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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because: (a) some lettering in at least some of the figures (i.e., in Figures 1, 3, 5, and 6) cross or otherwise mingle with the lines of the drawings and/or graphs and/or are placed on hatched/shaded surfaces [i.e., see at least CFR 1.84(p)(3)]; and, (b) there are areas of impermissible black shading (i.e., an element immediately to the right side of the condensing region in Figure 1). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the features canceled from the claims: a cap assembled to an upper or lower end of the receiver dryer as recited in claims 4-5; a bottom cap assembling part as recited in claim 5; a blind connector having an external shape identical to a communication flow path between the receiver dryer and one of the header tanks connected to the receiver dryer and being formed in a shape in which a communication hole is closed as recited in claim 9 (i.e., while a blind connector 130 is shown in Figure 3, no details relating to its shape and no communication hole as recited in claim 9 are shown); a separate bracket provided to fix and couple the receiver dryer and one of the header tanks as recited in claim 10 (i.e., while such a bracket appears to be shown in Figure 3, there is no corresponding reference character associated therewith in order to clearly identify what is shown in the drawings); the pair of communication flow paths is formed as a pair of independent connectors or formed as a single integrated connector having two flow paths as recited in claim 11 (i.e., while a single integrated connector appears to be shown in Figure 3, there is no corresponding reference character associated therewith and a pair of independent connectors is not shown at all in a separate embodiment); and, the inlet port and the discharge port being connected to a pair of independent flanges or connected to a single integrated flange having two flow paths as recited in claim 12. No new matter should be entered. Please also note that newly illustrating any elements which are not originally shown in the drawings and which are not described in the original disclosure sufficiently to clearly indicate possession of all shown details relating thereto at the time of filing will likely constitute impermissible new matter.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not avoid phrases which can be implied (i.e., “The present invention relates to”; “and more particularly”; “An object of the present invention is to provide”), because it does not avoid referring to the purported merits of the instant inventive apparatus (i.e., “such that a dead volume of the receiver dryer is minimized”), and because it fails to summarize the salient features of the inventive apparatus as required. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears that in the last sentence of paragraph [0041] of the specification, which states “However, in case that the supercooling region S is 50%, the condensing region D also becomes 60%, such that the areas of the two regions may be equal to each other”, that “also becomes 60%” should instead be “also becomes 50%” in order to be consistent with the apparent overall intended meaning of the statement taken as a whole.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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 limitations are, for example: “condensing region”, “supercooling region”, and “bottom cap assembling part” as recited in the claims.
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
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 5 recites a “bottom cap assembling part” but the original disclosure fails to describe in any way which structure or structures are encompassed by the “bottom cap assembling part” as claimed. Also, a “bottom cap assembling part” is not an art term which requires no further explanation. Therefore, the disclosure does not convey possession of the instant inventive heat exchanger as claimed and the written description requirement is not met for claim 5.
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 through 13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and contain grammatical and idiomatic errors which render the claims unclear.
For example, it is unclear to which previously recited element(s) the term “therein” in line 3 of claim 1 is intended to refer, thus rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim and by all claims depending therefrom.
Also for example, lines 8 through 11 of base claim 1 recite the limitations “wherein when a region defined by the tubes is a core region, a part of the core region before the heat exchange medium is introduced into the receiver dryer is a condensing region, and the remaining part of the core region after the heat exchange medium is discharged from the receiver dryer is a supercooling region, the supercooling region is formed to have an area within a range of 30 to 50% of the core region”. The aforementioned limitations contain idiomatic informalities and are written in such a run-on fashion that the scope of protection sought by the claim and by all claims depending therefrom is indeterminate. Additionally, the word “when” precedes the aforementioned limitations, thus making it appear that these limitations are conditional and not required, However, it is not clear that applicant intends for the limitations to be conditional despite the use of the word “when”
In the aforementioned limitations, applicant further appears to possibly be using the term “before” (i.e., which commonly means “earlier than”) in line 8 of claim 1 to mean “upstream of” and to use the term “after” (i.e., which commonly means “later than”) in line 10 of claim 1 to mean “downstream of”, thus further rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim and by all claims depending therefrom. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. In general, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Claim 2 recites the limitations “wherein the flow of the heat exchange medium is formed such that the heat exchange medium is introduced into the receiver dryer…” which appears to either have one or more words missing therefrom (i.e., there appears to be a word or words possibly missing immediately following “flow” because typically structural elements and not fluid flows are said to be “formed” into a particular shape or configuration). Alternately, the apparent discrepancy is merely the result of idiomatic and/or grammatical informalities. Either way, the claim is further rendered unclear thereby.
There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for the limitations “the header tank” in line 1 and “the tube” in line 2 of claim 3. Note that while each of a “pair of header tanks” and a “plurality of tubes” is previously recited in claim 1 from which claim 3 depends, there is no proper antecedent basis for either the limitation “the header tank” or for the limitation “the tube” per se and it is unclear to which (if any) of the previously recited header tanks and/or tubes the limitations “the header tank” and “the tube”, respectively, are intended to refer, thus further rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim and by any claim depending therefrom.
With regard to claim 3 as written, it is furthermore not entirely clear what is intended to be encompassed by the limitation “a lower end of the receiver dryer is disposed within a height range of the supercooling region” because the term “lower” is a relative term not defined by the claim(s) and because it is also not clear exactly which configurations are intended to be encompassed by “is disposed within a height range of the supercooling region”, especially since the intended meaning of “a height range of the supercooling region” is not clearly set forth. Claim 5 similarly recites that the bottom cap assembling part of the receiver dryer “is disposed within the height range of the supercooling region” and similarly renders indefinite claim 5 and all claims depending therefrom.
The terms “upper” and “lower” appearing in claims 3 through 10 are relative terms which further render the claims indefinite. The terms “upper” and “lower” are not defined by the claims, 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitations “the protruding length and the dead space length are formed at levels identical to each other or similar to each other within a range of 90 to 110%”. The aforementioned limitations are unclear because, first of all, it is not clear what is meant by “are formed at levels” nor which levels are intended to be referenced thereby. Second of all, it is not clear what is meant by the levels being “identical to each other” nor by “at levels…similar to each other”. Thirdly, the phrase "or similar to each other" renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or similar to"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Lastly, the exact meaning and relevance of the “range of 90 to 110%” is not at all clear.
With regard to claim 9 as written, due to either idiomatic informalities it is not at all clear which structural features are intended to be encompassed by the limitations “the blind connector is formed in a shape in which a communication hole is closed”, due in part at least to idiomatic informalities and/or one or more missing words in the limitations.
Claim limitation “bottom cap assembling part” in claim 5 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to specify or describe (i.e., is devoid of) any particular structure necessary for performing the assembling function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Any claim not specifically rejected is at least rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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 should 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.
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claims 1 through 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 5050857 B2.
With regard to base claim 1 of the instant application, JP 5050857 B2.(i.e., especially Figures 1, 3, 5, and 7) discloses a heat exchanger 1 comprising: a pair of header tanks 2 and 3, each configured by coupling a header and a tank (i.e., as shown in Figure 1), configured to define a fluid flow space therein, spaced apart from each other at a predetermined distance, and formed in parallel; a plurality of tubes 4 each having two opposite ends fixed to the header tanks 2 and 3, the plurality of tubes 4 being configured to define flow paths for a heat exchange medium; and a receiver dryer 6 connected to one of the header tanks 2 and configured to remove moisture from the heat exchange medium, wherein when a region defined by the tubes 4 is a core region 7, a part of the core region 7 before the heat exchange medium is introduced into the receiver dryer 6 is a condensing region 10, and the remaining part of the core region 7 after the heat exchange medium is discharged from the receiver dryer 6 is a supercooling region 11, the supercooling region 11 is formed to have an area within a range that is a percentage of the core region (i.e., as shown in the figures). While JP 5050857 B2 shows that the supercooling region 11 has an area which is inherently a certain percentage of the area of the core region 7, JP 5050857 B2 does not show nor reasonably suggest that the given percentage is specifically within a range of 30 to 50% as recited by claim 1 of the instant application.
However, since JP 5050857 B2 does disclose the general structure of the inventive heat exchanger, since the flow and/or relative heat transfer areas in any heat exchanger are known result-effective variables which impact the heat transfer rate, and since applicant has not provided any data or other rationale to support the criticality related to the claimed percentage range, merely optimizing the workable and/or desirable ranges for the supercooling region relative to the core region is a matter of obvious design choice and does not involve an inventive step.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at or before the effective filing date of the instant application to increase the area of the supercooling region 11 relative to the area of the core region 7 of the inventive heat exchanger/condenser in order to maximize the overall efficiency and cooling capacity of the refrigeration system within which the heat exchanger/condenser is operating..
With regard to claim 2 of the instant application, JP 5050857 B2.(i.e., especially Figures 1, 3 and 5) discloses a heat exchanger 1 of claim 1, wherein the header tanks 2 and 3 comprise: a first header tank 3 having an inlet port 15 and a discharge port 16 for the heat exchange medium; and a second header tank 2 connected to the receiver dryer 6, and wherein the flow of the heat exchange medium is formed such that the heat exchange medium is introduced into the receiver dryer 6 sequentially through the inlet port 15, a part of the first header tank 3/3a, the condensing region 10, and a part of the second header tank 2/2B, discharged from the receiver dryer 6, and discharged sequentially through the remaining part of the second header tank 2/2B, the supercooling region 11, the remaining part of the second header tank 2/2A, and the discharge port 16 at least as broadly interpreted for pending claims as required. .
With regard to claim 3 of the instant application, JP 5050857 B2 discloses the heat exchanger 1 of claim 1, wherein when an extension direction of the header tank 2 and/or 3 is a height direction and an extension direction of any tube 4 is a width direction, a lower end of the receiver dryer 6 is disposed within a height range of the supercooling region 11 (i.e., as shown in Figures 3 and 5) .
With regard to claim 4 of the instant application, JP 5050857 B2 discloses the heat exchanger 1 of claim 3, wherein a cap 18 is assembled to an upper or lower end of the receiver dryer 6 (i.e., see Figures 3 and 5).
With regard to claim 5 of the instant application, JP 5050857 B2 discloses the heat exchanger 1 of claim 4, wherein when the cap 18 assembled to the lower end of the receiver dryer 6 is a bottom cap 18 and a portion to which the bottom cap 18 is assembled is a bottom cap assembling part, the bottom cap assembling part of the receiver dryer 6 is disposed within the height range of the supercooling region 11 (i.e., as shown in Figures 3 and 5).
With regard to claim 6 of the instant application, JP 5050857 B2 discloses the heat exchanger 1 of claim 3, wherein an upper end of the receiver dryer 6 protrudes to the outside of the height range of the core region 7 (i.e., as shown in Figures 3 and 5).
With regard to claim 7 of the instant application, JP 5050857 B2 discloses the heat exchanger 1 of claim 6, wherein when a length by which the upper end of the receiver dryer 6 protrudes to the outside of the height range of the core region 7 is a protruding length and a length from the lower end of the receiver dryer 6 to a lowermost end of the supercooling region 11 is a dead space length, the protruding length and the dead space length are formed at levels identical to each other or similar to each other within a range of 90 to 110% (i.e., as shown in Figures 3 and 5).
With regard to claim 11 of the instant application, JP 5050857 B2 (i.e., especially Figure 7) discloses the heat exchanger 1 of claim 1, wherein a pair of communication flow paths 44 and 45 is formed between the receiver dryer 6 and one of the header tanks 2 connected to the receiver dryer 6, and wherein the pair of communication flow paths 44 and 45 is formed as a single integrated connector 41 having two flow paths 44 and 45.
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 5050857 B2 in view of KR 2010-0128000 A.
As set forth above, base claim 1 and claims 3 and 6 depending therefrom are obvious over the teachings of JP 5050857 B2.
Claim 8 of the instant application depends on claim 6. With regard to claim 8 of the instant application, JP 5050857 B2 fails to disclose that a blind connector is provided to fix and couple the receiver dryer 6 and one of the header tanks 2 and 3 connected to the receiver dryer 6. However, it is known in the art of refrigeration condenser design and taught by KR 2010-0128000 A to provide at least one blind connector 22 (i.e., see Figure 1 and 10) for connecting a receiver dryer 6 to a corresponding header tank or pipe 5b without providing an additional flow path between the receiver dryer 6 and the header tank or pipe 5b.
KR 2010-0128000 A further discloses that the at least one blind connector 22 has an external shape identical to a communication flow path between the receiver dryer 6 and one of the header tanks or pipes 5b connected to the receiver dryer 6, and the blind connector 22 is formed in a shape in which a communication hole in the receiver dryer 6 is closed (i.e., as shown in Figures 1 and 10) by the at least one blind connector 22.
It would have therefore been obvious at or before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the heat exchanger 1 of JP 5050857 B2 to provide at least one blind connector 22 (i.e., see Figure 1 and 10) for connecting a receiver dryer 6 to a corresponding header tank or pipe 5b without providing an additional flow path between the receiver dryer 6 and the header tank or pipe 5b and to have the at least one blind connector 22 have a shape which fits into and closes a hole in the receiver dryer 6 in order to connect the receiver dryer 6 to a corresponding header tank or pipe 5b in order to both provide an effective connection means between the receiver dryer 6 and the corresponding header tank or pipe 5b..
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 5050857 B2 in view of JP 4085217 B2.
As set forth above, base claim 1 and claims 3 and 6 depending therefrom are obvious over the teachings of JP 5050857 B2.
Claim 10 of the instant application depends on claim 6. While JP 5050857 B2 does disclose that the receiver dryer 6 is coupled to one of the header tanks 2, JP 5050857 B2 discloses that the receiver dryer 6 is coupled to one of the header tanks 2 via welds (i.e., at least as shown in Figures 3 and 5) and not via a separate bracket for fixing and coupling the receiver dryer 6 and one of the header tanks 2 and 3 connected to the receiver dryer 6 as recited by claim 10 of the instant application.
Nevertheless, it is known in the art of heat exchanger design and taught by JP 4085217 B2 to provide at least one separate bracket or stay 16 or 17 (i.e., see Figure 3) for fixing and coupling a receiver dryer 11 to a corresponding header tank or pipe 2a/2b.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of heat exchange design on or before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the heat exchanger 1 of JP 5050857 B2 by replacing the welds connecting the receiver dryer 6 to one of the header tanks 2 and 3 with one or more separate brackets or stays 16 and/or 17 as taught by JP 4085217 B2 in order to mechanically connect the receiver dryer 6 with the one or more header tanks 2 and 3 in an alternative manner not requiring the application of high heat.
Claim 12 of the instant application depends on claim 1. While JP 5050857 B2 does disclose an inlet port 14 and an discharge port 13 provided in one header tank 2 selected from the header tanks 2 and 3, JP 5050857 B2 does not explicitly show the inlet port 14 and the discharge port 13 as being connected to a single integrated flange having two flow paths as recited by claim 12 of the instant application.
Nevertheless, it is known in the art of heat exchanger design and taught by JP 4085217 B2 (i.e., especially Figure 3) to have an inlet port 9b and a discharge port 9a provided in a header pipe 2a wherein the inlet port 9b and the discharge port 9a are connected to a single integrated flange or stay 17 (at least as broadly interpreted as required) having two flow paths or through holes 12 and 13 (i.e., see at least Figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of heat exchange design on or before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the heat exchanger 1 of JP 5050857 B2 by specifically having inlet port 14 and discharge port 13 being connected to a single integrated flange or stay 17 having two flow paths or through holes 12 and 13 as taught by JP 4085217 B2 in order to modularize the heat exchanger design and simplify assembly thereof at least to some degree.
Alternately and as best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 5050857 B2 in view of JP H09-222267 A.
Claim 12 of the instant application depends on claim 1. While JP 5050857 B2 does disclose an inlet port 15 and an outlet port 16 provided in one header tank selected from the header tanks 2 and 3, the receiver dryer 6 is coupled to one of the header tanks 2, JP 5050857 B2 does not explicitly show the inlet port 15 and the outlet port 16 as being connected to a pair of independent flanges as recited by claim 12 of the instant application. Nevertheless, it is well known in the art of heat exchanger design and taught by With regard to claim 12 of the instant application, JP 5050857 B2 (i.e., especially Figure 1) discloses the heat exchanger 1 of heat exchanger of claim 1, wherein an inlet port 15 and a discharge port 16 for the heat exchange medium are provided in one header tank 3 selected from the header tanks 2 and 3 but fails to explicitly disclose the inlet port 15 and the discharge port 16 as being connected to a pair of independent flanges. Nevertheless, it is well known in the art of heat exchanger design and taught by JP H09-222267 A to have a receiver-type condenser 1 with an inlet port 6 and an outlet port 7 where each of the inlet port 6 and of the outlet port 7 is equipped with an independent flange (i.e., as shown at least in Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of heat exchange design on or before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the heat exchanger 1 of JP 5050857 B2 by specifically having each of inlet port 15 and outlet port 16 equipped with an independent flange as taught by JP H09-222267 A in order to facilitate operably connecting the heat exchanger 1 to corresponding system piping through which a heat exchange medium flows.
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 5050857 B2 in view of JP H07-180930 A.
With regard to claim 13 of the instant application, JP 5050857 B2 discloses the heat exchanger 1 of claim 1, but fails to specifically disclose or teach that the heat exchanger 1 may serve as a condenser in a cooling mode and serves as an evaporator in a heating mode in a heat pump system. Nevertheless, it is notoriously well-known in the art of refrigeration and taught by JP H07-180930 A to have a condenser with a receiver be alternately used as a condenser and as an evaporator in a reversible heat pump system as taught by at least JP H07-180930 A. It would therefore have been obvious to one skilled in the art at or before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the heat exchanger 1 of JP 5050857 B2 as both an evaporator and a condenser in a reversible heat pump system as taught by JP H07-180930 A and as recited by claim 13 of the instant application in order to simplify the system design by only having one heat exchanger serve two distinct system functions..
Conclusion
The additional prior and related art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LJILJANA V CIRIC whose telephone number is (571)272-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Saturday, flexible.
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.
/Ljiljana V. Ciric/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
LJILJANA (Lil) V. CIRIC
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights