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 .
Drawings
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 plurality of second channels and a number of turns and passes such that the tube associated with each of the passes extends between one of the fluid inlet compartments and one of the fluid outlet compartments among the plurality of first compartments must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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.
Claim 10 is 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 term “substantially” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, 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. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as any degree of substantiality.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Hummel (US4524823A: recited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Hummel teaches a fluid distributor for a heat exchanger (see Figure 1), the fluid distributor comprising:
a first tube (5) having an open first end (15) and a closed second end (7), wherein a plurality of first channels (14) extends in a helical configuration along a length in an interior of the first tube (5: see Figure 1), and one or more outlet ports (9) are configured along a surface of the first tube (5: see Figure 1),
wherein the fluid distributor is configured with the heat exchanger (1) such that the one or more outlet ports (9) fluidically connect the plurality of first channels (14) to a plurality of tubes (3) associated with a heat exchange section of the heat exchanger (see Figure 1) or an interior volume of an inlet header associated with the heat exchanger (optional limitation).
Regarding claim 2, Hummel further teaches wherein the fluid distributor is configured to receive a two-phase fluid within the plurality of first channels (14) via the open first end (15) of the first tube (5), causing the two-phase fluid to flow in helical motion (see Col. 4 Lines [43-51]), and wherein the helical motion of the two-phase fluid causes the fluid to radially flow out of the fluid distributor into the plurality of tubes (13) of the heat exchange section or the internal volume of the inlet header via the one or more outlet ports (9: see Figure 1).
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 11-14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leffler (US20210262744A1) in view of Hummel (US4524823A: recited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Leffler teaches a fluid distributor (20) for a heat exchanger (50: see Figure 8-12), the fluid distributor comprising:
a first tube (outer tube of 26) having an open first end (24) and a closed second end (30), wherein a plurality of first channels (26) extends along a length in an interior of the first tube (see 26 in Figure 8), and one or more outlet ports (28) are configured along a surface of the first tube (see Figure 9),
wherein the fluid distributor is configured with the heat exchanger (50) such that the one or more outlet ports (28) fluidically connect the plurality of first channels (channels of 52) to a plurality of tubes (52) associated with a heat exchange section of the heat exchanger (see Figures 8 and 9) or an interior volume of an inlet header (54) associated with the heat exchanger (see Figures 8).
Leffler does not teach that the plurality of first channels (26) extends in a helical configuration.
However, it’s old and well known in the art for fluid distributors to have a plurality of first channels extends in a helical configuration, as evidenced by Hummel, see Hummel’s Figure 1 where a fluid distributor (11) for a heat exchanger (1) is comprising a plurality of first channels (14) that extends in a helical configuration.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plurality of first channels of Leffler to extend in a helical configuration, since as evidenced by Hummel, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of evenly distributing homogeneous wet vapor mixtures.
Regarding claim 3, Leffler as modified further teaches wherein the fluid distributor (20) further comprises: a second tube (outer tube of 23: see Figure 10) having a closed first end (10 of 23) and an open second end (outlet end of the distributor: see ¶ [0069]), the second tube (outer tube of 23) concentrically disposed within and extending longitudinally through the first tube (outer tube of 26) with a predefined gap therebetween to define a shape of the fluid distributor (see Figure 9); wherein the second tube forms a second central channel (23) within the first tube (outer tube of 26) and the plurality of first channels (26) extend in the helical configuration (as modified by Hummel) around the second central channel (23), along the length of the first tube (outer tube of 26), within the gap between the first tube and second tube (see Figures 8 and 9); and one or more inlet ports (29) configured along a surface of the second tube (see Figure 9 and see ¶ [0069]), wherein the one or more inlet ports (29) fluidically connect the plurality of first channels (26) to the second central channel (23: see Figure 9).
Regarding claim 4, Leffler as modified further teaches wherein the fluid distributor (20) is configured to receive a two-phase fluid (i.e. refrigerant: see ¶ [0075]) within the plurality of first channels (26) via the open first end (24) of the first tube (outer tube of 26), causing the two-phase fluid to flow in helical motion (as modified by Hummel), and wherein the helical motion of the two-phase fluid causes a liquid phase associated with the two-phase fluid to radially flow out of the fluid distributor into the plurality of tubes (52) of the heat exchange section or the internal volume of the inlet header (54) via the one or more outlet ports (28) and a vapor phase associated with the two-phase fluid to flow into the second central channel (23) via the one or more inlet ports (29: Examiner notes that the above recitation is a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed which does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus, See MPEP 2114).
Regarding claim 5, Leffler as modified further teaches wherein the fluid distributor (20) is configured to be longitudinally disposed in the inlet header (54) such that the fluid distributor (20) extends at least partially through the inlet header (see Figure 8).
Regarding claim 6, Leffler as modified further teaches wherein the inlet header (54) comprises one or more first compartments (81-84) separated by one or more first walls (58: see Figure 8), and wherein the one or more outlet ports (28) are configured at first positions on the first tube, such that at least one of the one or more outlet ports remains in each of the first compartments (see Figure 8 and ¶ [0067]).
Regarding claim 11, Leffler as modified further teaches wherein the one or more inlet ports (29) are configured at second positions on the second tube (outer tube of 23: see Figure 9), such that the one or more inlet ports (29) fluidically connect each of the first channels (26) to the second central channel (23: see Figures 9 and 10).
Regarding claim 12, Leffler does not teach wherein the second central channel comprises a plurality of second channels extending longitudinally through the second tube, and wherein the one or more inlet ports are configured at second positions on the second tube, such that the one or more inlet ports fluidically connect each of the first channels to the at least one of the plurality of second channels.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the configuration the second central channel would result in a difference in function of the Leffler device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the second central channel of Leffler, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed configuration. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed configuration solves any stated problem, indicating that the second central channel “may” single channel (e.g. Figures 3A-3C) or plurality of channels, and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the configuration as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second tube of Leffler in view of Hummel to have a plurality of second channels extending longitudinally through the second tube, and wherein the one or more inlet ports are configured at second positions on the second tube, such that the one or more inlet ports fluidically connect each of the first channels to the at least one of the plurality of second channels as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 13, Leffler as modified further teaches wherein the fluid distributor (20) is disposed in the inlet header (54) such that the fluid distributor (20) extends through each of the first compartments (81-84) of the inlet header (see Figure 8), and wherein a second tube (outer tube of 23: see Figure 9) is concentrically disposed in the first tube (outer tube of 26) such that an open second end (outlet end of the distributor: see ¶ [0069]) of the second tube (outer tube of 23) extends at least partially out of the closed second end of the first tube and the inlet header to transfer the vapor phase out of the inlet header (see ¶ [0061]).
Regarding claim 14, Leffler as modified further teaches wherein the fluid distributor (20) is longitudinally disposed in the inlet header (54: see Figure 8).
Leffler does not teach an open second end of a second tube extends at least partially out of the closed second end of the first tube into one of the first compartments of the inlet header to transfer the vapor phase into the corresponding first compartment.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the configuration/ length of the second tube would result in a difference in function of the Leffler device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the configuration/ length of the second tube of Leffler, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed configuration. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed configuration solves any stated problem, indicating that the open second end of the second tube “may” extends into one of the first compartments of the inlet header (e.g. Figure 1C) or through the inlet header (e.g. Figure 1A), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the configuration as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second tube of Leffler in view of Hummel to have an open second end of a second tube extends at least partially out of the closed second end of the first tube into one of the first compartments of the inlet header to transfer the vapor phase into the corresponding first compartment as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 19, Leffler as modified further teaches wherein the heat exchanger (50) comprises a plurality of heat-dissipating fins in thermal contact with the plurality of tubes (52) in the heat exchange section of the heat exchanger (50), and wherein the plurality of heat-dissipating fins is any of corrugated-fin type or inserted-fin type (see in Figure 8 where corrugated-fins extend between the plurality of tubes (52)).
Regarding claim 20, Leffler as modified further teaches wherein the heat exchanger (50) is in a horizontal configuration or a vertical configuration (see Figure 8).
Claims 7, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leffler (US20210262744A1) in view of Hummel (US4524823A: recited by Applicant) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of YOSHIDA (JPH11201685A: Machine Translation is provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 7, Leffler does not teach wherein the fluid distributor is configured externally to the inlet header with the one or more outlet ports fluidically connecting the plurality of first channels of the fluid distributor to the plurality of tubes of the heat exchange section or the interior volume of the inlet header.
However, it’s old and well known in the art for heat exchangers to have fluid distributor that is configured externally to an inlet header, as evidenced by YOSHIDA, see YOSHIDA’s Figure 8 where the heat exchanger comprises a fluid distributor (15) is configured externally to an inlet header (20) with one or more outlet ports (ports of 13) fluidically connecting the fluid distributor to the interior volume of the inlet header (20).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the heat exchanger of Leffler in view of Hummel with the fluid distributor is configured externally to the inlet header with the one or more outlet ports fluidically connecting the plurality of first channels of the fluid distributor to the plurality of tubes of the heat exchange section or the interior volume of the inlet header, since as evidenced by YOSHIDA, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of evenly distributing the fluid across the heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 8, Leffler as modified further teaches wherein the inlet header (54) comprises one or more first compartments (81-84) separated by one or more first walls (58: see Figure 8), and wherein the one or more outlet ports (28) are configured at first positions on the first tube, such that at least one of the one or more outlet ports remains fluidically connected to at least one of the first compartments (see Figure 8 and ¶ [0067]).
Leffler does not teach that the at least one of the one or more outlet ports remains fluidically connected to at least one of the first compartments via one or more tube stubs.
However, it’s old and well known in the art for heat exchangers to have fluid distributor that is externally connected to an inlet header via one or more tube stubs, as evidenced by YOSHIDA, see YOSHIDA’s Figure 8 where the heat exchanger comprises a fluid distributor (15) that is externally connected to first compartments of an inlet header (20) via one or more tube stubs (13).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the heat exchanger of Leffler in view of Hummel with the at least one of the one or more outlet ports remains fluidically connected to at least one of the first compartments via one or more tube stubs, since as evidenced by YOSHIDA, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of evenly distributing the fluid across the heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 15, Leffler as modified further teaches wherein an open second end (outlet end of the distributor: see ¶ [0069]) of a second tube extends (outer tube of 23) at least partially out of the closed second end (30) of the first tube to transfer the vapor phase out of the inlet header (see ¶ [0061]).
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leffler (US20210262744A1) in view of Hummel (US4524823A: recited by Applicant) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JINDOU (US20170343290A1).
Regarding claim 9, Leffler as modified further teaches wherein the inlet header (54 of Leffler) comprises a plurality of first compartments (81-84) separated by one or more first walls (58: see Figure 8), the plurality of first compartments (81-84) comprising at least one fluid inlet compartment (81 and 83) and at least one fluid outlet compartment (82 and 84).
Leffler does not teach wherein the plurality of tubes of the heat exchange section has a number of turns and passes such that the tube associated with each of the passes extends between one of the fluid inlet compartments and one of the fluid outlet compartments among the plurality of first compartments.
However, it’s old and well known in the art for heat exchangers to have multi-pass flow path using turned (i.e. U-shape) pipes, as evidenced by JINDOU, JINDOU’s Figure 12 where the heat exchanger (23) comprises a plurality of first compartments (61 and 62a-62c) separated by one or more first walls (39a-39d, 80, and 85), wherein the plurality of first compartments (61 and 62a-62c) comprising at least one fluid inlet compartment (61) and at least one fluid outlet compartment (62a-62c).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the heat exchanger of Leffler in view of Hummel with the plurality of tubes of the heat exchange section has a number of turns and passes such that the tube associated with each of the passes extends between one of the fluid inlet compartments and one of the fluid outlet compartments among the plurality of first compartments, since as evidenced by JINDOU, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of increasing the heat transfer efficiency via longer effective flow path where the fluid spends more time inside the heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 17, Leffler as modified further teaches wherein an open second end (outlet end of the distributor: see ¶ [0069]) of a second tube extends (outer tube of 23) at least partially out of the closed second end (30) of the first tube to transfer the vapor phase ,separated within the fluid distributor (20), out of the inlet header (see ¶ [0061]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 10, 16, and 18 are containing allowable subject matter since Leffler, Hummel, YOSHIDA, and JINDOU failed to teach “wherein each of the fluid outlet compartments comprises an opening to discharge a substantially vapor phase, created within the corresponding tubes, out of the inlet header”, “ wherein an open second end of a second tube extends at least partially out of the closed second end of the first tube into an external compartment to transfer the vapor phase into the corresponding external compartment, and wherein the external compartment comprises at least one of the outlet ports fluidically connected to at least one of the first compartments of the inlet header”, or “wherein the open second end of the second tube comprises a check valve to restrict back flow of the vapor phase into the second tube or the second central channel”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALED AL SAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-8685. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM~3:30PM, M-F (E.S.T.).
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.
/KHALED AHMED ALI AL SAMIRI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights