CTNF 18/965,780 CTNF 85805 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. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 12/2/2024 are as follows: Claims 1-15 are pending and are being examined. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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. 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 three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Currently, no claim limitations invoke 112(f). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-15 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. Claim 1 recites “the header” in line 3. However, claim 1 recites “a header”, “a first header”, and “a second header” in line 2, wherein it is unclear as to which instance of header the limitation of “the header” is specifically referring back to. Claim 1 recites “ a header including a first header and a second header detachably coupled to the first header, the header forming an outlet chamber accommodating a refrigerant ”. It is unclear how a single header (by the use of “a” header) can be comprised of two headers. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as a header including a body and a cover that together form the outlet chamber. The remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon an indefinite claim, Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-4 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Watanabe (US5785119) . Re Claim 1. Watanabe teaches a heat exchanger (1) comprising: a header (2 or 3) including a first header (2b) and a second header (2a) detachably coupled to the first header, the header forming an outlet chamber (12b) accommodating a refrigerant (Figures 1-3; Column 3 lines 46-67, Column 4 lines 48-50 teaches detachably coupled header components); a heat-exchange tube (6) connected to the first header, wherein the refrigerant is configured to flow through the heat-exchange tube to exchange heat with outside air (Figures 1-3; Column 3 lines 46-67); and an outlet pipe (5) inserted in a hole (15) penetrating the second header and in communication with the outlet chamber, the outlet pipe being coupled to the second header by brazing (18) and in communication with the outlet chamber and configured to discharge the refrigerant in the outlet chamber, wherein the outlet pipe comprises a first outlet pipe (4c portion of pipe) positioned in the outlet chamber and a second outlet pipe (exterior portion 4 of pipe) extending from the first outlet pipe to the outside, and the first outlet pipe comprises a catching protrusion (4c) protruding from an outer surface of the first outlet pipe in a radial direction of the first outlet pipe to resist movement of the first outlet pipe departing from the outlet chamber (Figures 1-6; Column 4 lines 9-67, Column 5 lines 6-25; Figures 4-6 illustrates the formation of inlet pipe 4, wherein column 4 lines 4-8 states that outlet pipe 5 is formed in the same manner as inlet pipe 4). Re Claim 2. Watanabe teaches a solder ring (18) covering an inner boundary formed by a contact of an inner surface of the second header, forming the hole, with an outer surface of the first outlet pipe (Figures 1-6; Column 4 lines 9-67). Re Claim 3. Watanabe teaches the solder ring (18) is positioned in the outlet chamber and in contact with the inner surface of the second header and the outer surface of the first outlet pipe (Figures 1-6; Column 4 lines 9-67). Re Claim 4. Watanabe teaches the solder ring is positioned closer to the inner surface of the second header than the catching protrusion (Figures 1-6; Column 4 lines 9-67). Re Claim 9. Watanabe teaches the soldering comprises a filler metal (Figures 1-6; Column 4 lines 9-67). Re Claim 10. Watanabe teaches the outlet pipe comprises a second outlet pipe (exterior portion 4 of pipe) extending from the first outlet pipe to the outside and passing through the hole, and the second outlet pipe comprises a lead (4b) covering an outer boundary formed by a contact of the outer surface of the second header, forming the hole, with an outer surface of the second outlet pipe (Figures 1-6; Column 4 lines 9-67). Re Claim 11. Watanabe teaches the lead protrudes from the outer surface of the second header in a radial direction of the second header, and one surface of the lead toward the second header is in contact with the outer surface of the second header to cover the outer boundary from an outer side of the second header (Figures 1-6; Column 4 lines 9-67) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5-8, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US5785119) in view of Kim (KR10-2008-0017756, as cited in the IDS) . Re Claim 5. Watanabe teaches the outlet pipe comprises a curved part (pipe 5 is circular), and the catching protrusion is formed in the curved part (Figures 1-6; Column 4 lines 9-67). Watanabe teaches a circular outlet pipe (Figures 1-3) and thus fails to specifically teach the outlet pipe comprises: a pair of flat parts extending in a direction parallel to a longitudinal direction of the second header, and a curved part connecting the pair of flat parts to each other. However, Kim teaches it is known to form an outlet pipe (120a or 120b) that comprises a pair of flat parts (at section 121) extending in a direction parallel to a longitudinal direction of the second header, and a curved part (at section 121) connecting the pair of flat parts to each other (Figure 2 illustrates that the pipes have parallel flat portions that extend in a longitudinal direction of the header and are connected by curved sides. Additionally, insertion hole 114, 116 both clearly illustrates the flat and curved portions of the pipe). Therefore, in view of Kim's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the outlet pipe of Watanabe with flat parts in order to allow for better positional alignment during assembly. Re Claim 6. Watanabe as modified by Kim teach the catching protrusion is formed in the curved part at a height at which the flat parts are in contact with the inner surface of the second header, with respect to one end of the first outlet pipe toward the outlet chamber (Watanabe Figures 1-6, Column 4 lines 9-67; Kim Figure 2). Re Claim 7. Watanabe as modified by Kim teach the curved part further comprises an inclined surface (4c of Watanabe) extending toward the catching protrusion from a boundary line where the curved part is in contact with the inner surface of the second header, and the solder ring is supported on the inclined surface and not spaced apart from the inner surface of the second header (Watanabe Figures 1-6, Column 4 lines 9-67; Kim Figure 2). Re Claim 8. Watanabe as modified by Kim teach each of the pair of flat parts is inclined (as taught by Watanabe) in an outward direction of the first outlet pipe (Watanabe Figures 1-6, Column 4 lines 9-67; Kim Figure 2). Re Claim 12. Watanabe teaches the second header comprises a partition wall (13), the partition wall protruding from the inner surface of the second header toward the first header and configured to partition an inside of the header into the outlet chamber (12b) and another chamber (12a) other than the outlet chamber, and the second outlet pipe extends from the first outlet pipe to the outside (Figures 1-6; Column 4 lines 9-67). Watanabe fails to teach the hole is formed in the partition wall and the second outlet pipe extends from the first outlet pipe to the outside passing through the another chamber than the outlet chamber. However, Kim teaches a header (110) comprising a partition (118) with a hole (114, 115) is formed in the partition wall and the second outlet pipe (120) extends from the first outlet pipe to the outside passing through the another chamber than the outlet chamber (Figures 2-8; The pipe 120 is inserted through hole 114 and passes through chamber 110a and into chamber 110b). Therefore, in view of Kim's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the second outlet pipe of Watanabe extends from the first outlet pipe to the outside passing through the another chamber than the outlet chamber in order to provide a more compact inlet and outlet pipe configuration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to rearrange the outlet pipe, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI, C). Re Claim 14. Watanabe as modified by Kim teach the second outlet pipe comprises a lead (4b) covering a partition wall boundary formed by a contact of another surface of the partition wall, forming the hole, with an outer surface of the second outlet pipe (Watanabe Figures 1-6, Column 4 lines 9-67; Kim Figures 2-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add additional leads, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI, B). Re Claim 15. Watanabe as modified by Kim teach the first header comprises a first lead (4b) covering a first boundary formed by a contact of the outer surface of the second outlet pipe, positioned in the outside, with the inner surface of the first header, the second header comprises a second lead (4b) covering a second boundary formed by a contact of the outer surface of the second outlet pipe, positioned in the outside, with the inner surface of the second header, and the first lead and the second lead are connected each other based on the first header and the second header being coupled (Watanabe Figures 1-6, Column 4 lines 9-67; Kim Figures 2-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add additional leads, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI, B) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US5785119) in view of Kim (KR10-2008-0017756, as cited in the IDS) and in view of Halder (US5524938) . Re Claim 13. Watanabe as modified by Kim teach the hole comprises: a first groove (114) formed in one surface of the partition wall toward the outlet chamber, and a second groove (115) formed in another surface of the partition wall, communicating with the first groove, (Watanabe Figures 1-6, Column 4 lines 9-67; Kim Figures 2-8). Watanabe as modified fails to specifically teach the second groove having a larger radius than a radius of the first groove, the heat exchanger further comprising a solder ring inserted in a bent portion formed by the first groove and the second groove. However, Halder teaches a hole (at 15) comprises a stepped portion that forms a second groove having a larger radius than a radius of a first groove, the heat exchanger further comprising a ring (19) inserted in a bent portion formed by the first groove and the second groove (Figure 2). Therefore, in view of Halder's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the two grooves of Kim with different dimensions to form a bend in order to better align the solder ring in the partition wall and to better secure the outlet pipe to the partition wall. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add additional solder rings since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI, B). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify one of the grooves to be larger, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV, A) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 for other relevant prior art . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM. 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of 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. /TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/965,780 Page 2 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/965,780 Page 3 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/965,780 Page 4 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/965,780 Page 5 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/965,780 Page 6 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/965,780 Page 7 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/965,780 Page 8 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/965,780 Page 9 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/965,780 Page 10 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/965,780 Page 11 Art Unit: 3763
Prosecution Insights