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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 17-20are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because under PCT Rule 13.2 they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: The rejections of claims 1 and 10 below establishes that independent claims 1 and 10 in their current form lacks novelty. The existence of an anticipatory references demonstrating that one or more independent claims lack novelty establishes that the inventions do not relate to a single general inventive concept, thus restriction is proper.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 17-20 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
(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 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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 13-14, and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gael (FR 3059400 A1) in view of Ohata et al. (U.S. Patent 5,832,993).
It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations as shown below. Thus, the intended use of the heat exchanger in the claim, of a refrigerant-fluid circuit, for the refrigerant in a low-pressure part of the circuit, and refrigerant fluid in the high-pressure part of the circuit does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art and the cited prior art is capable of the claimed use. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 MPEP 2214 (II).
Regarding claim 1 Gael teaches A heat exchanger (shown in fig. 5 heat exchanger 3) with plates (shown in fig. 5 stack of plates (19, 20, 40, 42)) of a refrigerant-fluid circuit, the heat exchanger comprising at least one plurality of plates stacked on top of one another in a vertical stacking direction, with adjacent plates between each other delimiting a plurality of first circulation ducts (shown in fig. 2 the first circuit 15) for the refrigerant fluid in a low-pressure part of the circuit and a plurality of second circulation ducts (shown in fig. 3 the second circuit 22) for the refrigerant fluid in a high-pressure part ( “high-pressure” and “low-pressure” as used in the claim 9 are known terms in the art not requiring a specific value or range but a relationship of pressure between the two) of the circuit, at least some of the plurality of plates of the heat exchanger including a plurality of openings, of which some form a first inlet manifold (shown in fig. 2 First inlet manifold 16) and others form a first outlet manifold (shown in fig. 2 First outlet manifold 17) for the low-pressure refrigerant fluid in communication with the first circulation ducts, and of which some form a second inlet manifold (shown in fig. 3 second inlet manifold 27) and others form a second outlet manifold (shown in fig. 3 second outlet manifold 29) for the high-pressure refrigerant fluid in communication with the second circulation ducts, and wherein at least two of the first circulation ducts are adjacent in the vertical stacking direction (shown in fig. 5).
Geal does not teach at least one plate of the plurality of plates including a boss projecting from a lower face of the at least one plate, toward a first circulation duct, such that the boss reduces localized flow area in said first circulation duct.
Ohata teaches at least one plate of the plurality of plates (elements 12) including a boss (elements 19) projecting from a lower face of the at least one plate (per fig. 19), toward a first circulation duct (space between plates), such that the boss reduces localized flow area in said first circulation duct (inherent in such structure and Col. 7, ln 38-49). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Geal to include the bosses of Ohata as claimed, the motivation would be positively disturb the air flow through the fluid passages (col. 7, ln 38-49).
PNG
media_image1.png
621
717
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2 Gael teaches wherein the number of first circulation ducts (shown in fig. 2 the first circuit 15), respectively delimited by two adjacent plates of the plurality of plates (shown in fig. 5 stack of plates (19, 20, 40, 42)) and in communication with the low-pressure part of the circuit, is greater than the number (shown in fig. 2 & 3, Abstract states “the beam 6 delimits a first circuit configured to be traversed by a heat transfer fluid 5 and a second circuit configured to be traversed by a refrigerant 4, the second circuit 22 comprising at least a first ply 23 and a second ply 24 at least partly superposed one by relative to the other” Thus, it is shown that all of the vertically stacked plates are communicated with by fluid 5 during circulation. This is greater than the number of plates in the first ply or second ply of the second circulation duct communicated with by fluid 4 flowing in opposite directions) of second circulation ducts (shown in fig. 3 the second circuit 22), respectively delimited by two adjacent plates of the plurality of plates and in communication with the high-pressure part of the circuit.
Regarding claim 3 Gael teaches wherein either the first or second circulation ducts delimited by the adjacent plates of the plurality of plates (shown in fig. 5 stack of plates (19, 20, 40, 42)) are arranged so that a second circulation duct (shown in fig. 3 the second circuit 22) extends on the two sides, in the vertical direction, of the assembly formed by the at least two first adjacent circulation ducts (shown in fig. 2 the first circuit 15).
PNG
media_image2.png
386
786
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4 Gael teaches wherein the first circulation ducts (shown in fig. 2 the first circuit 15) are arranged in assemblies (shown in annotated fig. 2, Assemblies A) of two first circulation ducts that are adjacent in the vertical direction and partially delimited respectively by one and the same plate (shown in annotated fig. 2, Delimiting Plate DP).
Regarding claim 5 Gael teaches wherein each of the assemblies is separated from another assembly by a single second circulation duct (shown in annotated fig. 2, Second Circuit Space SCS separates each assembly A) in the vertical direction.
Regarding claim 7 Gael teaches wherein, at the low-pressure refrigerant-fluid manifolds, the plates are distributed into primary plates (shown in annotated fig. 5 Primary plate PP) with a flat peripheral portion (shown in annotated fig. 5 Flat Peripheral portion Fpp) that extends in a plane substantially perpendicular to the vertical stacking direction, and secondary plates (shown in annotated fig. 5 Secondary Plate Spp) in which the peripheral portion (shown in annotated fig. 5 Peripheral portions pp) is deformed to come into contact with the peripheral portion of a primary plate the internal heat exchanger with plates being configured so that the plurality of plates includes two successive primary plates at regular intervals (shown in annotated fig. 5, the interval between plate types).
Regarding claim 8 Gael teaches wherein the thicknesses of the edges of the peripheral portions (shown in annotated fig. 5 Peripheral portions pp) participating in delimiting a manifold formed by a plurality of openings (shown in fig. 5 through holes 49 and 50) differ from one edge to the other in the vertical stacking direction (Shown in annotated fig. 5, the peripheral portion PP around the openings 49 and 50 alternate on and off each plate).
Regarding claim 9 Gael teaches wherein each of the plates (shown in fig. 5 stack of plates (19, 20, 40, 42)) includes at least one exchange surface (shown in annotated fig. 5 Exchange Surface ES) against which the refrigerant fluid circulates and a raised edge (shown in annotated fig. 5 Raised edge RE), the plurality of plates being stacked so that the at least one exchange surface is at non-zero distance so as to form the circulation ducts (shown in fig. 2 the first circuit 15 & shown in fig. 3 the second circuit 22).
Regarding claim 13, Gael in light of Ohata teaches the boss disturbs the flow of fluid inside one or more of a first circulation duct and a second circulation duct (col. 7, ln 38-49).
Regarding claim 14, Gael in light of Ohata teaches at least three plates of the plurality of plates include a boss projecting from a lower face of each of the at least three plates (per Fig. 19 ).
Regarding claim 16, Gael in light of Ohata teaches the boss also projects toward an adjacent plate but does not contact the adjacent plate (per fig. 19)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DAHLBERG et al. (CN 116997761 A) in view of Gael (FR 3059400 A1).
For claim 6, Gael does not teach additional claim limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 6 DAHLBERG teaches, wherein each of the plates (shown in annotated fig. 8 above, 12a through 13a) has peripheral portions surrounding each of the openings (shown in annotated fig. 8 above, Peripheral Portions PP), a peripheral portion of a plate being made integral with the peripheral portion of an adjacent plate to isolate the circulation duct delimited between these adjacent plates from the manifold formed by the corresponding openings (shown in fig. 17, para. 0046 states “the chamber 17 is closed off from the plate interspaces 13a, 13b through a sealing area 20 surrounding the chamber 17”). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the chamber of Gael, to be the chamber design of DAHLBERG, the motivation so the heat exchanger can withstand high pressures (Prior Art para. 0004). Shown in 112 above for language not being examined.
PNG
media_image3.png
605
793
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshii et al. (US 5678422 A) in view of Gael (FR 3059400 A1) and Chopard et al. (U.S. PGPub 2019/0310026).
Regarding claim 10 Yoshii teaches A refrigerant-fluid circuit (shown in fig. 2, the refrigerating system 14)
Yoshii teaches the refrigerant-fluid circuit further comprising a high-pressure part (shown in annotated fig. 2, High pressure part Hpp) and a low-pressure part (shown in annotated fig. 2, Low pressure part Lpp), the heat exchanger (shown in fig. 2, a refrigerant-refrigerant heat exchanger 32, column 8 line 21-34 “According to the present invention, in the refrigerant-refrigerant heat exchanger 32, the direction of the flow of the refrigerant in the inflow passageway 38 and the direction of the flow of the refrigerant in the outflow passageway 39 are opposite to each other, which allows the heat exchanging efficiency to be improved between the inflow refrigerant and the outflow refrigerant in the refrigerant-refrigerant heat exchanger 32. As a result, a super-heated condition of a value of the degree of the superheating of the refrigerant larger than 1.0 is obtained at the outlet of the stacked type heat exchanger 5. As a result, the refrigerant is prevented from being introduced in a liquid state, which otherwise would cause a liquid compression, thereby preventing the compressor from being damaged.” The prior art uses separate refrigerant pathways inside the heat exchanger to prevent liquid from entering the gas pathway to the compressor) being arranged fluidically inside the circuit to enable a heat exchange between the refrigerant fluid circulating primarily in gas form in the low-pressure part with the refrigerant fluid circulating primarily in liquid form in the high-pressure part.
Yoshii does not teach comprising at least one heat exchanger with plates of a refrigerant-fluid circuit, the heat exchanger including at least one plurality of plates stacked on top of one another in a vertical stacking direction, with adjacent plates between each other delimiting a plurality of first circulation ducts for the refrigerant fluid in a low-pressure part of the circuit and a plurality of second circulation ducts for the refrigerant fluid in a high-pressure part of the circuit, at least some of the plurality of plates of the heat exchanger including a plurality of openings, of which some form a first inlet manifold and others form a first outlet manifold for the low- pressure refrigerant fluid in communication with the first circulation ducts, and of which some form a second inlet manifold and others form a second outlet manifold for the high-pressure refrigerant fluid in communication with the second circulation ducts, wherein at least two of the first circulation ducts are adjacent in the vertical stacking direction.
Gael teaches comprising at least one heat exchanger (shown in fig. 5 heat exchanger 3) with plates (shown in fig. 5 stack of plates (19, 20, 40, 42)) of a refrigerant-fluid circuit, the heat exchanger including at least one plurality of plates stacked on top of one another in a vertical stacking direction, with adjacent plates between each other delimiting a plurality of first circulation ducts (shown in fig. 2 the first circuit 15) for the refrigerant fluid in a low-pressure part of the circuit and a plurality of second circulation ducts (shown in fig. 3 the second circuit 22) for the refrigerant fluid in a high-pressure part (“high-pressure” and “low-pressure” as used in the claim 9 are known terms in the art not requiring a specific value or range but a relationship of pressure between the two) of the circuit, at least some of the plurality of plates of the heat exchanger including a plurality of openings, of which some form a first inlet manifold (shown in fig. 2 First inlet manifold 16) and others form a first outlet manifold (shown in fig. 2 First outlet manifold 17) for the low- pressure refrigerant fluid in communication with the first circulation ducts, and of which some form a second inlet manifold (shown in fig. 3 second inlet manifold 27) and others form a second outlet manifold (shown in fig. 3 second outlet manifold 29) for the high-pressure refrigerant fluid in communication with the second circulation ducts, wherein at least two of the first circulation ducts are adjacent in the vertical stacking direction (shown in fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the heat exchanger of Yoshii, to be the heat exchanger design of Gael, the motivation to optimize the flow of the coolant in the heat exchanger (Description).
Yoshii does not teach the number of the plurality of first circulation ducts is equal to or greater than twice the number of the plurality of second circulation ducts.
Chopard teaches the number of the plurality of first circulation ducts (7a & 7b) is equal to or greater than twice the number of the plurality of second circulation ducts (9). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Yoshii to include the duct count of Chopard as claimed, the motivation would be to maximize heat transfer surface.
PNG
media_image4.png
596
709
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshii et al. (US 5678422 A) in view of Gael (FR 3059400 A1) and Chopard et al. (U.S. PGPub 2019/0310026), and further view of Ohata et al. (U.S. Patent 5,832,993).
Regarding claim 11, Yoshii does not teach at least one plate of the plurality of plates includes a boss projecting from a lower face of the at least one plate, such that the boss reduces localized flow area in said first circulation duct.
Ohata teaches at least one plate of the plurality of plates (elements 12) including a boss (elements 19) projecting from a lower face of the at least one plate (per fig. 19), toward a first circulation duct (space between plates), such that the boss reduces localized flow area in said first circulation duct (inherent in such structure and Col. 7, ln 38-49). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Yoshii to include the bosses of Ohata as claimed, the motivation would be positively disturb the air flow through the fluid passages (col. 7, ln 38-49).
Regarding claim 12 Ohata further the boss extends toward a first circulation duct and disturbs the flow of fluid inside one or more of a first circulation duct and a second circulation duct (Fig. 19 & col. 7, ln 38-49).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding amendments overcoming the 112b rejections and the double patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112b rejections and double patenting objection have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) rejections of 102/103 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.
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 JOEL M ATTEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8-5 and Friday 8-10 and 2-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights