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 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 3, 8-11, 13, 18, 25 are including depending claims 12, 14-19 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.
Claim 3 recites “the second longitudinal axis is disposed between the first longitudinal axis and the second longitudinal axis”. The bolded phrase makes the claimed limitations indefinite, because the second longitudinal axis cannot be between the first longitudinal axis and itself. For the purpose of examination it is interpreted the second longitudinal axis is between the first longitudinal axis and the third longitudinal axis.
Claims 8, 9, 13, 18, 25 recite “a plurality of airflow structures, full length airflow structures and half-length airflow structures”. It is unclear what airflow structures are, and what is their function. The specification does not define airflow structures and further it does not define what is the structural difference between full length and half-length airflow structures. The bolded phrases make the claimed limitations indefinite, because there is no definition, neither defined structures to make a clear understanding of the limitations. More clarification is required.
Claim 10 in line 11 recites “a first distance”. The bolded phrase makes the claimed limitations indefinite, because it is unclear whether the bolded limitation refers to the previously recited a first distance in line 5 of the claim. More clarification is required. For the purpose of examination it is interpreted as a different distance.
Claim 11 recites “the first distance”. The bolded phrase makes the claimed limitations indefinite, because it is unclear whether the bolded limitation refers to which first distance recited in claim 10. More clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-19, 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JPS 61243292 A).
Claim 1: Tanaka discloses a fin (FIG.2) comprising:
a first edge (annotated FIG.2);
a second edge (annotated FIG.2) opposite the first edge ;
a surface (see annotated FIG.2) extending between the first edge and the second edge (annotated FIG.2);
a first set of openings (annotated FIG.2) disposed on the surface and arranged along a first longitudinal axis (annotated FIG.2),
the first set of openings (annotated FIG.2) including a first opening (top opening of 1-set) and a second opening (middle opening of 1-set);
a second set of openings (annotated FIG.2) disposed on the surface and arranged along a second longitudinal axis (annotated FIG.2), wherein the second longitudinal axis (annotated FIG.2) is parallel to the first longitudinal axis (annotated FIG.2) and separated by a distance (distance between first/second longitudinal axes) from the first longitudinal axis (annotated FIG.2),
the second set of openings (annotated FIG.2) including at least a third opening (top opening of 2-set), wherein:
a first center (center of top opening of 1-set) of the first opening (top opening of 1-set) is located at a first distance (distance between center of top opening and center of middle opening of 1-set) from a second center (center of middle opening of 1-set) of the second opening (middle opening of 1-set); and
a third center (center of top opening of 2-set) of the third opening (top opening of 2-set).
Tanaka discloses the claimed limitations in claim 1, except for a first set of ripples; a second set of ripples; and a third center is located at a midpoint of the first distance.
Ripples relate to manufacturing process. In product-by-process claim, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). The combination of previous references meets the structural limitations put forth in Claim 1, wherein the final product existing after fabrication is compared to prior art for the purposes of patentability. The limitations regarding “ripples” are drawn to method of production and not the structural aspects of the instant invention.
Further, concerning limitations “a third center is located at a midpoint of the first distance”. 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 apparatus of Tanaka to rearrange the openings such that a third center is located at a midpoint of the first distance as a matter of choice as required by design, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Please note that in the instant application, the criticality and special significance for a third center is located at a midpoint of the first distance is not claimed - Location of parts: MPEP 2144.04 VI-C).
PNG
media_image1.png
577
733
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: Tanaka as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, further comprising:
a third set of openings (annotated FIG.2) disposed on the surface and arranged along a third longitudinal axis (annotated FIG.2), wherein the third longitudinal axis (annotated FIG.2) is parallel to the first longitudinal axis and the second longitudinal axis (annotated FIG.2), and wherein
a fourth opening (top opening of 3-set) of the third set of openings (annotated FIG.2) is offset (annotated FIG.2) from the third opening (top opening of 2-set) by a second distance (distance of offset) in a direction along a length (inherent) of the fin (preamble).
Claim 3: Tanaka as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 2, wherein the first longitudinal axis (annotated FIG.2) is proximal to the first edge (annotated FIG.2), the third longitudinal axis (annotated FIG.2) is proximal to the second edge (annotated FIG.2), and the second longitudinal axis (annotated FIG.2) is disposed between the first longitudinal axis and the second longitudinal axis (annotated FIG.2).
Claim 8: Tanaka as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of airflow structures (ridges 19 used as airflow structures; page 4: ridges 19 provided for purpose of stirring airflow and also agitates the airflow) arranged on the surface, wherein the plurality of airflow structures include full length airflow structures (based on broadest reasonable interpretation, ridges 19 consist of two strips making full length structures and one strip making half-length structures; see FIG.2) and half-length airflow structures and wherein one or more of the half-length airflow structures are disposed proximate to the first edge or the second edge (annotated FIG.2).
Claim 9: Tanaka as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, further comprising at least four full-length airflow structures and at least two half-length airflow structures disposed on the surface (based on broadest reasonable interpretation, ridges 19 consist of two strips making full length structures and one strip making half-length structures; see FIG.2).
Claim 10: Tanaka discloses an evaporator coil (page 2) comprising:
a plurality of fins (17), wherein a first fin of the plurality of fins comprises:
a first set of openings (annotated FIG.2) arranged along a first longitudinal axis (annotated FIG.2; labeled as first axis) of the first fin (17); and
a second set of openings (annotated FIG.2) arranged along a second longitudinal axis (annotated FIG.2; labeled as second axis) of the first fin,
the second longitudinal axis (annotated FIG.2) is separated from the first longitudinal axis (annotated FIG.2) by a first distance (distance between first/second axes; see annotated FIG.2);
wherein: the first set of openings (annotated FIG.2) include a first opening (top opening of 1-set) and a second opening (middle opening of 1-set);
the second set of openings include a third opening (top opening of 2-set);
a first center point (center of top opening of 1-set) of the first opening (top opening of 1-set) is separated from a second center point (center of middle opening of 1-set) of the second opening (middle opening of 1-set) by a first distance (distance between center of top opening and center of middle opening of 1-set); and
a third center point (center of top opening of 2-set) of the third opening (top opening of 2-set).
Tanaka discloses the claimed limitations in claim 10, except for a third center point is located at a midpoint of the first distance.
Concerning limitations “a third center point is located at a midpoint of the first distance”. 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 apparatus of Tanaka to rearrange the openings such that a third center point is located at a midpoint of the first distance as a matter of choice as required by design, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Please note that in the instant application, the criticality and special significance for a third center point is located at a midpoint of the first distance is not claimed - Location of parts: MPEP 2144.04 VI-C).
PNG
media_image1.png
577
733
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 11: Tanaka as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 10, wherein the first fin further comprises a third set of openings (annotated FIG.2) arranged along a third longitudinal axis (annotated FIG.2) of the first fin, wherein two adjacent openings of the third set of openings (annotated FIG.2) are separated by a second distance (distance between top and middle openings of 3-set), wherein the second distance is same as the first distance (distance between center of top opening and center of middle opening of 1-set) (Concerning limitations “the second distance is same as the first distance”. 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 further modify the apparatus of Tanaka to rearrange the openings such that the second distance is same as the first distance as a matter of choice as required by design, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Please note that in the instant application, the criticality and special significance for a third center point is located at a midpoint of the first distance is not claimed - Location of parts: MPEP 2144.04 VI-C).
Claim 12: Tanaka as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 11,
wherein: the first opening (top opening of 1-set) is offset (annotated FIG.2) from the third opening (top opening of 2-set) by a third distance (distance between top opening of 1-set and top opening of 2-set) in a direction along a length (vertical direction; see annotated FIG.2) of the first fin (17); and
a fourth opening (top opening of 3-set) of the third set of openings (annotated FIG.2) is offset (annotated FIG.2) from the third opening (top opening of 2-set) by a fourth distance (distance of offset) in the direction along the length (vertical direction; see annotated FIG.2) of the first fin (17).
Claim 13: Tanaka as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 10, wherein the first fin (17) includes a plurality of airflow structures (ridges 19 used as airflow structures; page 4: ridges 19 provided for purpose of stirring airflow and also agitates the airflow) associated with the first opening (top opening of 1-set) and wherein the plurality of airflow structures include four full-length airflow structures and at least one half-length airflow structure (based on broadest reasonable interpretation, ridges 19 consist of two strips making full length structures and one strip making half-length structures; see FIG.2).
Claim 14: Tanaka as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 10, wherein the first fin further comprises: a first edge (annotated FIG.2) and an opposing second edge (annotated FIG.2); and a surface (see annotated FIG.2) extending between the first edge and the second edge (annotated FIG.2), wherein the first set of openings (annotated FIG.2) and the second set of openings (annotated FIG.2) are disposed on the surface (see annotated FIG.2).
Claim 15: Tanaka as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 14, wherein the first edge or the second edge is a rippled edge (rippled edge relates to manufacturing process. In product-by-process claim, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). The combination of previous references meets the structural limitations put forth in Claim 15, wherein the final product existing after fabrication is compared to prior art for the purposes of patentability. The limitation regarding “rippled” are drawn to method of production and not the structural aspects of the instant invention).
Claim 16: Tanaka as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 10, wherein the first fin includes a cropped corner (The court held that the configuration of the claimed was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that particular configuration of the claimed was significant. Note that the criticality of the limitations is not claimed- Change of Shape: MPEP 2144.04) and a gagged portion (annotated FIG.2) proximal to the cropped corner.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (gagged portion)]
PNG
media_image1.png
577
733
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 17: Tanaka as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 16, wherein the gagged portion (annotated FIG.2) is around a periphery of the first opening or the third opening (top opening of 2-set).
Claim 18: Tanaka as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 16, wherein the first fin (17) includes a plurality of airflow structures (ridges 19 used as airflow structures; page 4: ridges 19 provided for purpose of stirring airflow and also agitates the airflow) and wherein the gagged portion (annotated FIG.2) is devoid of any airflow structures.
Claim 19: Tanaka as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 10, wherein the plurality of fins (17) are stacked in an inclined manner with respect to each other (to clarify, fins 17 are stacked as shown in FIG.2, note that drawing in FIG.2 taken in horizontal direction with respect to airflow direction 21).
Claim 21: Tanaka discloses a fin (FIG.2) comprising:
a first opening (top opening of 1-set) and a second opening (middle opening of 1-set) disposed along a first longitudinal axis (annotated FIG.2; labeled as first axis; axes are arbitrary and they can be placed where needed) of the fin (preamble);
a third opening (top opening of 2-set) disposed along a second longitudinal axis (annotated FIG.2; labeled as second axis) of the fin (preamble), the second longitudinal axis (annotated FIG.2) being separated from the first longitudinal axis (annotated FIG.2) by a distance (first axis and second axis separated by a distance; see annotated FIG.2);
wherein: a first center (center of top opening of 1-set) of the first opening (top opening of 1-set) and a second center (center of middle opening of 1-set) of the seconding opening (middle opening of 1-set) are separated by a first distance (distance between center of top opening and center of middle opening of 1-set);
a third center (center of top opening of 2-set) of the third opening (top opening of 2-set) is offset (annotated FIG.2) from the first center (center of top opening of 1-set) by a second distance (distance of offset) along the second longitudinal axis (annotated FIG.2; labeled as second axis);
Tanaka discloses the claimed limitations in claim 21, wherein the second distance is smaller than the first distance, except for the second distance is half of the first distance. Concerning limitations “the second distance is half of the first distance”. 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 apparatus of Tanaka to rearrange the openings such that the second distance is half of the first distance as a matter of choice as required by design, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Please note that in the instant application, the criticality and special significance for the second distance is half of the first distance is not claimed - Location of parts: MPEP 2144.04 VI-C).
PNG
media_image2.png
555
699
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 22: Tanaka as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: a first cropped corner (The court held that the configuration of the claimed was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that particular configuration of the claimed was significant. Note that the criticality of the limitations is not claimed- Change of Shape: MPEP 2144.04) extending from a first side of the first edge (annotated FIG.2) to a first side of the second edge (annotated FIG.2); and a second cropped corner (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 further modify the apparatus of Tanaka to include duplicate of cropped corners as matter of choice based on design requirements, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a known device involves only routine skill in the art. Note that the criticality of the limitations is not claimed. Duplication of parts: MPEP 2144.04 VI-B) opposite the first cropped corner, the second cropped corner extending from a second side of the first edge (annotated FIG.2) to a second side of the second edge (annotated FIG.2).
Claim 23: Tanaka as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 22, further comprising: a first gagged portion (annotated FIG.2) proximal to the first cropped corner (Change of Shape as claimed in claim 22); and a second gagged portion (annotated FIG.2) proximal to the second cropped corner (Change of Shape as claimed in claim 22).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (gagged portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (gagged portion)]
PNG
media_image3.png
593
693
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 24: Tanaka as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 23, wherein the first gagged portion (annotated FIG.2) is around a periphery of the first opening (top opening of 1-set), the third opening (top opening of 2-set), and a fourth opening (top opening of 3-set) of a third set of openings (annotated FIG.2) disposed on the surface and arranged along a third longitudinal axis (annotated FIG.2; labeled as third axis).
Claim 25: Tanaka as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 23, further comprising a plurality of airflow structures (ridges 19 used as airflow structures; page 4: ridges 19 provided for purpose of stirring airflow and also agitates the airflow), wherein the first gagged portion (annotated FIG.2) and the second gagged portion (annotated FIG.2) are devoid of any airflow structures (to clarify, gagged portions are without ridges 19).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure which is relevant to fin structure:
Heidenreich (2008/0190588 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