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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 04/08/2026. The claim objection and 35 U.S.C. 112b rejections are withdrawn. Claims 5, 9 and 15-16 are cancelled. Claims 20-21 are new. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-14 and 17-21 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/08/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the published application on 04/17/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10-13, 15, 17-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chai (WO 2009008698 A2, hereinafter Chai) in view of Ramakrishan (US 20180306517 A1, hereinafter Ramakrishan) and Kondo (US 20050275223 A1, hereinafter Kondo).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Chai teaches a condenser tube profile (tube 11) made of aluminum or an aluminum alloy (metal, abstract) suitable for being arranged outside an object (water heating apparatus 5, figures 6) of a cylindrical shape (as shown on figures 5-6) for heat transfer between a medium transported inside at least one channel (transfer of heat from a heat transfer fluid flowing in a tube, abstract) of said condenser tube profile (tube 11), the channel (within tube 11, figure 1) has an inner diameter (figure 1), and a medium (the water heating apparatus (5) has a water storage tank, pg1 line 15), preferably a liquid (the water heating apparatus (5) has a water storage tank, pg1 line 15), contained in said object (within water heating apparatus 5), wherein the condenser tube profile (tube 11) is suitable for being winded onto the outer surface of the said object (figure 6), wherein a flat flange (bar 12) with a flange width (figure 1) is integrated in parallel with a longitudinal direction of the condenser tube (figure 1), where the flange is arranged in thermal contact with the outer surface of the said object (figure 6).
Chai teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the condenser tube profile is made by an extrusion process.
However, Ramakrishan teaches wherein the condenser tube profile (tube 10) is made by an extrusion process (in an extrusion method, paragraph 0034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tube in the teachings of Chai to include wherein the condenser tube profile is made by an extrusion process in view of the teachings of Ramakrishan teaches in order to yield the predictable result of providing a tube that can be cost effective.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the relation between the inner diameter of the channel and the flange width: is in the interval (2 mm - 6 mm): (20 mm - 65 mm).
However, Kondo teaches wherein the relation between the inner diameter of the channel (inner diameter of the metal pipe body 3 is 20mm or less, paragraph 0066) and the flange width: is in the interval (2 mm - 6 mm): (20 mm - 65 mm) (5.0mm interval, paragraph 0069).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tube in the combined teachings to include wherein the relation between the inner diameter of the channel and the flange width: is in the interval (2 mm - 6 mm): (20 mm - 65 mm) in view of the teachings of Kondo teaches in order to yield the predictable result of Improving rigidity and durability of the flange.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach wherein the at least one channel (within tube 11, figure 1 of Chai) has a round shape (figure 1 of Chai) with the flange (bar 12 of Chai) integrated in its periphery (figure 1 of Chai).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, the combined teachings teach wherein the condenser tube profile (tube 11 of Chai) is winded in the shape of a helix (as shown on figure 6 of Chai) with a pitch where one side edge of the flange abuts the other side edge (as shown on figure 6 of Chai).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach wherein the condenser tube profile (tubes 41/41a, figure 4 of Chai) is provided with two channels (as shown on figure 4 of Chai).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach wherein the condenser tube profile (tube 10 of Ramakrishan) is extruded (in an extrusion method, paragraph 0034 of Ramakrishan) and coiled (as shown on figure 6 of Chai).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach wherein the relation between the inner diameter of the channel (inner diameter of the metal pipe body 3 is 20mm or less, paragraph 0066 of Kondo) and the flange width: is in the interval (2.5 mm - 5 mm): (22.5 mm - 60 mm) (5.0mm interval, paragraph 0069 of Kondo).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach wherein the relation between the inner diameter of the channel (inner diameter of the metal pipe body 3 is 20mm or less, 0066) and the flange width: is in the interval (3 mm - 4.5 mm): (22.5 mm - 55 mm) (5.0mm interval, paragraph 0069 of Kondo).
Regarding claims 12-13, it is noted that although the preamble of claims 12-13 is directed towards a method, the structure of the combined teachings discloses all the structure being provided in the method steps, thus the method is also anticipated by the combined teachings. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently or obviously perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach wherein the condenser tube (tube 11 of Chai) conducts a heat transfer medium (transfer of heat from a heat transfer fluid flowing in a tube, abstract) in one or more channel(s) (within tube 11, figure 1 of Chai) and the condenser tube profile (tube 11 of Chai) is arranged at the outer surface of a cylindrical tank for heating water (the heat exchanger 1 is used to transfer heat to a storage tank of a water heating apparatus 6, pg5 lines 32 of Chai).
Regarding claims 20 and 21, the combined teachings teach wherein the medium is a liquid (the water heating apparatus (5) has a water storage tank, pg1 line 15 of Chai).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chai as modified by Ramakrishan and Kondo, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Higham et al (US 2138525 A, hereinafter Higham).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the flange is thinner at its outer sides than in the vicinity of the at least one channel and has a slanting surface towards its longitudinal side edges.
However, Higham teaches wherein the flange (flange 47) is thinner at its outer sides (as shown on figure 6) than in the vicinity of the at least one channel (as shown on figure 6) and has a slanting surface towards its longitudinal side edges (as shown on figure 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tube in the combined teachings to include wherein the flange is thinner at its outer sides than in the vicinity of the at least one channel and has a slanting surface towards its longitudinal side edges in view of the teachings of Higham in order to yield the predictable result of overlapping the flanges.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chai as modified by Ramakrishan and Kondo, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Bolognue (US 20230064869 A1, hereinafter Bolognue).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the object is a tank or container made of steel or stainless steel.
However, Bolognue teaches wherein the object is a tank (tank 31) or container made of steel (steel, paragraph 0152) or stainless steel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tube in the combined teachings to include wherein the object is a tank or container made of steel or stainless steel in view of the teachings of Bolognue teaches in order to yield the predictable result of adding an element of durability and quality.
Claims 14, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chai Chai as modified by Ramakrishan and Kondo, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Sun (US 20200132347 A1, hereinafter Sun).
Regarding claims 14, 16 and 19, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the heat transfer medium is a hydrocarbon refrigerant, and the refrigerant system charge is up to 150g.
However, Sun teaches wherein the heat transfer medium is a hydrocarbon refrigerant (hydrocarbon refrigerant R290, paragraph 0016), and the refrigerant system charge is up to 150g (amount of charge to 150 grams per system, paragraph 0016).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tube in the teachings of Chai to include wherein the heat transfer medium is a hydrocarbon refrigerant, and the refrigerant system charge is up to 150g in view of the teachings of Sun teaches in order to yield the predictable result of increasing the Re number may improve the efficiency of the refrigerant system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicants argument that “In this regard, Higham relates to an evaporator comprising flanged tubes, wherein oppositely disposed flanges are cooperating and overlapping to form a wall enclosing and forming a refrigerant chamber. The flanged tubes in Higham are not winded onto and in thermal contact with the outer surface of an object to transfer heat between a refrigerant and a medium, such as water, contained in the object. Higham is also silent about the dimensions of the evaporator tubes and the charge amount of the refrigerant. Therefore, Higham provides no teaching or motivation for a skilled artisan to achieve at the claimed subject matter, which is directed to a flanged tube profile for heat exchanging with a medium contained in an object that allows the usage of low GWP gases with a low charge amount within safety requirements”, the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., flanged tubes are not winded onto and in thermal contact with the outer surface of an object to transfer heat between a refrigerant and a medium, such as water, contained in the object, the dimensions of the evaporator tubes and the charge amount of the refrigerant and Higham provides no teaching or motivation for a skilled artisan to achieve at the claimed subject matter, which is directed to a flanged tube profile for heat exchanging with a medium contained in an object that allows the usage of low GWP gases with a low charge amount within safety requirements) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 Fed. Cir. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to the Applicants argument that “The arrangement of an extruded multiport tube is irrelevant to the claimed condenser tube profile, which is clearly not directed to such multiport tubes according to Ramakrishan. The rejection, however, appears to suggest that simply because extrusion may be possible for some tubes, the skilled artisan would apply extrusion to all tubes. This position is unfounded. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection must be withdrawn”, the Examiner disagrees. For clarity, Ramakrishan teaches advantageously it is provided that the oil cooler tube and/or the condenser tube are produced by an extrusion method. Accordingly, the oil cooler tube or the condenser tube can be cost-effectively produced in the form of a flat tube with a plurality of ducts as well as in any other form (as described in paragraph 0021). Therefore, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to the Applicants argument that “As seen above, Kondo measures the ratio of (maximum thickness of flange)/(thickness of metal pipe body), whereas the claims recite a relation between the inner diameter (ID) of the channel (12, 12', 12", 12"') and the flange width (FW). These are not the same ratio and do not even consider the same parameters. Thus, even if the skilled artisan somehow combined Chai and Kondo, the skilled artisan would not achieve the claimed subject matter”, the Examiner disagrees. For clarity, Kondo teaches the manufactured flanged metal pipe 1 has a flange 2, which has a portion that is thicker than the thickness of metal pipe body 3. The manufactured flanged metal pipe 1 also has an excellent hardness and yield ratio as described above. It was also found that this flanged metal pipe is featured by its shape. Specifically, as indicated in FIG. 1 or FIG. 4, the flanged metal pipe 1 has a constricted part at a bent portion 4 that bridges the metal pipe body 3 and the flange 2. At this location, the minimum inner diameter is smaller than the inner diameter of the metal pipe body 3. In a region that is 20 mm or less away from the bottom surface of the flange 2, the outer and inner diameters of the flanged metal pipe 1 are narrower than those of the metal pipe body 3, respectively (as described in paragraph 0066). Therefore, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DARIO DELEON whose telephone number is (571)272-8687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jerry Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/DARIO ANTONIO DELEON/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights