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 § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Korean Patent Publication KR20120029873A, “Kim”) in view of Heiburg (Chinese Patent Publication U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0166011).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a fiber member made of mutually entwined fibers (¶0026), wherein a surface of each of the fibers is coated with a material (aluminum hydroxide and acrylic binder, ¶0037) having a thermal conductivity higher than the fibers (as aluminum hydroxide has a greater thermal conductivity than glass fiber).
However, Wen does not explicitly disclose wherein a porosity Pr (Pr=Vp/Vm×100) is 60% or more, where an apparent volume of the fiber member is Vm, and a void volume of the fiber member is Vp. Heiburg, however, discloses a porous body used in heat exchangers (see ¶0025) that has a porosity of more than 60% (¶0003). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Kim to provide the porosity of Kim in order to optimize the heat exchange of the fiber.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kim and Heiburg discloses all previous claim limitations. Kim further discloses wherein the material coating the surface of each of the fibers comprises at least one of Al (aluminum hydroxide and acrylic binder).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kim and Heiburg discloses all previous claim limitations. However, Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the material coating the surface of each of the fibers comprises carbon atoms of 1 at % or more and 25 at % or less. However, since Kim teaches providing carbon atoms (in the acrylic binder) to the material, the exact range of the carbon content is considered a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognize result. In this case the recognize result is the amount of binder would determine the amount of aluminum hydroxide adhere to the fibers. It would not have been inventive to determine via routine experimentation to determine the optimal amount of binder and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Kim to provide an amount of binder that would result in carbon atoms of 1 at % or more and 25 at % or less.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kim and Heiburg discloses all previous claim limitations. Kim, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein an average diameter of the fibers of the fiber member is 1,000 nm or less. Heiburg, however, teach an average diameter of the fibers is less than 1,000 nm (as evident in ¶0031). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Kim, as modified, to have the diameter of Heiburg in order to optimize the heat exchange of the fiber.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kim and Heiburg discloses all previous claim limitations. Kim further discloses wherein the fibers comprise a glass fiber (¶0026).
Claim(s) 6-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Heiburg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wen (Chinese Patent Publication CN103940261A).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kim and Heiburg discloses all previous claim limitations. However, Kim does not explicitly disclose a heat-transfer tube; and the fiber member according to claim 1 inside the heat-transfer tube, wherein a heat exchange is performed by flowing a refrigerant in the heat-transfer tube. Wen, however, discloses a heat-transfer tube (2, fig 1), a fiber member (4, 5, 6) inside the heat exchanger tube, wherein a heat exchange is performed by flowing a refrigerant in the heat-transfer tube (page 2, lines 1-10). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Kim, as modified, to provide the fiber member of claim 1 in place of the fiber member of Wen in order to provide optimal heat exchange within the tube.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kim, Heiburg, and Wen discloses all previous claim limitations. Kim, as modified, further discloses wherein a thickness of the fiber member is 1 mm or more in a direction in which the refrigerant in the heat-transfer tube flows (as the fiber member extends across the interior of the tube).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kim, Heiburg, and Wen discloses all previous claim limitations. Kim, as modified, further discloses wherein an inner wall of the heat-transfer tube is in contact with the fiber member (fig 1, Wen).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kim, Heiburg, and Wen discloses all previous claim limitations. Kim, as modified, further discloses wherein an inner wall of the heat-transfer tube is coated with a same material as the material coating the surface of each of the fibers (fig 1, Wen).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kim, Heiburg, and Wen discloses all previous claim limitations. Kim, as modified, further discloses heat exchange fins (8) on an outer surface of the heat-transfer tube. The limitation of “welded” is considered a product-by-process limitation. 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)
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kim, Heiburg, and Wen discloses all previous claim limitations. Kim, as modified, further discloses wherein the heat-transfer tube (2) is made of aluminum (page 4, lines 24-25).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kim, Heiburg, and Wen discloses all previous claim limitations. Kim, as modified, further discloses the heat-transfer tube unit according to claim 6; and a refrigerant in the heat-transfer tube (see rejection of claim 6).
Claim(s) 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen (Chinese Patent Publication CN103940261A) in view of Kim et al. (Korean Patent Publication KR20120029873A, “Kim”).
Regarding claim 13, Wen discloses a production method of producing a fiber member to be arranged inside a heat-transfer tube for performing a heat exchange by flowing a refrigerant through the heat-transfer tube (fig 1, page 2, lines 1-10), the production method comprising:
preparing fibers (4, 5, 6);
entwining the fibers together (page 6, lines 48-55).
However, Wen does not explicitly disclose coating surfaces of fibers with a material having a thermal conductivity higher than the fibers. Kim, however, discloses a heat exchange fiber wherein the fibers (glass fiber, ¶0026) are coated with a material (aluminum hydroxide and acrylic binder, ¶0037) having a thermal conductivity higher than the fibers (as aluminum hydroxide has greater thermal conductivity that glass fiber). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Wen to provide the fibers of Kim in place of Fibers 4, 5, 6, in order to optimize the heat exchange within the tube.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Wen and Kim discloses all previous claim limitations. Wen further discloses wherein the coating is performed after the entwining (as during the coating the entwining would change from the original state).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Wen and Kim discloses all previous claim limitations. Wen further discloses wherein the coating is performed before the entwining (as it is implied that the fibers art entwinned before coating).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Wen and Kim discloses all previous claim limitations. However they do not explicitly disclose wherein the coating is performed using an atomic layer deposition method. However, the Examiner take Official Notice that atomic layer deposition is old and well known in the art of coating and it would have been obvious for Wen, as modified to use.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Wen and Kim discloses all previous claim limitations. Wen, as modified, further discloses wherein the coating is performed inside the heat-transfer tube (fig 1, Wen).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Wen and Kim discloses all previous claim limitations. Wen, as modified, further discloses wherein the coating includes coating an inner wall of the heat-transfer tube with a material same as the material coating the surfaces of fibers (at least where the fibers contact the interior surface, thus providing the coating to the interior surface).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Wen and Kim discloses all previous claim limitations. Wen, as modified, further discloses wherein the fibers comprise a glass fiber (¶0026, Wen).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Wen and Kim discloses all previous claim limitations. Wen, as modified, further discloses wherein the material coating the surface of each of the fibers comprises at least one of Al (aluminum hydroxide, ¶0037, Kim).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY E ARANT whose telephone number is (571)272-1105. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6 ET.
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.
/HARRY E ARANT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights