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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the MPEP states in part that (a)
Papers that are to become a part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office
records in the file of a patent application, or a reexamination or supplemental examination
proceeding. All papers, other than drawings, that are submitted on paper or by facsimile
transmission, and are to become a part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark
Office records in the file of a patent application or reexamination or supplemental examination
proceeding, must be on sheets of paper that are the same size, not permanently bound together,
and: (ii) Either 21.0 cm by 29.7 cm (DIN size A4) or 21.6 cm by 27.9 cm (8 1/2 by 11 inches),
with each sheet including a top margin of at least 2.0 cm (3/4 inch), a left side margin of at least
2.5 cm (1 inch), a right-side margin of at least 2.0 cm (3/4 inch), and a bottom margin of at least
2.0 cm (3/4 inch). The application papers are objected to because the abstract has track changes lines in the left margin, see MPEP 608.01. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: the MPEP states in part that (a) Papers that are to become a part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application, or a reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding. All papers, other than drawings, that are submitted on paper or by facsimile transmission, and are to become a part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application or reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding, must be on sheets of paper that are the same size, not permanently bound together, and: (ii) Either 21.0 cm by 29.7 cm (DIN size A4) or 21.6 cm by 27.9 cm (8 1/2 by 11 inches), with each sheet including a top margin of at least 2.0 cm (3/4 inch), a left side margin of at least 2.5 cm (1 inch), a right-side margin of at least 2.0 cm (3/4 inch), and a bottom margin of at least 2.0 cm (3/4 inch). The application papers are objected to because claims 1-19 have track changes lines in the left margin, see MPEP 608.01. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 and 18 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 1-2, 12-13 and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, 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 3-11 and 14 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-2, 4, 7, 12-13, 15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chai (WO 2009008698 A2, hereinafter Chai).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Chai teaches a condenser tube profile (tube 11) made of aluminum or an aluminum alloy (metal, abstract) 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, preferably a liquid, contained in said object (within water heating apparatus 5), wherein the condenser tube profile (tube 11) is 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).
Regarding claim 2, Chai teaches 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, Chai teaches 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, Chai teaches wherein the condenser tube profile (tubes 41/41a, figure 4) is provided with two channels (as shown on figure 4).
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, Chai teaches wherein the condenser tube (tube 11) 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) and the condenser tube profile (tube 11) 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).
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 non-obviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chai (WO 2009008698 A2, hereinafter Chai) in view of Higham et al (US 2138525 A, hereinafter Higham).
Regarding claim 3, Chai teaches 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 teachings of Chai 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.
Claims 5 and 8 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).
Regarding claim 5, 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.
It is noted by the Examiner that claim 5 (extrusion process) contains a product by process limitation as represented by the recitation “extrusion process”. In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference”. Further, how the condenser tube profile is made is not critical to the apparatus itself, as patentability of an apparatus lies in the structure of the apparatus rather than how the structure is made, see MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
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).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chai (WO 2009008698 A2, hereinafter Chai) in view of Bolognue (US 20230064869 A1, hereinafter Bolognue).
Regarding claim 6, Chai teaches 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 teachings of Chai 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 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chai (WO 2009008698 A2, hereinafter Chai) in view of Kondo (US 20050275223 A1, hereinafter Kondo).
Regarding claim 9, Chai teaches 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 teachings of Chai 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 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).
Claims 14, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chai (WO 2009008698 A2, hereinafter Chai) in view of Sun (US 20200132347 A1, hereinafter Sun).
Regarding claims 14, 16 and 19, Chai teaches 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.
Conclusion
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.
/LARRY L FURDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/DARIO ANTONIO DELEON/Examiner, Art Unit 3763