Mercer ‘091 teaches: the concept of the expansion device comprises a thermostatic expansion valve (TXV) {as shown in Figs. 1-3: ¶¶ [0003], [0031-0032]}; and a distributor (30) coupled between the expansion device (22) and the micro-channel heat exchanger (10), the distributor configured to divide the refrigerant among the plurality of channels (18) of the micro-channel heat exchanger {as shown in Figs. 1-3: ¶¶ [0003], [0031-0032]}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Gorbounov et al ‘214 in view of Mercer ‘091 to include the use of a thermostatic expansion valve; and a distributor coupled between the expansion device and the micro-channel heat exchanger, the distributor configured to divide the refrigerant among the plurality of channels of the micro-channel heat exchanger, in order to facilitate nominalized refrigerant flowrate conditions within the heat exchanger {Mercer ‘091 - ¶ [0005]}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Gorbounov et al ‘214 in view of Mercer ‘091 to obtain the invention as specified in claims 18 and 19.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorbounov et al ‘214, in view of de Vink (U.S. PG Pub No.: 2011/0293827 A1), hereinafter referred to as de Vink ‘827.
Regarding claim 21, Gorbounov et al ‘214 the climate control system of claim 15, EXCEPT for the limitation of wherein the inlet line passes into a first end of the outlet header, bends substantially 180º, and returns out of the first end of the outlet header.
de Vink ‘827 teaches: the concept of the inlet line (24) passes into a first end (23) of the outlet header, bends substantially 180º, and returns out (25) of the first end of the outlet header {as shown in Fig. 2: ¶ [0044]}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Gorbounov et al ‘214 the outlet header in view of de Vink ‘827 to include the use of the inlet line passes into a first end of the outlet header, bends 180º, and returns out of the first end of the outlet header, in order to facilitate reduction of magnetite on inner bore of the superheater {de Vink ‘827 - ¶ [0045]}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Gorbounov et al ‘214 in view of de Vink ‘827 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 21.
PNG
media_image1.png
853
936
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-10, filed 05/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 8-11, 13, 15-17 and 20 under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) and claim(s) 5-7, 12, 14 and 18-9 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as detailed above.
Conclusion
5. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP-2023162935-A to NEMOTO AKIRA.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL E DUKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5290. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMMANUEL E DUKE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
06/10/2026
Prosecution Insights