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 Objections
Claim 20 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 13. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “one or more swirl-generating element” in claim 16. The “element” is a generic placeholder coupled with “swirl-generating” function, and the claim is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The grooves or blades/vanes on a channel in embodiments Figs. 3A-3F are the particular structure of “one or more swirl-generating element”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 17-19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the orifice". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, “the orifice is construed as --an orifice--.
Claims 17-19 further recites “the supply tube compartment”. Since “a supply tube compartment” is an alternative element in claim 1, the claim lacks antecedent basis when a reader chooses “a supply tube fluidically connected to the distribution tube”.
For examination purposes, “supply tube compartment” in claims 17-19 and claim 1 are construed as a required element.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11-13, 15, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jindou (US PGPub No. 2017/0299284).
Regarding claim 1, Jindou discloses a fluid distributor (refrigerant diverter 70) for a heat exchanger, the fluid distributor comprising of:
a header (diverter case 71) comprising of compartments (76A-76L, Figs. 10-11) separated by walls (baffles 77), wherein a plurality of tubes (communication channels 88A-88L, Fig. 9) associated with a heat exchange section (61A-61L, Fig. 7 and 9) of the heat exchanger are fluidically connected to at least one of the compartments (see Fig. 9);
a distribution tube (rod member 74) extending longitudinally along the compartments of the header through the walls (see Figs. 9-11), the distribution tube comprising a plurality of cavities (diverting channels 74A-74L, Fig. 12) extending longitudinally along a length of the distribution tube (the diverting channels 74A-74L extend along the length of the rod member 74) and configured radially around a central axis of the distribution tube (each diverting channel is radially around a central axis of the cylindrical structure of the rod member 74, Fig. 12), wherein each of the cavities comprises one or more ports opening in the compartments (holes 74a, Fig. 11); and
a supply tube (liquid refrigerant pipe 35 in Fig. 9 or Fig. 27) fluidically connected to the distribution tube or to a supply tube compartment (upper/bottom side of the rod member 74 or an inlet space 78, Figs. 10 and 27) of the header and configured to supply a working fluid (refrigerant) into the distribution tube (see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 2, Jindou in claim 1 further discloses wherein the fluid distributor comprises a flow restrictor (nozzle member 79, Figs. 10, 15 and 16) configured within the supply tube or between the supply tube and the distribution tube (the nozzle member 79 is vertically between the liquid refrigerant pipe 35 and upper sections of the rod member 74 in Fig. 10), wherein the flow restrictor is an annular member having a central opening (the nozzle member 79 is a ring structure member having a central nozzle hole 79b) that is configured in line with the distribution tube (nozzle hole 79b in alignment with the rod member 74) and having a predefined gap (a vertical distance between the rod member 74 and the nozzle hole 79b) therebetween.
Regarding claim 3 Jindou in claim 2 further discloses wherein the central opening of the flow restrictor and the distribution tube have equal diameters (the nozzle hole 79b and a portion from the center of the member 74 have the same and equal diameter, see Fig. 12, a projection of the nozzle hole “79b” onto the member 74).
Regarding claim 11, Jindou in claim 1 further discloses wherein the supply tube is axially connected to the supply tube compartment or the distribution tube (the liquid refrigerant pipe 35 is axially connected to the inlet space 78 or the bottom side of the rod member 74 with respected to the axis of the liquid refrigerant pipe 35).
Regarding claim 12, Jindou in claim 1 further discloses wherein the supply tube is radially connected to the supply tube compartment or the distribution tube (the liquid refrigerant pipe 35 is radially connected to a periphery of the inlet space 78 or the bottom side of the rod member 74 having a radial distance from the central axis of the rod member 74).
Regarding claims 13 and 20, Jindou in claim 1 further discloses wherein the supply tube is configured off-centered from the central axis of the distribution tube (the liquid refrigerant pipe 35 has a radial distance from the center of the rod member 74 and therefore it is configured off-centered form the central axis of the rod member 74).
Regarding claim 15, Jindou in claim 1 further discloses wherein the header is a vertical header of the heat exchanger (the diverter case 71 is a vertical header according to the orientation of Fig. 9) and the supply tube is fluidically connected to a terminal supply tube compartment (the liquid refrigerant pipe 35 is fluidly connected to a terminal compartment 76L).
Regarding claim 17, Jindou in claim 1 further discloses wherein the supply tube is radially connected at a predefined position on the supply tube compartment of the header (the liquid refrigerant pipe 35 is radially connected to the inlet space 78 at a predefined position in Fig. 10), such that an orifice of the distribution tube opens below, above, or at a same level of the predefined position or the supply tube (openings below the diverting channels 74A-74L open above the predefined position in Fig. 10).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jindou (US PGPub No. 2017/0299284) in view of Imai (JP 2004177059 A).
Regarding claim 4, Jindou in claim 2 fails to disclose wherein the central opening of the flow restrictor is in a range of 10 to 80% of an orifice of the distribution tube.
Imai discloses that the diameter of the central opening of the flow restrictor (D1, Fig. 1) is result effective. Paragraph 0015 of the translation of Imai discloses a ratio of D0/D1 may be 2.0-3.6. If the lower limit value is less than 2.0, the throttle effect of the refrigerant throttle unit 3 is reduced, and it is difficult to make the branch flow balance uniform. In contrast, when the value becomes larger than the upper limit value 3.6, the refrigerant restricting portion 3 becomes too restrictive, the pressure loss in the pipe increases, and the flow of the refrigerant is adversely affected. Variation of the diameter D1 directly increases/decrease the ratio and effectively results differences between the uniformity of the branch flow and pressure loss in the pipe. Therefore, the claim limitation “the central opening of the flow restrictor is in a range of 10 to 80% of an orifice of the distribution tube” is not novel since the central opening of the flow restrictor may be routinely experimented including the range of an orifice of the distribution tube as claimed in order for proper refrigerant balance of the downstream orifice of the distribution tube and pressure loss through the opening.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the central opening of the flow restrictor is in a range of 10 to 80% of an orifice of the distribution tube in Jindou as taught by Imai through routine optimization.
Claim(s) 5-7, 9, 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jindou (US PGPub No. 2017/0299284) in view of Anderson (US PGPub No. 2019/0346216) and Irmler (DE 102013202790 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Jindou in claim 1 fails to disclose wherein the fluid distributor comprises a swirl generator configured upstream of the distribution tube or within the supply tube, wherein the swirl generator is configured to cause the working fluid, supplied by the supply tube, to move in a swirl motion.
Regarding claim 16, Jindou in claim 1 fails to disclose wherein the fluid distributor comprises one or more swirl-generating elements being configured within or on an inner wall surface of the supply tube compartment, the supply tube or both.
Anderson discloses wherein the fluid distributor (inlet manifold 12 and inlet 22) comprises a swirl generator (inlet 22 with spiral walls 46 in Figs. 5-6 or spiral walls 78 in Fig. 11) configured upstream of the distribution tube or within the supply tube (within the inlet 22), wherein the swirl generator is configured to cause the working fluid, supplied by the supply tube, to move in a swirl motion (the walls induce swirl motion of the fluid flowing inside the inlet).
Irmler discloses wherein the fluid distributor (inlet manifold 12 and inlet 22) comprises a swirl generator (mixer 10 with vanes 12 in Fig. 3) configured upstream of the distribution tube or within the supply tube (a flange 13 of the mixer 10 may be placed into a fluid supply line, paragraph 0065 of the translation), wherein the swirl generator is configured to cause the working fluid, supplied by the supply tube, to move in a swirl motion (the vanes 12 induce swirl motion of the fluid flowing inside the inlet).
Therefore, one of the teachings of Anderson and Irmler may be provided in the liquid refrigerant pipe 35 of Jindou to induce a swirl motion to uniformly spread and distribute refrigerant along the inlet 35
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the fluid distributor comprises a swirl generator configured upstream of the distribution tube or within the supply tube, wherein the swirl generator is configured to cause the working fluid, supplied by the supply tube, to move in a swirl motion (claim 5); and wherein the fluid distributor comprises one or more swirl-generating elements being configured within or on an inner wall surface of the supply tube compartment, the supply tube or both (claim 16) in Jindou as taught by Anderson in order to uniformly spread and distribute refrigerant along the inlet 35 of Jindou (based on the benefit as disclosed in paragraphs 0048 and 0059 of Anderson).
Regarding claim 6, Jindou as modified in claim 5 further discloses wherein the swirl generator comprises a housing (cylindrical housing) having a plurality of grooves (grooves between each wall 46 in Figs. 5-6 of Anderson) with curved profiles being configured on an inner wall surface of the housing (curved walls 46 on inner surface of the tube 22 in Fig. 6 of Anderson), the grooves extending radially (radial height “54” of the walls 46 in Fig. 5A) and circumferentially along the inner wall surface (width of the walls 46 on the inner surface of the tube 22 in Fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 7, Jindou as modified in claim 5 further discloses wherein the swirl generator comprises a housing (cylindrical housing) and a plurality of blades (spiral walls 78) extending radially from a central longitudinal axis (from center axis of the tube 76, Fig. 11 of Anderson) of the housing and oriented at predefined angles from a radial plane (spiral walls 78 are oriented at angles from a radial plane centered the axis).
Regarding claim 9, Jindou as modified in claim 5 further disclose wherein the swirl generator comprises a housing (a cylindrical wall 11 in Fig. 3 of Irmler), and a plurality of swirl-generating elements having a predefined shape and at least one curved surface (vanes 12 having a curved shape and having a curved surface, Fig. 3 of Irmler), protruding from or configured on an inner wall surface of the housing (the vanes 12 protrude on the cylindrical wall 11 of Irmler).
Regarding claim 10, Jindou in claim 9 further discloses wherein the swirl generator comprises a ring (flange 13 in Fig. 3 of Irmler) protruding from or configured on the inner wall surface of the housing (from the cylindrical wall 11), the ring is configured coaxially within the housing with the plurality of swirl generating elements configured above and/or below the ring (the flange 13 coaxially formed from the cylindrical wall 11 and has the vanes 12 above the flange 13).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jindou (US PGPub No. 2017/0299284) in view of Humpolik (US Patent No. 4,593,539).
Regarding claim 14, Jindou in claim 1 wherein the supply tube is directly connected to the distributor tube (the liquid refrigerant pipe 35 in Fig. 27 directly connects to a center through hole 74m of the rod member 74 to direct liquid refrigerant from upper part to lower part of the diverter case 71, see also paragraph 0172).
Jindou fails to disclose wherein the distributor tube and the supply tube have equal diameter.
Humpolik discloses wherein the distributor tube and the supply tube have equal diameter (manifold 5 and feed line 6 have the same diameter at the meeting point, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the distributor tube and the supply tube have equal diameter in Jindou as taught by Humpolik in order to facilitate joining of the tubes at the meeting point having the same diameter.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jindou (US PGPub No. 2017/0299284) in view of Anderson (US PGPub No. 2019/0346216) and Irmler (DE 102013202790 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Pearson (US Patent No. 3,394,736).
Regarding claim 8, Jindou as modified in claim 5 further discloses wherein the swirl generator comprises a housing (cylindrical housing), and a plurality of blades (spiral walls 78) extending radially from a central longitudinal axis of the housing (from center axis of the tube 76, Fig. 11 of Anderson), wherein each of the blades comprises a first section (a section of the spiral wall 78 in Fig. 11A) and a second section (another section of the spiral wall 78 in Fig. 11B angularly different than the section in Fig. 11A) with a slit extending at a predefined angle from the first section.
Jindou as modified fails to disclose wherein each of the blades comprises a first section and a second section with a slit extending at a predefined angle from the first section.
Pearson (Fig. 1) discloses wherein each of the blades comprises a first section (a section of fin 20 without a notch 24) and a second section (another section of the fin 20) with a slit (notch 24 of another section of the fin 20) extending at a predefined angle from the first section (the notch 24 of another section extends at predefined angle about the core 18 from the section of fin 20 without the notch 24).
Therefore, the spiral walls 78 may include notches 24 at intervals along the stretch of the walls 78 as disclosed in Pearson.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein each of the blades comprises a first section and a second section with a slit extending at a predefined angle from the first section in Jindou and Anderson as taught by Pearson in order to permit refrigerant to be uniformly distributed without a disproportionate percentage of liquid or gas refrigerant with respect to another flow path (col. 5, lines 54-63 of Pearson).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 19 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:
Claims 18 and 19 require wherein the supply tube compartment a plurality of openings configured radially around the central opening (claim 18), a baffle having a plurality of openings (claim 19) and the supply tube is connected radially to the supply tube compartment above the baffle (both claims 18 and 19).
Jindou (Fig. 27) discloses the supply tube (liquid refrigerant pipe 35) is connected radially to the supply tube compartment (the liquid refrigerant pipe 35 is fluidly connected to compartment 76A through a center through hole 74m, paragraph 0172 of Jindou. The liquid refrigerant pipe 35 also has an elbow that extends radially outward from the compartment 76A) above the baffle (the liquid refrigerant pipe 35 is fluidly connected to compartment 76A above the baffle 77 between compartments 76A and 76B). However, Jindou fails to disclose and lacks motivation to make obvious to provide a plurality of openings in a baffle.
A further reference, Leffler (US 2021/0262744), discloses a baffle (baffle 58 that separates the sections 81 and 82, Fig. 8) having a central opening (a central opening that allows the distributor 20 through) may include a plurality of openings (flow holes of the baffle 58. The baffle 58 can include flow holes therethrough, allowing for fluid to move between adjacent sections of the first manifold 54, see paragraph 0066). However, Leffler fails to discloses that the supply tube is connected radially to the supply tube compartment above the baffle. The feature disclosed in Fig. 27 of Jindou to use the center through hole 74m as a fluid supply channel is not combinable with Leffler to make the inner fluid passage 23 as a supply channel. It is because the inner fluid passage 23 is configured as a fluidly isolated channel from the remaining fluid passages 26 (paragraph 0068), or forming a fluid connection between the inner fluid passage 23 to one or more separate fluid channels 26 (paragraph 0069). It appears that the modification would render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FOR K LING whose telephone number is (571)272-8752. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 am to 5 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/F.K.L/Examiner, Art Unit 3763