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 § 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, 3, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ahn (KR 2003/0020563).
Regarding claim 1, Ahn teaches a heat exchanger (Fig. 2, [0010]) comprising:
a plurality of flat heat transfer tubes (1, Fig. 2, [0011]) each having an elongated cross-sectional shape (Fig. 2), each including a plurality of refrigerant flow passages ([0023]) therein, and arranged apart from each other and in parallel with each other (Fig. 2); and
a plurality of corrugated fins (2, 3, Fig. 2, [0024]) each provided between associated adjacent ones of the flat heat transfer tubes (Fig. 2, fin is between adjacent tubes),
wherein each of the plurality of corrugated fins has a plurality of fin portions (3a and 3b, Fig. 5) each having a plate shape (Fig. 2, [0024]), and is bent into a wave shape (Fig. 2) such that the plurality of fin portions are arranged alongside of each other in an axial direction of the flat heat transfer tubes (Fig. 2),
the plurality of fin portions includes louvers (31 and 33, Fig. 5, [0025]),
the louvers (31 and 33, Fig. 5, [0025]) are made as different types of louvers (31 and 33, Fig. 5) to have different configurations (Fig. 5, [0025]), such that the different types of louvers are provided at respective selected sets of fin portions of the plurality of fin portions (Fig. 5, [0005], [0025]), to thereby cause different amounts of frost to be formed on the plurality of fin portions (See MPEP 2114 (II), intended use does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus has all the structural limitations of the claim),
a first set (3a, Fig. 5, [0025]) of the sets of fin portions (3a and 3b, Fig. 5, [0025]) of the plurality of fin portions (3a and 3b, Fig. 5, [0025]) includes a first one (3a, Fig. 5, [0025]) of the plurality of fin portions having a first configuration of the louvers that is a louver configuration of the entirety of the first one of the plurality of fin portions (Fig. 5), and
a second set (3b, Fig. 5, [0025]) of the sets of the fin portions (3a and 3b, Fig. 5, [0025]) of the plurality of fin portions (3a and 3b, Fig. 5, [0025]) includes a second one (3b, Fig. 5, [0025]) of the plurality of fin portions separated from the first one of the plurality of fin portions and having a second configuration of the louvers that is a louver configuration of the entirety of the second one of the plurality of fin portions and that is different from the first configuration of the louvers (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Ahn teaches the different types of louvers are different in width in a direction in which the flat heat transfer tubes are arranged (Fig. 5, 31 and 33 have different width in the horizontal direction, which would be the arrangement direction between two tubes in the IV-V direction of Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Ahn teaches the first configuration of the louvers and the second configuration of the louvers are different in width in a direction in which the flat heat transfer tubes are arranged (Fig. 5, 31 and 33 have different width in the horizontal direction, which would be the arrangement direction between two tubes in the IV-V direction of Fig. 2).
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) 1, 2, 4-6, 10, 12, 14-15, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka (JP 2012/154492), and further in view of Ahn (KR 2003/0020563).
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 (37 and 41 combined, Fig. 6, [0008], [0044]) each having a plate shape (Fig. 6), 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 includes louvers (50, 60, Fig. 4, [0048]),
the louvers are made as different types of louvers to have different configurations (50, 60, Fig. 4, [0048]), to thereby cause different amounts of frost to be formed on the plurality of fin portions (50, 60, [0050], [0058]).
Yoshioka does not teach the different types of louvers are provided at respective selected sets of fins portions of the plurality of fin portions,
a first set of the sets of fin portions of the plurality of fin portions includes a first one of the plurality of fin portions having a first configuration of the louvers that is a louver configuration of the entirety of the first one of the plurality of fin portions, and
a second set of the sets of the fin portions of the plurality of fin portions includes a second one of the plurality of fin portions separated from the first one of the plurality of fin portions and having a second configuration of the louvers that is a louver configuration of the entirety of the second one of the plurality of fin portions and that is different from the first configuration of the louvers.
However, Ahn teaches the different types of louvers (31 and 33, Fig. 5) are provided at respective selected sets of fins portions of the plurality of fin portions (Fig. 5, [0005], [0025]),
a first set (3a, Fig. 5, [0025]) of the sets of fin portions (3a and 3b, Fig. 5, [0025]) of the plurality of fin portions (3a and 3b, Fig. 5, [0025]) includes a first one (3a, Fig. 5, [0025]) of the plurality of fin portions having a first configuration of the louvers that is a louver configuration of the entirety of the first one of the plurality of fin portions (Fig. 5), and
a second set (3b, Fig. 5, [0025]) of the sets of the fin portions (3a and 3b, Fig. 5, [0025]) of the plurality of fin portions (3a and 3b, Fig. 5, [0025]) includes a second one (3b, Fig. 5, [0025]) of the plurality of fin portions separated from the first one of the plurality of fin portions and having a second configuration of the louvers that is a louver configuration of the entirety of the second one of the plurality of fin portions and that is different from the first configuration of the louvers (Fig. 5).
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 fins of Yoshioka to use the louver configurations of Ahn in order to significantly improve the heat exchange performance of the heat exchanger (Ahn: [0026]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Yoshioka teaches the different types of louvers are arranged at respective repetitive patterns in the axial direction of the flat heat transfer tubes (Ahn: Fig. 5, [0005]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yoshioka teaches the different types of louvers are different in number of the louvers provided at one fin portion (Ahn: Fig. 5, 3a has 36 louvers while 3b has 32 louvers).
Regarding claim 5, modified Yoshioka teaches each of the louvers has a slit (Ahn: 31a, 33a, Fig. 5, [0025]) through which air passes (Ahn: [0025]) and a plate portion (Ahn: 31, 33, Fig. 5, [0025]) that is inclined relative to an associated one of the plurality of fin portions and guides air into the slit (Ahn: Fig. 5, [0025]), and the different types of louvers are different in inclined angle of the plate portion (Ahn: Fig. 5, [0025]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yoshioka teaches the plurality of fin portions include the fin portions having no louver (Yoshioka: 83, Fig. 4, [0052]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Yoshioka teaches a refrigeration cycle apparatus comprising the heat exchanger of claim 1 (Yoshioka: [0017], [0034], [0036]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Yoshioka teaches the first configuration of the louvers and the second configuration of the louvers are arranged at respective repetitive patterns in the axial direction of the flat heat transfer tubes (Ahn: Fig. 5, [0005]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Yoshioka teaches the first configuration of the louvers and the second configuration of the louvers are different in number of the louvers provided at one fin portion (Ahn: Fig. 5, 3a has 36 louvers while 3b has 32 louvers).
Regarding claim 15, modified Yoshioka teaches each of the louvers has a slit (Ahn: 31a, 33a, Fig. 5, [0025]) through which air passes (Ahn: [0025]) and a plate portion (Ahn: 31, 33, Fig. 5, [0025]) that is inclined relative to an associated one of the plurality of fin portions and guides air into the slit (Ahn: Fig. 5, [0025]), and
the first configuration of the louvers and the second configuration of the louvers are different in inclined angle of the plate portion (Ahn: Fig. 5, [0025]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Yoshioka teaches the first set of the sets of fin portions of the plurality of fin portions includes a plurality of the first one of the plurality of fin portions having the first configuration of the louvers that is the louver configuration of the entirety of the first one of the plurality of fin portions (Ahn: Fig. 5), and
the second set of the sets of the fin portions of the plurality of fin portions includes a plurality of the second one of the plurality of fin portions separated from the first one of the plurality of fin portions and having the second configuration of the louvers that is the louver configuration of the entirety of the second one of the plurality of fin portions and that is different from the first configuration of the louvers (Ahn: Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 19, modified Yoshioka teaches respective ones of the plurality of the first one of the plurality of fin portions having the first configuration of the louvers and the plurality of the second one of the plurality of fin portions having the second configuration of the louvers alternate in the axial direction (Ahn: Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, 11, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (US 2019/360755), and further in view of Ahn (KR 2003/0020563).
Regarding claim 1, Liang teaches a heat exchanger (1, Fig. 3, [0023]) comprising:
a plurality of flat heat transfer tubes (10, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, [0028]) each having an elongated cross-sectional shape (10, Fig. 1, Fig. 3), 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. 3, [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 (See annotated Fig. 3 below) each having a plate shape (See annotated Fig. 3 below), and is bent into a wave shape (See annotated Fig. 3 below) such that the plurality of fin portions are arranged alongside of each other in an axial direction of the flat heat transfer tubes (See annotated Fig. 3 below),
PNG
media_image1.png
776
1162
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the plurality of fin portions include louvers (150, Fig. 3, [0048]), and
Liang does not teach the louvers are made as different types of louvers to have different configurations, such that the different types of louvers are provided at respective selected sets of fin portions of the plurality of fin portions, to thereby cause different amounts of frost to be formed on the plurality of fin portions,
a first set of the sets of fin portions of the plurality of fin portions includes a first one of the plurality of fin portions having a first configuration of the louvers that is a louver configuration of the entirety of the first one of the plurality of fin portions, and
a second set of the sets of the fin portions of the plurality of fin portions includes a second one of the plurality of fin portions separated from the first one of the plurality of fin portions and having a second configuration of the louvers that is a louver configuration of the entirety of the second one of the plurality of fin portions and that is different from the first configuration of the louvers.
However, Ahn teaches the louvers (31 and 33, Fig. 5, [0025]) are made as different types of louvers (31 and 33, Fig. 5) to have different configurations (Fig. 5, [0025]), such that the different types of louvers are provided at respective selected sets of fin portions of the plurality of fin portions (Fig. 5, [0005], [0025]), to thereby cause different amounts of frost to be formed on the plurality of fin portions (See MPEP 2114 (II), intended use does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus has all the structural limitations of the claim),
a first set (3a, Fig. 5, [0025]) of the sets of fin portions (3a and 3b, Fig. 5, [0025]) of the plurality of fin portions (3a and 3b, Fig. 5, [0025]) includes a first one (3a, Fig. 5, [0025]) of the plurality of fin portions having a first configuration of the louvers that is a louver configuration of the entirety of the first one of the plurality of fin portions (Fig. 5), and
a second set (3b, Fig. 5, [0025]) of the sets of the fin portions (3a and 3b, Fig. 5, [0025]) of the plurality of fin portions (3a and 3b, Fig. 5, [0025]) includes a second one (3b, Fig. 5, [0025]) of the plurality of fin portions separated from the first one of the plurality of fin portions and having a second configuration of the louvers that is a louver configuration of the entirety of the second one of the plurality of fin portions and that is different from the first configuration of the louvers (Fig. 5).
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 fins of Yoshioka to use the louver configurations of Ahn in order to significantly improve the heat exchange performance of the heat exchanger (Ahn: [0026]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Liang teaches the plurality of fin portions have drain holes (Liang: 140, Fig. 3, [0031]) to drain water that flows over upper surfaces of the plurality of fin portions (Liang: [0041]), and
the drain holes are made as different types of drain holes to have different configurations (Liang: Fig. 3), such that the different types of drain holes are formed in respective selected sets of fin portions of the plurality of fin portions (Liang: See annotated Fig. 3 in claim 1 rejection above), to thereby cause different amounts of frost to be formed on the fin portions (See MPEP 2114 (II), intended use does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus has all the structural limitations of the claim).
Regarding claim 8, modified Liang teaches the different types of drain holes are different in total opening area of the drain holes formed in the one fin portion (Liang: Fig. 3, each drain hole of different area has its own total opening area).
Regarding claim 9, modified 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 (Liang: 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)).
Regarding claim 11, modified Liang teaches a third set of the sets of fin portions of the plurality of fin portions includes a third one of the plurality of fin portions having a first configuration of the drain holes that is a hole configuration of the entirety of the third one of the plurality of fin portions (Liang: See annotated Fig. 3 in claim 1 rejection above), and
a fourth set of the sets of the fin portions of the plurality of fin portions includes a fourth one of the plurality of fin portions separated from the third one of the plurality of fin portions and having a second configuration of the drain holes that is a hole configuration of the entirety of the fourth one of the plurality of fin portions and that is different from the first configuration of the drain holes (Liang: See annotated Fig. 3 in claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 16, teaches the first configuration of the drain holes and the second configuration of the drain holes are different in total opening area of the drain holes formed in one fin portion (Liang: See annotated Fig. 3 in claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 17, teaches the drain holes are provided between the associated adjacent ones of the flat heat transfer tubes (Liang: Fig. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Yoshioka and Liang, alone or in combination, does not teach the newly presented limitations of claim 1: “a first set of the sets of fin portions of the plurality of fin portions includes a first one of the plurality of fin portions having a first configuration of the louvers that is a louver configuration of the entirety of the first one of the plurality of fin portions, and
a second set of the sets of the fin portions of the plurality of fin portions includes a second one of the plurality of fin portions separated from the first one of the plurality of fin portions and having a second configuration of the louvers that is a louver configuration of the entirety of the second one of the plurality of fin portions and that is different from the first configuration of the louvers.”
However, Ahn is relied upon for teaching the deficiencies of Yoshioka:
the different types of louvers (31 and 33, Fig. 5) are provided at respective selected sets of fins portions of the plurality of fin portions (Fig. 5, [0005], [0025]),
a first set (3a, Fig. 5, [0025]) of the sets of fin portions (3a and 3b, Fig. 5, [0025]) of the plurality of fin portions (3a and 3b, Fig. 5, [0025]) includes a first one (3a, Fig. 5, [0025]) of the plurality of fin portions having a first configuration of the louvers that is a louver configuration of the entirety of the first one of the plurality of fin portions (Fig. 5), and
a second set (3b, Fig. 5, [0025]) of the sets of the fin portions (3a and 3b, Fig. 5, [0025]) of the plurality of fin portions (3a and 3b, Fig. 5, [0025]) includes a second one (3b, Fig. 5, [0025]) of the plurality of fin portions separated from the first one of the plurality of fin portions and having a second configuration of the louvers that is a louver configuration of the entirety of the second one of the plurality of fin portions and that is different from the first configuration of the louvers (Fig. 5).
As the louver configurations of Ahn could be applied to Yoshioka to significantly improve the heat exchange performance of the heat exchanger (Ahn: [0026]), the combination of Yoshioka and Ahn is rendered obvious and teaches the newly presented combination.
Additionally, Ahn is relied upon for teaching the deficiencies of Liang:
Ahn teaches the louvers (31 and 33, Fig. 5, [0025]) are made as different types of louvers (31 and 33, Fig. 5) to have different configurations (Fig. 5, [0025]), such that the different types of louvers are provided at respective selected sets of fin portions of the plurality of fin portions (Fig. 5, [0005], [0025]), to thereby cause different amounts of frost to be formed on the plurality of fin portions (See MPEP 2114 (II), intended use does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus has all the structural limitations of the claim),
a first set (3a, Fig. 5, [0025]) of the sets of fin portions (3a and 3b, Fig. 5, [0025]) of the plurality of fin portions (3a and 3b, Fig. 5, [0025]) includes a first one (3a, Fig. 5, [0025]) of the plurality of fin portions having a first configuration of the louvers that is a louver configuration of the entirety of the first one of the plurality of fin portions (Fig. 5), and
a second set (3b, Fig. 5, [0025]) of the sets of the fin portions (3a and 3b, Fig. 5, [0025]) of the plurality of fin portions (3a and 3b, Fig. 5, [0025]) includes a second one (3b, Fig. 5, [0025]) of the plurality of fin portions separated from the first one of the plurality of fin portions and having a second configuration of the louvers that is a louver configuration of the entirety of the second one of the plurality of fin portions and that is different from the first configuration of the louvers (Fig. 5).
As the louver configurations of Ahn could be applied to Liang to significantly improve the heat exchange performance of the heat exchanger (Ahn: [0026]), the combination of Yoshioka and Liang is rendered obvious and teaches the newly presented combination.
Moreover, Ahn anticipates both the previously presented and newly presented limitations of claim 1 (See 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection above).
In view of Ahn, alone, or in combination with Yoshioka or Liang, both the previously presented and newly presented limitations have been disclosed in the prior art.
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
/JENNA M MARONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights