CTNF 18/886,515 CTNF 99797 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 06-52 The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/16/2024 was filed on or after the mailing date of the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on Japanese Patent Application No. 2022-047473 filed on March 23, 2022. Specification 06-31 AIA The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant' s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Regarding claim 1, the recitation of claim limitation “condenser unit" in at least claim 1. Corresponds to “ a radiator ” in paragraph 0043 of the specification Regarding claim 1, the recitation of claim limitation “liquid storage unit" in at least claim 1. Corresponds to “ a receiver tank RT having a refrigerant inlet and a refrigerant outlet placed at an upper side thereof. The receiver tank RT is configured to allow the high-pressure liquid refrigerant stored therein to flow out from the upper side ” in paragraph 0045 of the specification. Regarding claim 1, the recitation of claim limitation “sub-cooler unit" in at least claim 1. Corresponds to “ a radiator ” in paragraph 0046 of the specification. Regarding claim 1, the recitation of claim limitation “internal heat exchanger unit" in at least claim 1. Corresponds to “primary heat exchanger passage 151 conducting the high-pressure liquid refrigerant is formed between the other surface lacking the sacrificial layer SL of each corresponding plate member 30 and the other surface lacking the sacrificial layer SL of the adjacent plate member 30. Furthermore, the secondary heat exchanger passage 152 conducting the low-pressure refrigerant is formed between the one surface having the sacrificial layer SL of each corresponding plate member 30 and the one surface having the sacrificial layer SL of the adjacent plate member 30. In the structure ST configured in the manner described above, the sacrificial layer SL corrodes preferentially over the core material CM. This makes it more difficult for the core material CM to corrode. In other words, the corrosion resistance of the structure ST is improved” in paragraph 0094-0095 of the specification see also fig. 7. Regarding claim 1, the recitation of claim limitation “predetermined binding element" in at least claim 1. Corresponds to “ a brazing material in this example ” in paragraph 0054 of the specification. Regarding claim 4, the recitation of claim limitation “coupler component " in at least claim 4. Corresponds to “connecting passage” in 0154 of the specification. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 07-30-02 AIA 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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Regarding Claims 1, 3, 8, 10-11, 13, 15 and 22, the term “high-pressure refrigerant” is a relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-pressure” 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. Therefore “high-pressure refrigerant” is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - refrigerant - - for clarity. Regarding Claims 1, 3, 8-11, 13, 15 and 22, the term “high-pressure liquid refrigerant” is a relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-pressure” 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. Therefore “high-pressure liquid refrigerant” is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - liquid refrigerant - - for clarity. Regarding Claims 1, 3, 8-11, 13, 15 and 22, the term “low-pressure refrigerant” is a relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low-pressure” 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. Therefore “low-pressure refrigerant” is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - the refrigerant - - for clarity. 07-34-03 Regarding Claims 3, the term “high-pressure inlet passage” is a relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “High-pressure” 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. Therefore “high-pressure inlet passage” is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - inlet passage - - for clarity. 07-34-03 Regarding Claims 3, the term “high-pressure outlet passage” is a relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “High-pressure” 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. Therefore “high-pressure outlet passage” is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - outlet passage - - for clarity. Regarding Claims 8-10 and 22, the term “at least two high-temperature side passage holes” is a relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-temperature” 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. Therefore “at least two high-temperature side passage holes” is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - at least two side passage holes - - for clarity. Regarding Claims 8-10 and 22, the term “at least one low-temperature side passage hole” is a relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low-temperature” 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. Therefore “at least one low-temperature side passage hole” is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - at least one side passage hole - - for clarity. Regarding Claims 8-10 and 22, the term “common plate thickness and common external dimensions” is a relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “common” 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. Therefore “common plate thickness and common external dimensions” is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - plate thickness and an external dimensions - - for clarity. Claims 2, 4-7, 12, 14 and 16-21 are rejected to because of dependency from a rejected claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-9, 12, 14-17 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US10677500B2) in view of Kadle et al. (US20120210746A1) . Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches a composite heat exchanger [40] configured to be used in a vapor compression refrigeration cycle [col. 2, lines 47-67 “condensing and evaporating a refrigerant circulated therein”] that includes: a compressor [49]; a decompressor [47] configured to decompress a refrigerant [col. 11, lines 24-31 “refrigerant expands”] discharged from the compressor [col. 11, lines 24-31 “refrigerant expands in the expansion valve” see also f1g. 1]; and an evaporator [48] configured to evaporate the refrigerant decompressed at the decompressor by exchanging heat between the refrigerant and a first heat medium [col. 10, lines 33-46 “exchanges heat between a refrigerant introduced thereinto and a coolant to evaporate the refrigerant”], the composite heat exchanger [40] comprising: a condenser unit [42] configured to condense the refrigerant by exchanging heat between the refrigerant and a second heat medium [col. 9, lines 51-55 “coolant”]; a liquid storage unit [43] configured to temporarily store a liquid refrigerant contained in the refrigerant passed through the condenser unit [col. 13 line 65- col. 14 line 2]; a sub-cooler unit [44] configured to sub-cool the liquid refrigerant stored in and outputted from the liquid storage unit by exchanging heat between the liquid refrigerant and the second heat medium [col. 15, lines 59-63]; and an internal heat exchanger unit [46] configured to exchange heat between the liquid refrigerant passed through the sub-cooler unit [44] and the refrigerant discharged from the evaporator [col. 11, lines 11-18], wherein: the condenser unit [42], the sub-cooler unit [44] and the internal heat exchanger unit [46] form an integral structure [(42, 44 & 46) are formed in (40) someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that means they are an integral structure]; in the integral structure [40], the sub-cooler unit [44] is placed between the condenser unit [42] and the internal heat exchanger unit [46; see fig. 1]; and the liquid storage unit [43] is placed adjacent to a portion of the integral structure which forms the internal heat exchanger unit [see fig. 1 showing (43) placed adjacent to a portion of the integral structure which forms the internal heat exchanger unit]. Kim does not explicitly teach, the condenser unit, the sub-cooler unit and the internal heat exchanger unit are joined together by a predetermined binding element and thereby form an integral structure.However, Kadle teaches the condenser unit [202 corresponding to 42 of Kim], the sub-cooler unit [206 corresponding to 44 of Kim] and the internal heat exchanger unit [204 corresponding to 46 of Kim] are joined together by a predetermined binding element and thereby form an integral structure [0029-0032 “when stacked and brazed” see figs. 5-7]. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kim to have the condenser unit, the sub-cooler unit and the internal heat exchanger unit are joined together by a predetermined binding element and thereby form an integral structure in view of the teachings of Kadle where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results, i.e. secures a composite heat exchanger where the condenser unit, the sub-cooler unit and the internal heat exchanger unit are joined together by a predetermined binding element and thereby form an integral structure which improves overall heating efficiency and improves driving ranges of hybrid and electric vehicles [Kadle; 0021]. Regarding Claim 2, modified Kim teaches the composite heat exchanger according to claim 1 and Kim teaches wherein the integral structure [40] is configured to limit heat transfer between the condenser unit [42] and the internal heat exchanger unit [see fig. 1 where (42 and 46) are positioned apart from each other thus limiting heat transfer between the units]. Regarding Claim 3, modified Kim teaches the composite heat exchanger according to claim 1 and Kim teaches wherein: in the integral structure [40], an inlet passage [fig. 1; 41 where (41) enters (42)], which is configured to conduct the refrigerant passed through the condenser unit [42] to the liquid storage unit [43], extends through the sub-cooler unit [44] and the internal heat exchanger unit [see fig. 1 where (41) connects (42-46)] Modified Kim does not explicitly teach an outlet passage, which is configured to conduct the liquid refrigerant stored in the liquid storage unit to the sub-cooler unit, extends through the internal heat exchanger unit; and in the integral structure, a portion of the internal heat exchanger unit, which is adjacent to the liquid storage unit, is configured to conduct the refrigerant flowing in the inlet passage to the liquid storage unit and also conduct the liquid refrigerant stored in the liquid storage unit to the outlet passage. However, The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04), it would have been an obvious design choice to modify Kim in view of Kadle by having an outlet passage, which is configured to conduct the liquid refrigerant stored in the liquid storage unit to the sub-cooler unit, extends through the internal heat exchanger unit; and in the integral structure, a portion of the internal heat exchanger unit, which is adjacent to the liquid storage unit, is configured to conduct the refrigerant flowing in the inlet passage to the liquid storage unit and also conduct the liquid refrigerant stored in the liquid storage unit to the outlet passage, since applicant has not disclosed that having an outlet passage, which is configured to conduct the liquid refrigerant stored in the liquid storage unit to the sub-cooler unit, extends through the internal heat exchanger unit; and in the integral structure, a portion of the internal heat exchanger unit, which is adjacent to the liquid storage unit, is configured to conduct the refrigerant flowing in the inlet passage to the liquid storage unit and also conduct the liquid refrigerant stored in the liquid storage unit to the outlet passage solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected result, and it appears that the an outlet passage, which is configured to conduct the liquid refrigerant stored in the liquid storage unit to the sub-cooler unit, extends through the internal heat exchanger unit; and in the integral structure, a portion of the internal heat exchanger unit, which is adjacent to the liquid storage unit, is configured to conduct the refrigerant flowing in the inlet passage to the liquid storage unit and also conduct the liquid refrigerant stored in the liquid storage unit to the outlet passage would perform equally well with the integral structure of the modified Kim, i.e. it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to secure a composite heat exchanger with an outlet passage, that is configured to conduct the liquid refrigerant stored in the liquid storage unit to the sub-cooler unit, which extends through the internal heat exchanger unit; and in the integral structure, a portion of the internal heat exchanger unit, which is adjacent to the liquid storage unit, is configured to conduct the refrigerant flowing in the inlet passage to the liquid storage unit and also conduct the liquid refrigerant stored in the liquid storage unit to the outlet passage which would improve the overall efficiency of the heating system [Kadle; 0021]. Regarding Claim 4, modified Kim teaches the composite heat exchanger according to claim 1 and Kadle teaches wherein the internal heat exchanger unit [204] is coupled to one heat exchanger unit among the condenser unit [202] and the sub-cooler unit [206] through at least one coupler component [284] in a state where the internal heat exchanger unit is spaced from the one heat exchanger unit [see fig. 7 where there is clearly space between (202) and (204) and they are coupled together]. Regarding Claim 5, modified Kim teaches the composite heat exchanger according to claim 4 and Kim teaches wherein: the internal heat exchanger unit [46] is coupled to the sub-cooler [44] unit in a state where the internal heat exchanger unit is spaced from the sub-cooler unit [see fig. 1 where (46) is clearly coupled to (44) and is spaced from (44)]. Regarding Claim 6, modified Kim teaches the composite heat exchanger according to claim 1 and Kim teaches wherein the liquid storage unit [43] is directly joined to a portion of the integral structure [fig. 1 showing 43 directly joined to a portion of the integral structure] which forms the internal heat exchanger unit [fig. 1 showing that (46) is formed with (40)]. Regarding Claim 7, modified Kim teaches the composite heat exchanger according to claim 1 and Kadle teaches wherein the internal heat exchanger unit [204] and at least one of the condenser unit [202] and the sub-cooler unit [204] are formed by a plurality of plate members which are stacked and joined together [see figs. 5-7 where clearly (202, 204 and 206) are formed by a plurality of plate member stacked and joined together]. Regarding Claim 8, modified Kim teaches the composite heat exchanger according to claim 7 and Kadle teaches wherein the plurality of plate members [see figs. 6-7 showing the plurality of plate members] include a plurality of multi-hole members [see figs. 6-7 showing a plurality of multi-hole members] each of which has: at least two side passage holes [at least 262 & 260; see fig. 6] which are configured to conduct the refrigerant that includes the liquid refrigerant [0031 “refrigerant passageway”]; and at least one side passage hole which is configured to conduct the second heat medium [264; 0031 “hot coolant passageway”]. Regarding Claim 9, modified Kim teaches the composite heat exchanger according to claim 8 and Kadle teaches wherein in each of the plurality of multi-hole members [figs. 6-7], one of the at least two side passage holes [260] is formed as a passage hole [266] that is configured to conduct the liquid refrigerant [0036 “high pressure liquid refrigerant enters the IHX high pressure port”] and is placed adjacent [fig. 6 where (260 & 266) are clearly placed adjacent each other] to a corresponding one of the at least one side passage hole [268]. Regarding Claim 12, modified Kim teaches the composite heat exchanger according to claim 7 and Kadle teaches wherein each of the condenser unit [202], the sub-cooler unit [206] and the internal heat exchanger unit [204] is formed by corresponding plate members among the plurality of plate members [see figs. 6-7 clearly showing corresponding plate members among the plurality of plate members], and the plurality of plate members are made of a plurality of plate materials [0031 “stamped metal plates”], respectively, each of which has at least a plate thickness and an external dimensions[see fig. 6-7 clearly showing a plate thickness and an external dimensions]. Regarding Claim 14, modified Kim teaches the composite heat exchanger according to claim 1 and Kadle teaches wherein the liquid storage unit [294] is arranged such that a center position of the liquid storage unit [294] does not overlap a center plane of the integral structure [201] extending in a direction along which the condenser unit [202], the sub-cooler unit [206] and the internal heat exchanger unit [204] are arranged in a row [see figs. 5-7 where clearly a center position of (294) does not overlap a center plane of (201) which extends in a direction along (202, 204 and 206)]. Regarding Claim 15, claims 1 and 4 teaches all the limitations of claim 15, see rejection of claims 1 and 4 above. Claim 15 differs from claims 1 and 4 in regards to claim limitations: Kim teaches in the integral structure [40], the condenser unit [42] is placed between the sub-cooler [44] unit and the internal heat exchanger unit[46]; and the internal heat exchanger unit [46] is coupled to the condenser unit [42] in a state where the internal heat exchanger unit is spaced from the condenser unit [see fig. 1 where (42 & 46) are clearly spaced apart and coupled toother through refrigerant line (41)]. Regarding Claim 16, modified Kim teaches the composite heat exchanger according to claim 15 and Kim teaches wherein the liquid storage unit [43] is placed adjacent to a portion of the integral structure which forms the sub-cooler unit [see fig. 1 showing (43) placed adjacent to a portion of the integral structure (40) which forms the sub-cooler unit (44)] . Regarding Claim 17, modified Kim teaches the composite heat exchanger according to claim 15 and Kim teaches wherein the liquid storage unit [43] is directly joined to a portion of the integral structure [fig. 1 showing 43 directly joined to a portion of the integral structure] which forms the sub-cooler unit [fig. 1 showing that (44) is formed with (40)]. Regarding Claim 21, modified Kim teaches the composite heat exchanger according to claim 15 and Kim teaches wherein the internal heat exchanger unit [46] is coupled to the evaporator [48] through at least one coupling connector [47; where in at least fig. 1 (47) is a coupling connector coupling (46 & 48)]. Regarding Claim 22, the combined claims 1 and 7-8 teachings teach all the limitations of claim 15 See rejections of claims 1 and 7-8 above . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Kadle as applied to claim s 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Andersson et al. (US20230036818A1) . Regarding Claim 10, modified Kim teaches the composite heat exchanger according to claim 8 and Kadle teaches wherein in each of the plurality of multi-hole members [figs. 6-7], the at least two side passage holes [262 & 260] and at least one side passage hole [268]. Modified Kim does not explicitly teach a large-diameter hole that is configured to conduct the refrigerant in a gas state; and a small-diameter hole that has a diameter smaller than a diameter of the large-diameter hole and is configured to conduct the liquid refrigerant, wherein the small-diameter hole is placed adjacent to a corresponding one of the at least one side passage hole. However, Andersson teaches a large-diameter hole [O1] that is configured to conduct the refrigerant in a gas state [0089 “gaseous refrigerant”]; and a small-diameter hole [SO2] that has a diameter smaller than a diameter of the large-diameter hole [see at least fig. 7b where O1 is clearly larger than SO2] and is configured to conduct the liquid refrigerant [0092-0093 “liquid refrigerant from the condenser”], wherein the small-diameter hole is placed adjacent to a corresponding one of the at least one side passage hole [O2 corresponding to 268 of Kadle; in Andersson see also 0089 “will exchanger heat”; and see also at least fig. 7b where SO.. is adjacent to O2]. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of the modified Kim teaching with Andersson by combining a large-diameter hole that is configured to conduct the refrigerant in a gas state or the liquid refrigerant; and a small-diameter hole that has a diameter smaller than a diameter of the large-diameter hole and is configured to conduct the liquid refrigerant, wherein the small-diameter hole is placed adjacent to a corresponding one of the at least one side passage hole where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results, i.e. secures a composite heat exchanger with a large-diameter hole that conducts the refrigerant in a gas state and a small-diameter hole that has a diameter smaller than the large-diameter hole and is configured to conduct the liquid refrigerant, wherein the small-diameter hole is placed adjacent to a corresponding one of the at least one side passage hole which benefits compactness and material efficiency [Andersson; 0015] . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Kadle as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi (JP2016090217A) . Regarding Claim 13, modified Kim teaches the composite heat exchanger according to claim 1 and Kadle teaches wherein: each of the condenser unit [202] and the sub-cooler unit [206] has a plurality of primary heat exchange fins [fig. 7 where clearly (202 & 206) have heat exchange fins] which are configured to promote heat exchange between the refrigerant and the second heat medium [fig. 6 clearly showing heat exchange between the refrigerant and the second heat medium]; the internal heat exchanger unit [204] has a plurality of secondary heat exchange fins [fig. 7 showing (204) having a plurality of secondary heat exchange fins] which are configured to promote heat exchange between the liquid refrigerant and the refrigerant [0036 “high pressure refrigerant flowing through the IHX high pressure channel 266 and the low pressure refrigerant flowing through the IHX low pressure channel 268 are non-contact, in other words, are not intermingled, but are in thermal communication”]. Modified Kim does not explicitly teach each of the plurality of secondary heat exchange fins has a shape that is different from a shape of each of the plurality of primary heat exchange fins to reduce a refrigerant pressure loss at the internal heat exchanger unit.However, Takahashi teaches each of the plurality of secondary heat exchange fins [fig. 7 corresponding to the plurality of secondary heat exchange fins of Kadle] has a shape that is different from a shape of each of the plurality of primary heat exchange fins [fig. 6 corresponding to the plurality of primary heat exchange fins of Kadle; where the fins in figs. 6&7 clearly have a different shape] to reduce a refrigerant pressure loss at the internal heat exchanger unit [122 corresponding to 204 of Kadle; 0071 “pressure loss of the refrigerant can be reduced”]. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of the modified Kim teaching with Takahashi by combining each of the plurality of secondary heat exchange fins has a shape that is different from a shape of each of the plurality of primary heat exchange fins to reduce a refrigerant pressure loss at the internal heat exchanger unit where the elements could have been combined by known methods with and a Simple substitution would give the system the necessary ... .The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are yielded, i.e. secures a composite heat exchanger where heat exchanger fins are different in shape to reduce pressure loss which improves heat exchange performance [Takahashi; 0070] . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Kadle as applied to claim s 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Takahashi (US20170122669A1 herein after Takahashi’) . Regarding Claim 18, modified Kim teaches the composite heat exchanger according to claim 15 and Kadle teaches wherein one of a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension of the internal heat exchanger unit [fig. 7 where clearly (204) has a vertical and horizontal dimension] measured at a front surface of the internal heat exchanger unit [fig. 7 where (204) has a front surface]; and a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension of the condenser unit [202] measured at a front surface of the condenser unit [fig. 7 where (202) has a vertical and horizontal dimension as well as a front surface]; and a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension of the sub-cooler unit [206] measured at a front surface of the sub-cooler unit [fig. 7 where (206) has a vertical and horizontal dimension as well as a front surface]. Modified Kim does not explicitly teach one of a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension of the internal heat exchanger unit measured at a front surface of the internal heat exchanger unit is smaller than both of: a larger one of a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension of the condenser unit measured at a front surface of the condenser unit; and a larger one of a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension of the sub-cooler unit measured at a front surface of the sub-cooler unit. However Takahashi’ teaches one of a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension [see Image I below] of the internal heat exchanger unit [62 corresponding to 204 of Kadle] measured at a front surface of the internal heat exchanger unit [62] is smaller than [see Image I below]: a larger one of a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension [see Image I below] of the condenser unit [12 corresponding to 202 of Kadle] measured at a front surface of the condenser unit [see image I below]. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of the modified Kim teaching with Takahashi’ by combining one of a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension of the internal heat exchanger unit measured at a front surface of the internal heat exchanger unit is smaller than: a larger one of a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension of the condenser unit measured at a front surface of the condenser unit where the elements could have been combined by known methods with and a Simple substitution would give the system the necessary difference in dimensions between the internal heat exchanger unit and the condenser unit. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are yielded, i.e. secures a composite heat exchanger with the internal heat exchanger unit having a smaller vertical and horizontal dimension than the condenser unit which would reduce the physical size of the composite heat exchanger [Takahashi’; 0006]. Further, the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04), it would have been an obvious design choice to modify the modified Kim in view of Takahashi’ by the internal heat exchanger unit is smaller than both of: a larger one of a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension of the condenser unit measured at a front surface of the condenser unit; and a larger one of a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension of the sub-cooler unit measured at a front surface of the sub-cooler unit would perform equally well with the integral structure of the modified Kim, i.e. it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to secure a composite heat exchanger with the internal heat exchanger unit is smaller than both of: a larger one of a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension of the condenser unit measured at a front surface of the condenser unit; and a larger one of a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension of the sub-cooler unit measured at a front surface of the sub-cooler unit which would reduce the physical size of the composite heat exchanger [Takahashi’; 0006]. PNG media_image1.png 506 389 media_image1.png Greyscale (annotated fig. 19 of Takahashi’; Image I) Regarding Claim 19, modified Kim teaches the composite heat exchanger according to claim 15 and Kadle teaches wherein a larger one of a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension of the internal heat exchanger unit [fig. 7 where clearly (204) has a vertical and horizontal dimension] measured at a front surface of the internal heat exchanger unit [fig. 7 where (204) has a front surface]; and a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension of the condenser unit [202] measured at a front surface of the condenser unit [fig. 7 where (202) has a vertical and horizontal dimension as well as a front surface]; and a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension of the sub-cooler unit [206] measured at a front surface of the sub-cooler unit [fig. 7 where (206) has a vertical and horizontal dimension as well as a front surface]. Modified Kim does not explicitly teach a larger one of a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension of the internal heat exchanger unit measured at a front surface of the internal heat exchanger unit is smaller than both of: a larger one of a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension of the condenser unit measured at a front surface of the condenser unit; and a larger one of a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension of the sub-cooler unit measured at a front surface of the sub-cooler unit. However Takahashi’ teaches a larger one of a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension [see Image I] of the internal heat exchanger unit [62 corresponding to 204 of Kadle] measured at a front surface of the internal heat exchanger unit [62] is smaller than [see Image I]: a larger one of a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension [see Image I] of the condenser unit [12 corresponding to 202 of Kadle] measured at a front surface of the condenser unit [see image I]. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of the modified Kim teaching with Takahashi’ by combining a larger one of a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension of the internal heat exchanger unit measured at a front surface of the internal heat exchanger unit is smaller than: a larger one of a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension of the condenser unit measured at a front surface of the condenser unit where the elements could have been combined by known methods with and a Simple substitution would give the system the necessary difference in dimensions between the internal heat exchanger unit and the condenser unit. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are yielded, i.e. secures a composite heat exchanger with the internal heat exchanger unit having a smaller vertical and horizontal dimension than the condenser unit which would reduce the physical size of the composite heat exchanger [Takahashi’; 0006]. Further, the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04), it would have been an obvious design choice to modify the modified Kim in view of Takahashi’ by a larger one of a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension of the internal heat exchanger unit measured at a front surface of the internal heat exchanger unit is smaller than both of: a larger one of a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension of the condenser unit measured at a front surface of the condenser unit; and a larger one of a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension of the sub-cooler unit measured at a front surface of the sub-cooler unit would perform equally well with the integral structure of the modified Kim, i.e. it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to secure a composite heat exchanger with the internal heat exchanger unit is smaller than both of: a larger one of a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension of the condenser unit measured at a front surface of the condenser unit; and a larger one of a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension of the sub-cooler unit measured at a front surface of the sub-cooler unit which would reduce the physical size of the composite heat exchanger [Takahashi’; 0006]. Regarding Claim 20, modified Kim teaches the composite heat exchanger according to claim 15 and Kadle teaches at least one heat exchanger unit among the condenser unit [202], the sub-cooler unit [206] and the internal heat exchanger unit [204]. Modified Kim does not explicitly teach wherein at least one heat exchanger unit among the condenser unit, the sub-cooler unit and the internal heat exchanger unit is configured such that one of a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension of the at least one heat exchanger unit measured at a front surface of the at least one heat exchanger unit is smaller than a largest dimension among a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension of remaining one or more heat exchanger units measured at a front surface of the remaining one or more heat exchanger units among the condenser unit, the sub-cooler unit and the internal heat exchanger unit.However, Takahashi’ teaches wherein at least one heat exchanger unit among the condenser unit [12 corresponding to 202 of Kadle] and the internal heat exchanger unit [62 corresponding to 204 of Kadle] is configured such that one of a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension [see image I] of the at least one heat exchanger unit measured at a front surface [see image I] of the at least one heat exchanger unit is smaller than a largest dimension among a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension [see image I] of remaining one or more heat exchanger units measured at a front surface of the remaining one or more heat exchanger units among the condenser unit and the internal heat exchanger unit [see image I which clearly shows at least one heat exchanger unit having a larger dimension and a smaller dimension vertically and horizontally from a front surface]. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of the modified Kim teaching with Takahashi’ by combining wherein at least one heat exchanger unit among the condenser unit, the sub-cooler unit and the internal heat exchanger unit is configured such that one of a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension of the at least one heat exchanger unit measured at a front surface of the at least one heat exchanger unit is smaller than a largest dimension among a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension of remaining one or more heat exchanger units measured at a front surface of the remaining one or more heat exchanger units among the condenser unit, the sub-cooler unit and the internal heat exchanger unit where the elements could have been combined by known methods with and a Simple substitution would give the system the necessary difference in dimensions between the internal heat exchanger unit and the condenser unit. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are yielded, i.e. secures a composite heat exchanger with the internal heat exchanger unit having a smaller vertical and horizontal dimension than the condenser unit which would reduce the physical size of the composite heat exchanger [Takahashi’; 0006]. Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-02 Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Reasons for Allowance Claim 11 is cited as containing allowable subject matter. 13-03-01 The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 11, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Kim (US10677500B2) in view of Kadle et al. (US20120210746A1) . The prior art of record modified Kim teaches the composite heat exchanger according to claim 7 and Kadle teaches wherein: each of the plurality of plate members [figs. 6-7 ]; and Kim teaches each of a primary condenser passage [41 entering (42)] configured to conduct the refrigerant discharged from the compressor [col.18, lines 6-11 “compressed at a higher temperature and pressure in the compressor 49, and is then introduced into the condenser 42”], a primary sub-cooler passage [on refrigerant line (41)] configured to conduct the liquid refrigerant stored in the liquid storage unit [col.18, lines 6-11 “refrigerant introduced to the condenser 42 is introduced to the sub condenser 44 through the receiver drier”], and a primary heat exchanger passage configured to conduct the liquid refrigerant passed through the sub-cooler unit [col.13 line 65-col. 14 line 14]. in contrast to the claimed features has a sacrificial layer at one surface and lacks the sacrificial layer at another surface opposite to the one surface; the one surface having the sacrificial layer of each corresponding one of the plurality of plate members is opposed to and is joined to the one surface having the sacrificial layer of an adjacent one of the plurality of plate members, and formed between the another surface of each corresponding one of the plurality of plate members and the another surface of the adjacent one of the plurality of plate members; and each of a secondary condenser passage configured to conduct the second heat medium, a secondary sub-cooler passage configured to conduct the second heat medium, and a secondary heat exchanger passage configured to conduct the low-pressure refrigerant is formed between the one surface of each corresponding one of the plurality of plate members and the one surface of the adjacent one of the plurality of plate members. Therefore, it would not be obvious to modify the technique of the prior art structures to have the apparatus as claimed without improper hindsight and claim 11 is therefrom considered allowable. 13-03 Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam D Moore whose telephone number is (703)756-1932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 09:00AM-07:00PM (Eastern). 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. /ADAM DORREL MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/886,515 Page 2 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/886,515 Page 3 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/886,515 Page 4 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/886,515 Page 6 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/886,515 Page 7 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/886,515 Page 8 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/886,515 Page 9 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/886,515 Page 10 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/886,515 Page 11 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/886,515 Page 12 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/886,515 Page 13 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/886,515 Page 14 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/886,515 Page 15 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/886,515 Page 16 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/886,515 Page 17 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/886,515 Page 18 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/886,515 Page 19 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/886,515 Page 20 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/886,515 Page 21 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/886,515 Page 22 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/886,515 Page 23 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/886,515 Page 24 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/886,515 Page 25 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/886,515 Page 26 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/886,515 Page 27 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/886,515 Page 28 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/886,515 Page 29 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/886,515 Page 30 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/886,515 Page 31 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/886,515 Page 32 Art Unit: 3763
Prosecution Insights