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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 26, 2024 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on August 26, 2024. 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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshioka (JP 2012/154492).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshioka teaches a heat exchanger (30, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, [0040]) comprising:
a plurality of flat heat transfer tubes (33, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, [0040]) each having an elongated cross-sectional shape (33, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, [0042]), each including a plurality of refrigerant flow passages (34, Fig. 4, [0043]) therein, and arranged apart from each other and in parallel with each other (33, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, [0042]); and
a plurality of corrugated fins (35, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, [0040], [0044]) each provided between associated adjacent ones of the flat heat transfer tubes (35, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, [0044]),
wherein
each of the plurality of corrugated fins has a plurality of fin portions (50, 60, 83, Fig. 4, Fig. 6, [0045]) each having a plate shape (50, 60, 83, Fig. 4, Fig. 6, [0045]), and is bent into a wave shape (Fig. 6) such that the plurality of fin portions are arranged alongside of each other in an axial direction of the flat heat transfer tubes (Fig. 6),
the plurality of fin portions include louvers (50, 60, Fig. 4, [0048]), and
the louvers are made as different types of louvers to have different configurations (50, 60, Fig. 4, [0048]), such that the different types of louvers are provided at respective selected sets of fins portions (50, 60, [0050]) of the plurality of fin portions, to thereby cause different amounts of frost to be formed on the plurality of fin portions (50, 60, [0050], [0058]).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshioka teaches the different types of louvers are arranged at respective repetitive patterns in the axial direction of the flat heat transfer tubes (50, 60, Fig. 4, [0049]).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshioka teaches the different types of louvers are different in width in a direction in which the flat heat transfer tubes are arranged (50, 60, Fig. 4, [0052]).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshioka teaches the different types of louvers are different in number of the louvers provided at one fin portion (50, 60, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshioka teaches the plurality of fin portions include the fin portions having no louver (83, Fig. 4, [0052]).
Regarding claim 10, Yoshioka teaches a refrigeration cycle apparatus comprising the heat exchanger ([0017], [0034], [0036]).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka (JP 2012/154492) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kudo (JP 7006376).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshioka teaches each of the louvers has a slit through which air passes (50, 60, Fig. 4, [0048]).
Yoshioka does not teach a plate portion that is inclined relative to an associated one of the plurality of fin portions and guides air into the slit, and the different types of louvers are different in inclined angle of the plate portion.
However, Kudo teaches 6 louvers (51 to 56, Fig. 3, [0027], “plate portion”) with slit-shaped openings (50w, Fig. 3, [0027]) where air flowing direction (W, Fig. 3, [0023]) passes through the slit-shaped openings (W, 50w, Fig. 3). The inclined angles respective to the heat transfer portions (32, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, [0027], “associated fin portions”) are shown to be different for the louvers (51 to 56, Fig. 3, [0030], [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heat transfer section (Yoshioka: 37) of Yoshioka to use the inclined angle configuration of Kudo on the louvers (Yoshioka: 50, 60, Fig. 4) to distribute the air toward the downstream side, increase the air flow between louvers on the downstream side (Kudo: [0035]), and to achieve stable heat transfer performance over almost the entire region of the heat transfer section (Yoshioka: 37). This would further help with the goal of Yoshioka to avoid frost concentration and adherence only to the windward area of the heat transfer section (Yoshioka: 37, [0058]).
Additionally, Yoshioka discloses that the amount of frost formation on the surface of the windward louver (Yoshioka: 50) is particularly large, the amount of water (drain water) that melts in this region is also large (Yoshioka: [0059]). Yoshioka also discloses that if drain water can be discharged/emitted immediately below, the heat of a heat-transfer part (Yoshioka: 37) will become easy to move to the frost which remains on the surface of an upwind louver (Yoshioka: 50, [0060]); therefore, the time required for melting the frost on the surface of the windward louver (Yoshioka: 50) and for the defrosting operation can be shortened (Yoshioka: [0060]).
Because the inclined angle configuration of Kudo can distribute the air toward the downstream side and increase the air flow between louvers on the downstream side (Kudo: [0035]), there would be more frost distribution to the leeward louver (Yoshioka: 60) because the moisture in the air would more easily adhere as frost to the leeward louver since air more easily flows toward the leeward louver (Yoshioka: 60, [0057]). This distribution would lead to less frost formation on the windward louver (Yoshioka: 50) and less melted drain water as a result (Yoshioka: [0059]). Due to the decreased drain water amount, drain water can be discharged/emitted faster, allowing the heat of the heat-transfer part (Yoshioka: 37) to more easily move to the frost on the upwind louver (Yoshioka: 50, [0060]). Therefore, the time required for melting the frost on the surface of the windward louver (Yoshioka: 50) and for the defrosting operation can be further shortened by using the inclined angle configuration of Kudo (Kudo: 51 to 56, Fig. 3, [0035]) for the louvers (Yoshioka: 50, 60, Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 1 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (US 2019/360755).
Regarding claim 1, Liang teaches a heat exchanger (1, Fig. 6, [0023]) comprising:
a plurality of flat heat transfer tubes (10, Fig. 1, Fig. 6, [0028]) each having an elongated cross-sectional shape (10, Fig. 1, Fig. 6), each including a plurality of refrigerant flow passages ([0003]) therein, and arranged apart from each other and in parallel with each other (1, Fig. 1, Fig. 6, [0030]); and
a plurality of corrugated fins (20, Fig. 1, [0030]) each provided between associated adjacent ones of the flat heat transfer tubes ([0030]),
wherein
each of the plurality of corrugated fins has a plurality of fin portions (100, Fig. 6, [0031]) each having a plate shape (100, Fig. 1), and is bent into a wave shape (100, Fig. 1) such that the plurality of fin portions are arranged alongside of each other in an axial direction of the flat heat transfer tubes (100, Fig. 1),
the plurality of fin portions include louvers (150, Fig. 6, [0056]), and
the louvers are made as different types of louvers to have different configurations (150, Fig. 6, [0056], [0057]), such that the different types of louvers are provided at respective selected sets of fins portions (110, 120, Fig. 6, [0056]) of the plurality of fin portions ([0056]).
Liang does not teach the different types of louvers are provided at respective selected sets of fins portions to thereby cause different amounts of frost to be formed on the plurality of fin portions.
However, Liang teaches the decrease in louver lengths towards the windward end portion is used to provide space for the heat exchange protrusion (160, Fig. 6, [0057]) to improve air agitation and facilitate heat exchange ([0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide different types of louvers at respective selected sets of fins portions to improve air agitation and facilitate heat exchange without using the different types of louvers to cause different amounts of frost on the fin portions because one of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings (See Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
Regarding claim 7, the current embodiment of Liang does not teach the plurality of fin portions have drain holes to drain water that flows over upper surfaces of the plurality of fin portions, and
the drain holes are made as different types of drain holes to have different configurations, such that the different types of drain holes are formed in respective selected sets of fin portions of the plurality of fin portions, to thereby cause different amounts of frost to be formed on the fins portions.
However, Liang teaches at least one of the windward end portion (110, [0031]) and the leeward end portion (120, [0031]) of each fin unit (100, [0031]) extends beyond the plurality of flat tubes (10, [0031]) for both embodiments ([0028]) and at least one of the windward end portion and the leeward end portion of each fin unit is provided with at least one of a protrusion (130, [0031]) and a drain hole (140, [0031]). Liang further teaches that advantageously, each fin unit is provided with at least one of the drain hole (140, [0060]) and that providing the drain hole may facilitate drainage of the melted frost on the portion of each fin unit (100, [0041]) extending beyond the plurality of flat tubes (10, [0041]).
As Liang teaches at least one of the windward end portion (110, [0031]) and the leeward end portion (120, [0031]) of each fin unit (100, [0031]) extends beyond the plurality of flat tubes (10, [0031]) for both embodiments ([0028]), the embodiment of Fig. 6 anticipates having both the windward end portion and the leeward end portion extend beyond the plurality of flat tubes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the drain hole to both the windward and leeward end portions because Liang teaches it is advantageous ([0060]) and to facilitate drainage of the melted frost on the portion of each fin unit extending beyond the plurality of flat tubes ([0041]).
Modified Liang does not teach different types of drain holes to have different configurations.
However, Liang teaches another embodiment (Fig. 4, [0048]) where each fin unit is provided with a plurality of drain holes (140, Fig. 4, [0051]). Liang also teaches in the embodiment that the widths of the plurality of drain holes in each fin unit gradually decrease from one of two adjacent flat tubes to the other one thereof along the thickness direction of the flat tube ([0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the plurality of drain holes having decreasing widths of the embodiment in Fig. 4 to modified Liang because Liang teaches this embodiment as an option for providing drain holes ([0051]).
Further modified Liang does not teach the different types of drain holes are used to thereby cause different amounts of frost to be formed on the fins portions.
However, Liang teaches the plurality of drain holes having decreasing widths of the embodiment in Fig. 4 for optionally providing drain holes ([0051]) to facilitate drainage of the melted frost on the portion of each fin unit extending beyond the plurality of flat tubes ([0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide different types of drain holes at respective selected sets of fins portions to as an option for providing drain holes ([0051]) to facilitate drainage of the melted frost on the portion of each fin unit extending beyond the plurality of flat tubes ([0041]) without using the different types of drain holes to cause different amounts of frost on the fin portions because one of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings (See Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
Regarding claim 8, modified Liang teaches the drain types of drain holes are different in total opening area of the drain holes formed in the one fin portion (Fig. 3, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Liang does not teach a dimension of each of the plurality of fin portions in a flow direction of air is 22 mm or more.
However, the length of the fin portions in the flow direction would not have affected the operation of the heat exchanger as the length of the fin portion and the extending portions are represented in a ratio (Fig. 2, [0044]).
Therefore, the length of the fin portions in the flow direction is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular length of the fin portion in the flow direction was significant and the heat exchanger having the claimed relative dimensions would perform differently than the prior art heat exchanger (See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Conclusion
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