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 .
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 12/10/20204 are as follows:
Claims 1-19 are pending and are being examined.
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 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).
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 4, 5, 10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yatsuyanagi (US2022/0228818A1, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 1. Yatsuyanagi teaches a heat exchanger (100) comprising:
fins (11, 21) each having openings (at 12, 22) (Figures 1-2; Paragraph 32 teaches the fins 11 and 21 can be integrally formed as a single fin structure; Paragraphs 28-36);
tubes (12, 22) extending in the openings of the fins for receiving a process fluid (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 28-36);
the fins extending from the tubes for transferring heat between the process fluid and air contacting the fins (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 28-36);
the fins each having a length, a width perpendicular to the length, and a thickness perpendicular to the length and the width, wherein the length of the fin is larger than the width of the fin and the width of the fin is larger than the thickness of the fin (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 28-36);
the tubes and fins arranged to have air (left arrow in Figure 1) directed across the fins in a direction transverse to the length of the fins (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 28-36);
a first row of the tubes (12) aligned along the length of the fins and having a first distance (L2) between centers (12a) of adjacent tubes of the first row, the first distance extending along the length of the fins (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 28-36);
a second row of the tubes (22) adjacent the first row and aligned along the length of the fins, the second row of the tubes having a second distance (L2 of 22) between centers of adjacent tubes (22a) of the second row, the second distance extending along the length of the fins (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 28-36);
the first row and the second row of tubes having a third distance (L1) between centers of adjacent tubes of the first and second rows, the third distance extending along the width of the fins and being larger than the first distance and larger than the second distance (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 28-36; Figure 1 illustrates that L1 is larger than L2); and
a widthwise spacing (L1) between the adjacent tubes of the first and second rows that is larger than a first lengthwise spacing (L2) between the adjacent tubes of the first row and is larger than a second lengthwise spacing (L2 of 22) between the adjacent tubes of the second row to reduce airflow pressure drop and increase airflow velocity through the heat exchanger (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 28-36; Figure 1 illustrates that L1 is larger than L2).
Re Claim 4. Yatsuyanagi teaches the fins each include a first edge (left edge of 11 in Figure 1) and a second edge (right edge of 21 in Figure 1) on opposite sides of the tubes and extending along the length of the fin (Figure 1; Paragraphs 28-33); and wherein the first row of tubes (12) is adjacent one of the first and second edges of the fins (tubes 12 are closest to the first edge), the tubes of the first row of tubes have centers spaced along the width of the fins from the one of the first and second edges by an edge distance that is less than the third distance (Figure 1 illustrates that tube 12 is in the center of fin 11, wherein L1 extends past the middle of the intersection of fin section 11 and 21. Thus, the tube 12 is closer to the first edge, which is less than L1).
Re Claim 5. Yatsuyanagi teaches the tubes have a tube diameter (Do in Figure 1); and wherein the edge distance plus half of the tube diameter is approximately half of the third distance (Figure 1; Edge distance plus half the tube diameter would be the center of 11, which would be approximately half of L1 as seen in Figure 1).
Re Claim 10. Yatsuyanagi teaches the tubes of the first row are aligned with the tubes of the second row along the width of the fins (Figures 1-2; The tubes are aligned in a diagonal pattern across the width of the fin).
Re Claim 13. Yatsuyanagi teaches the tubes and fins are configured to have air directed across the fins in a direction perpendicular to the length (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 28-36).
Re Claim 14. Yatsuyanagi teaches the fins comprise elongated, rectangular plates (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 28-36).
Re Claim 15. Yatsuyanagi teaches the fins have collars fixed to the tubes (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 59 teaches fin collars).
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 shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yatsuyanagi (US2022/0228818A1, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 2. Yatsuyanagi teaches the heat exchanger of claim 1, and a ratio of the third distance to at least one of the first distance and the second distance (ratio of the third distance "L1" to the first distance "L2"; Fig. 1), but does not specifically teach wherein the ratio of the third distance to at least one of the first distance and the second distance is in a range of approximately 1.04 to approximately 1.5.
However Yatsuyanagi teaches wherein the third distance L1 can be in a range from 1mm to 22mm and the first distance, L2, can be in the range of 5 mm to 42 mm (paragraphs [0077]-[0078]), thereby teaching wherein the third and first distance are result effective variables in that changing those distance determine flow and heat transfer variables such as the free flow volume Vc (paragraphs [0058]-[0059]), wind velocity U (paragraph [0060]), ventilation resistance AP (paragraph [0066]) and others.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the third distance L1 and the first distance L2, of Yatsuyanagi, to be 15mm and 10mm, respectively, thereby creating a ratio of 1.5 and meeting the limitation wherein a ratio of the third distance to the first distance is in a range of approximately 1.04 to approximately 1.5, thereby providing the predictable result of optimizing airflow velocity and pressure difference across the heat exchanger as well as the heat transfer rate between the process fluid within the tubes and air flowing through the heat exchanger. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the third distance L1 and the first distance L2, of Yatsuyanagi, to be 15mm and 10mm, respectively, thereby creating a ratio of 1.5 and meeting the limitation wherein a ratio of the third distance to the first distance is in a range of approximately 1.04 to approximately 1.5, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the dimensions, 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).
Re Claim 3. Yatsuyanagi teaches the heat exchanger of claim 1, however does not teach wherein the tubes have an outer diameter of 0.5 inches; wherein the third distance is in a range of approximately 1.3 inches to approximately 1.9 inches; and the first and second distances are each in a range of approximately 1.0 to approximately 1.5 inches. Noted is the tubes can have an outer diameter of 5mm, a third distance "L1" of 13 mm and a first and second distance, "L2" of 10 mm since each falls within the desired range (paragraphs [0074]-[0078]). The dimensions of the outer diameter, the first distance, the second distance and the third distance are all considered result-effective variables in that their sizes and ratios to one another determine flow and heat transfer variables such as the free flow volume Vc (paragraphs [0058]-[0059]), wind velocity U (paragraph [0060]), ventilation resistance P (paragraph [0066]). By keeping the ratios similar from mm to inches, and upscaling, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the outer diameter of the tubes, the first distance, the second distance, and the third distance of Yatsuyanagi such that the first and second rows of tubes have an outer diameter of 0.5 inches; wherein the third distance is in a range of approximately 1.3 inches to approximately 1.9 inches; and the first and second distances are each in a range of approximately 1.0 to approximately 1.5 inches, thereby meeting the same ratios taught by Yatsuyanagi, and providing the predictable result of increasing the amount of heat transfer between the process fluid and airflow, and optimizing airflow velocity and pressure difference across the heat exchanger to meet heat rate transfer metrics required for an application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the desired dimensions, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the dimensions of the diameter and distances, 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).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yatsuyanagi (US2022/0228818A1, as cited in the IDS) in view of Matsuda (US2010/205993A1, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 6. Yatsuyanagi teaches the tubes include a third row of tubes (32) adjacent to the first row (22), the first row of tubes (22) intermediate the third (32) and second rows (12) of tubes along the width of the fins (Figure 2 illustrates three rows of tubes); and wherein the tubes of the third row of tubes (32) have centers that are spaced along the width of the fins from centers of adjacent tubes of the first row by a fourth distance (Figure 2). Yatsuyanagi fails to specifically teach that the fourth distance is less than the third distance.
However, Matsuda teaches tubes (that) include a third row of tubes (comprising 21a and 22b; Figs. 1 and 17; paragraph [0036]) adjacent to a first row of tubes (comprising 22a; Figs. 1 and 17; paragraph [0036]), the first row of tubes intermediate the third and second rows of tubes (first row of tubes comprising 22a arc intermediate third row of tubes 21a and 21b and second row of tubes 23a and 23b; Fig. 1; paragraph 100361) along a width of the fins (width of fins 1; Figs. 1 and 2; paragraph [0034]); and wherein the tubes of the third row of tubes have centers that are spaced along the width of the fins from centers of adjacent tubes of the first row by a fourth distance that is less than the third distance (centers of third row of tubes 21a and 21b spaced along the width of the fins 1 from centers of adjacent tubes of the first row of tubes by a fourth distance, "Lp" that is less than a third distance "Dp"; Fig. 1; paragraph [0037], "Dp=15.3 mm, and Lp=8.67 mm").
Therefore, in view of Matsuda’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to modify the heat exchanger of Yatsuyanagi to have a fourth distance that is less than the third distance, in order to provide the predictable result of increasing the surface area of tubes carrying the process fluid, thereby increasing the overall heat transfer rate of the heat exchanger between the process fluid and air flow. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the third and fourth distance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the third or fourth distance, 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).
Re Claim 7. Yatsuyanagi as modified by Matsuda teach the tubes of the third row of tubes are offset along the length of the fins from the tubes of the first row (Yatsuyanagi Figure 2; Matsuda Figure 1, wherein both illustrate offset tubes).
Re Claim 8. Yatsuyanagi as modified by Matsuda teach the tubes of the second row (12) are aligned with the tubes of the first row (22) along the width of the fins (Yatsuyanagi Figure 2; Matsuda Figure 1; The tubes are aligned in a diagonal pattern across the width of the fin).
Re Claim 9. Yatsuyanagi as modified by Matsuda teach the fins each include a first edge and a second edge on opposite sides of the tubes and extending along the length of the fin (Figure 2 of Yatsuyanagi illustrates two opposing edges at the right and left sides); wherein the tubes have a tube diameter (Do of Yatsuyanagi); and wherein the third row of tubes is adjacent one of the first and second edges of the fins, the tubes of the third row of tubes have centers spaced along the width of the fins from the one of the first and second edges by an edge distance (tube 32 has a center which is a given distance from the edge); and wherein the edge distance plus half of the tube diameter is approximately half of the fourth distance (Yatsuyanagi Figure 1; Edge distance plus half the tube diameter would be the center of 31, which would be approximately half of L1 as seen in Figure 2).
Claims 11, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yatsuyanagi (US2022/0228818A1, as cited in the IDS) in view of Muller (US2008/0041087A1, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 11. Yatsuyanagi teaches the heat exchanger (Figures 1-2) but fails to specifically teach wherein the fins include a row of openings aligned along the length of the fins and intermediate the first and second rows of tubes along the width of the fins.
However, Muller teaches fins that include a row of openings aligned along the length of the fins and intermediate the first and second rows of tubes along the width of the fins (fins 5; Fig. 1; paragraphs [0030]-[0031]) that include a row of openings (baffles 24 form openings 26; Figs. 1-3; columns [0036]-[0037]) aligned along a length of the fins (y direction of the fins 5 are a length of the fins; Fig. 1) and intermediate first and second rows of tubes along a width of the fins (openings 26 are intermediate the two furthest left rows of tubes which represent the first and second rows of tubes along a left-right direction, considered the width, of the fins; Fig. 1).
Therefore, in view of Muller's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the fins of Yatsuyanagi such that the fins include a row of openings aligned along the length of the fins and intermediate the first and second rows of tubes along the width of the fins in order to provide the predictable result of allowing wetting water to be applied to the heat exchanger, wherein the openings, created by baffles catch the water droplets and spread the water over the fins while optimizing air side pressure losses (Muller, paragraphs [0035]), thereby increasing heat transfer from the process fluid.
Re Claim 12. Yatsuyanagi teaches the heat exchanger (Figures 1-2) but fails to specifically teach the rows of tubes include six rows of tubes.
However, Muller teaches a heat exchanger having rows of tubes that include six rows of tubes (six rows of tubes 2 are shown from top to bottom in vertically aligned in the y direction; Fig. 1; paragraph [0028]).
Therefore, in view of Muller's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the rows of tubes of Yatsuyanagi such that the rows of tubes include six rows of tubes in order to provide the predictable result of increasing the amount of process fluid which can pass through the fins and therefore increase the heat transfer area of the tubes and ultimately increase the heat transfer rate between the process fluid and air flowing over the rows of tubes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have six rows of tubes, 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 16. Yatsuyanagi teaches the heat exchanger (Figures 1-2), but fails to specifically teach the fins each have a wavy surface pattern.
However, Muller teaches fins each have a wavy surface pattern (fins 5 have a wavy surface pattern of baffles 26; Figs. 1-4; paragraphs [0030] and [0035]-[0037]).
Therefore, in view of Muller's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the rows of tubes taught by Yatsuyanagi such that the fins each have a wavy pattern in order to provide the predictable result of allowing wetting water to be applied to the heat exchanger, wherein the baffles catch the water droplets and spread the water over the fins while optimizing air side pressure losses (Muller, paragraphs [0035]), thereby increasing heat transfer from the process fluid.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yatsuyanagi (US2022/0228818A1, as cited in the IDS) in view of Smithey (US2005/0092472A1, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 17. Yatsuyanagi teaches the heat exchanger of claim 1, however does not teach wherein the length of each of the fins is at least three times the width of the fin.
However, Smithey teaches a length of each fin is at least three times the width of the fin (the height of the fin 28', considered the length, is shown to be at least three times a width of the fin; Figs. 8B-8D; paragraph [0041]).
Therefore, in view of Smithey’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the length and width of the fins of Yatsuyanagi such that the length of each of the fins is at least three times the width of the fin in order to provide the predictable result of optimizing the number of tube surface area in thermal communication with the airflow as while minimizing the pressure loss of the air as it moves across the heat exchanger. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the fins longer, 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).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yatsuyanagi (US2022/0228818A1, as cited in the IDS) in view of Jiang (US2018/0209742A1, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 18. Yatsuyanagi teaches the heat exchanger of claim 1, however does not teach wherein the first and second rows of tubes each include at least twelve tubes.
However, Jiang teaches a heat exchanger wherein first and second rows of tubes each include at least twelve tubes (heat exchanger 361 of Fig. 7 has first and second rows R1 and R2 respectively which each have at least twelve tubes indicated by circles; Fig. 7; paragraphs [0063]-[0065]).
Therefore, in view of Jiang’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the first and second rows of tubes of Yatsuyanagi such that the first and second rows of tubes each include at least twelve tubes in order to provide the predictable result of increasing the surface arca of the tubes which will increase the heat transfer rate between the process fluid and air flowing over the tubes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add more tubes, 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).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yatsuyanagi (US2022/0228818A1, as cited in the IDS) in view of Wang (US2016/0320147A1, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 19. Yatsuyanagi teaches the heat exchanger of claim 1, however does not teach wherein the tubes are elliptical.
However, Wang teaches wherein first and second rows of tubes are elliptical (first and second rows tubes, shown as the far left two rows, are shown at mounting holes 2 and are elliptical; Fig. 6; paragraph [0062]).
Therefore, in view of Wang’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the tubes of Yatsuyanagi such that the tubes are elliptical in order to provide the predictable result of optimizing the surface area of the first and second rows of tubes to maximize heat transfer between the process fluid and air passing over the tubes, while minimizing drag and therefore pressure loss across the heat exchanger as the airflow passes therethrough.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights