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 § 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.
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) 9-11, 13-17, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modified Yin (US 2016/109156), in view of Cho (CN 100455969).
Regarding claim 9, Yin teaches a heat exchanger tube (220, Fig. 4, Fig. 7, [0030], [0039]) comprising:
an inner wall (210 and 215, Fig. 7, [0039]); and
an outer wall surrounding the inner wall (220, Fig. 7, [0039]),
wherein the inner wall comprises a first sheet of material ([0027]) and the outer wall comprises a second sheet of material ([0027]) attached to an exterior surface of the inner wall, wherein the inner wall comprises a first plurality of ridges on a proximal end of the inner wall and a second plurality of ridges on a distal end of the inner wall, and
wherein the inner wall and the outer wall are folded to form (See MPEP 2113(I), product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps) a top surface (See annotated Fig. 7 below), a bottom surface (See annotated Fig. 7 below), and side walls of the heat exchanger tube (See annotated Fig. 7 below), and wherein the first plurality of ridges and the second plurality of ridges are folded such that (See MPEP 2113(I) as stated above) the first plurality of ridges and the second plurality of ridges are disposed between the top surface and the bottom surface (See annotated Fig. 7 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
680
1084
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yin does not teach wherein each ridge of the first plurality of ridges and the second plurality of ridges defines a flow channel in the heat exchanger tube through which a refrigerant flows.
However, Cho teaches wherein each ridge (202, Fig. 14, [0089]) of the first plurality of ridges and the second plurality of ridges defines a flow channel in the heat exchanger tube through which a refrigerant flows ([0091]).
Therefore, 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 tubes of Yin to use the partitions of Cho to improve heat exchange efficiency ([0090] of the attached English translation).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Yin teaches a proximal end of the first plurality of ridges and a distal end of the second plurality of ridges are attached to each other (See annotated Fig. 7 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
777
1084
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Modified Yin teaches the proximal end of the first plurality of ridges and the distal end of the second plurality of ridges are welded to each other (See MPEP 2113(I), product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps; in this case, if there is a connection between the ends, any process forming the connection would anticipate the claim).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Yin teaches the heat exchanger tube is configured to be disposed inside a water tank (Fig. 1, Fig. 4, [0030]).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Yin does not teach the heat exchanger tube is cuboidal shaped, and wherein each of the top surface and the bottom surface is flattened.
However, changing the shape of the heat exchanger tube would not have modified the operation of the device.
Therefore, the shape of the heat exchanger tube is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the modification is significant. (See reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47)
Regarding claim 15, Modified Yin does not teach each of the first plurality of ridges and the second plurality of ridges is a frustoconical cross-section in shape.
However, changing the shape of the plurality of ridges would not have modified the operation of the device.
Therefore, the shape of the plurality of ridges is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the modification is significant. (See reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47)
Regarding claim 16, Modified Yin teaches a water heater (100, Fig. 1, [0022]) comprising:
a water tank (105, Fig. 1, [0022]) configured to store water ([0022]); and
a heat exchanger (110, Fig. 1, [0023], [0024]) configured to receive a refrigerant ([0023]) and transfer heat from the refrigerant to the water stored in the water tank ([0024]),
wherein the heat exchanger comprises a heat exchanger tube (220, Fig. 4, Fig. 7, [0030], [0039]), and wherein the heat exchanger tube comprises:
an inner wall (210 and 215, Fig. 7, [0039]); and
an outer wall surrounding the inner wall (220, Fig. 7, [0039]),
wherein the inner wall comprises a first sheet of material ([0027]) and the outer wall comprises a second sheet of material ([0027]) attached to an exterior surface of the inner wall, wherein the inner wall comprises a first plurality of ridges on a proximal end of the inner wall and a second plurality of ridges on a distal end of the inner wall, and
wherein the inner wall and the outer wall are folded to form (See MPEP 2113(I), product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps) a top surface (See annotated Fig. 7 below), a bottom surface (See annotated Fig. 7 below), and side walls of the heat exchanger tube (See annotated Fig. 7 below), and
wherein the first plurality of ridges and the second plurality of ridges are folded such that (See MPEP 2113(I) as stated above) the first plurality of ridges and the second plurality of ridges are disposed between the top surface and the bottom surface (See annotated Fig. 7 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
680
1084
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Yin does not teach wherein each ridge of the first plurality of ridges and the second plurality of ridges defines a flow channel in the heat exchanger tube through which a refrigerant flows.
However, Cho teaches wherein each ridge (202, Fig. 14, [0089]) of the first plurality of ridges and the second plurality of ridges defines a flow channel in the heat exchanger tube through which a refrigerant flows ([0091]).
Therefore, 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 tubes of Modified Yin to use the partitions of Cho to improve heat exchange efficiency ([0090] of the attached English translation).
Regarding claim 17, Modified Yin teaches a proximal end of the first plurality of ridges and a distal end of the second plurality of ridges are attached to each other (See annotated Fig. 7 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
777
1084
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Modified Yin does not teach the heat exchanger tube is cuboidal shaped, and wherein each of the top surface and the bottom surface is flattened.
However, changing the shape of the heat exchanger tube would not have modified the operation of the device.
Therefore, the shape of the heat exchanger tube is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the modification is significant. (See reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47)
Regarding claim 20, Modified Yin does not teach each of the first plurality of ridges and the second plurality of ridges is a frustoconical cross-section in shape.
However, changing the shape of the plurality of ridges would not have modified the operation of the device.
Therefore, the shape of the plurality of ridges is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the modification is significant. (See reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47)
Regarding claim 21, Modified Yin teaches the first sheet of material is different from the second sheet of material (Fig. 7, [0027], the two sheets are different sheets).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9-20 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 An Bach Phan whose telephone number is (571)272-7244. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3 ET.
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.
/A.B.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
