DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10 objected to because of the following informalities: claims recite “vapour”; it must be recited as “vapor”. Claim 9 recites “the fluidly connected chambers”; it must be recited as “the plurality of fluidly connected liquid chambers”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 2-9 recite “a refrigeration evaporator”. It is unclear if the bolded limitation refers back to the previously claimed limitation in claim 1. Not only does the phrase in the claims lacks a definite article (e.g. the or said) but the limitation is inconsistently recited.
Claim 3 recites “the overflow inlets”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for the bolded limitation, because it has not been claimed previously. For the purpose of examination it is interpreted as the overflow channels. More clarification is required.
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 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inoue (2016/0327317 A1).
Claim 1: Inoue discloses a refrigeration evaporator (i.e., paragraph [74]: heat exchanger 20 used as evaporator) for use in refrigeration systems (i.e., intended use), the evaporator comprising:
a plurality of fluidly connected liquid chambers (i.e., parts Y1/Y2/Y3 used as liquid chambers);
an inlet (i.e., inlet of liquid refrigerant pipeline 32) for receiving and introducing liquid refrigerant (i.e., functional language) into one of said plurality of liquid chambers (i.e., Y1/Y2/Y3); and wherein each of the liquid chambers (i.e., Y1/Y2/Y3) are interconnected by overflow channels (i.e., annotated by examiner in FIG.5) to allow flow of liquid refrigerant between the plurality of fluidly connected liquid chambers (i.e., Y1/Y2/Y3) under gravity such during influent flow of the refrigerant liquid the liquid chambers (i.e., Y1/Y2/Y3) accumulate the refrigerant liquid sequentially to impede the flow of the refrigerant liquid;
a vapour circuit (i.e., ‘area X’ constructing a vapor circuit) being provided to receive flow of refrigerant vapour from corresponding liquid chambers (i.e., Y1/Y2/Y3), the vapour circuit comprising vapour flow paths (i.e., vapor channels X1/X2/X3 forming paths) disposed within the overflow channels (i.e., annotated by examiner in FIG.5)
wherein each overflow channel (i.e., annotated by examiner in FIG.5) comprises a sufficiently large cross-section to facilitate flow of vapour along the vapour flow paths therein to allow the liquid to collect and flow without the vapour pushing slugs of the liquid through the cross-section without blocking the flow of the vapour (i.e., functional language/intended use).
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (overflow outlets)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (overflow channels)]
PNG
media_image1.png
530
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: Inoue discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1 wherein vapour flow paths (i.e., vapor channels X1/X2/X3 forming paths) are located along in-use upper portions of an internal volume of the liquid chambers (i.e., Y1/Y2/Y3).
Claim 3: Inoue discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1 wherein the overflow inlets (i.e., annotated by examiner in FIG.5) for each liquid chamber (i.e., Y1/Y2/Y3) is fluidly connected with respective overflow channels (i.e., annotated by examiner in FIG.5) disposed along peripheral regions of corresponding liquid chambers (i.e., Y1/Y2/Y3) and wherein the vapour flow paths (i.e., channels X1/X2/X3 forming paths) are disposed within the overflow channels (i.e., annotated by examiner in FIG.5).
Claim 4: Inoue discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 3 wherein each liquid chamber (i.e., Y1/Y2/Y3) comprises a bottom wall (i.e., at bottom section), a top wall (i.e., at top section) and side walls (i.e., as sides of chamber) such that inner surfaces (i.e., inherent) of the bottom wall, top wall and side walls define a substantially enclosed internal volume for accumulating the liquid refrigerant (i.e., intended use) and wherein the overflow outlet (i.e., annotated by examiner in FIG.5) for one or more liquid chambers (i.e., Y1/Y2/Y3) comprises
a stepped portion (i.e., 25) along a side wall that is sufficiently spaced away from the top wall to allow to facilitate flow of vapour along the vapour flow paths (i.e., vapor channels X1/X2/X3 forming paths) in an upper portion of the liquid chamber (i.e., Y1/Y2/Y3), the upper portion being at or adjacent the top wall of the liquid chamber for reducing interaction between the vapour and the liquid refrigerant during use (i.e., functional language).
Claim 5: Inoue discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 4 wherein the stepped portion (i.e., 25) defines a portion of the overflow channel (i.e., annotated by examiner in FIG.5) to spread the overflowing liquid along the outer surface of the stepped portion and facilitate vapour draw off from the overflow channel into the peripherally disposed vapour channels (i.e., vapor channels X1/X2/X3).
Claim 6: Inoue discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 3 wherein each liquid chamber (i.e., Y1/Y2/Y3) is surrounded by an outer peripheral walls (i.e., inherent; outer surface is outer peripheral walls) such that an inner surface of the outer peripheral walls define a portion of the overflow channels (i.e., annotated by examiner in FIG.5).
Claim 7: Inoue discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1 wherein in an in-use configuration each of the liquid chambers (i.e., Y1/Y2/Y3) are positioned at different relative heights (i.e., as shown in FIG.5 each Y located at different height with respect to other heights) to allow flow of liquid refrigerant between the plurality of fluidly connected liquid chambers under gravity (i.e., functional language).
Claim 8: Inoue discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1 further comprising a vapour outlet (i.e., outlet of gas refrigerant pipeline 31) being fluidly coupled with the vapour circuit (i.e., ‘area X’ constructing a vapor circuit) to allow coupling of a compressor (i.e., 91) with the vapour circuit for allowing the compressor (i.e., 91), when fluidly connected to the vapour outlet (i.e., outlet of gas refrigerant pipeline 31), to receive and compress vapour under high pressure during use (i.e., functional language).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (2016/0327317 A1), in view of Tadayon (US 2012/0255706 A1).
Claim 9: Inoue fails to disclose wherein influent flow rate of the liquid refrigerant through the fluidly connected chambers is controlled by a controller.
However, Tadayon teaches influent flow rate (paragraph [243]: control the flow rate of liquid through the system) of the liquid refrigerant through the fluidly connected chambers (to clarify, based on broadest reasonable interpretation, controlling the liquid flow rate of the system in which the system includes chambers) is controlled by a controller (paragraph [243]: controller which controls the flow rate of the liquid) in case of having different shapes and cross sections to redirect the flow and change speed or flow rate of liquid for better and more efficient or more time for heat exchange (paragraph [367]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Inoue to include influent flow rate of the liquid refrigerant through the fluidly connected chambers is controlled by a controller as taught by Tadayon in case of having different shapes and cross sections to redirect the flow and change speed or flow rate of liquid for better and more efficient or more time for heat exchange.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (2016/0327317 A1), in view of Geskes (2016/0153317 A1).
Claim 10: Inoue discloses a refrigeration evaporator (i.e., paragraph [74]: heat exchanger 20 used as evaporator) for use in refrigeration systems, the evaporator comprising:
a plurality of separate liquid chambers (i.e., parts Y1/Y2/Y3 used as liquid chambers),
a respective inlet (i.e., inlet of liquid refrigerant pipeline 32) for receiving and introducing liquid refrigerant (i.e., functional language) for receiving and introducing liquid phase refrigerant into a corresponding liquid chamber (i.e., functional language),
each respective inlet (i.e., inlet of liquid refrigerant pipeline 32) being positioned along a portion of the corresponding liquid chamber (i.e., parts Y1/Y2/Y3 used as liquid chambers) for allowing the liquid to flow into a bottom part of the liquid chamber under gravity (i.e., functional language);
a vapour circuit (i.e., ‘area X’ constructing a vapor circuit) comprising respective draw off vapour channels (i.e., vapor channels X1/X2/X3) being provided along an upper part of respective liquid chambers (i.e., parts Y1/Y2/Y3 used as liquid chambers) to receive flow of refrigerant vapour from corresponding liquid chambers (i.e., intended use), the draw off vapour channels (i.e., X1/X2/X3) being provided for reducing or preventing slugs of liquid refrigerant flowing into the vapour circuit (i.e., functional language).
Inoue discloses the claimed limitations in claim 10, but fails to disclose first and second layers of material.
However, Geskes teaches first and second layers of material (i.e., walls 30/31 used as first/second layers of material; paragraph [40]: walls 30, 31 are connected to each other by integrally bonded, located between inlet/outlet and channels 22) for the purpose of preventing working medium from entering the flow channels in the event of leakage (paragraph [44]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Inoue to include first and second layers of material as taught by Geskes in order to prevent working medium from entering the flow channels in the event of leakage.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure which is relevant to heat exchanger:
Taras (2016/0290730 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMRAN TAVAKOLDAVANI whose telephone number is (313)446-6612. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
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 on (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 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.
/KAMRAN TAVAKOLDAVANI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights