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 3/12/2025 are as follows:
Claims 1-20 are pending and are being examined.
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.
The following title is suggested: “Heat Exchanger with Fin Pitch Protrusions”, or something similarly descriptive.
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).
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 1-3, 6, 8, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (CN104482791A, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 1. Wu teaches a heat exchanger (Figures 17-23) comprising:
a plurality of fins (1); and a plurality of flat tubes (2), the heat exchanger being configured to perform heat exchange of air passing in a first direction between the plurality of flat tubes and the plurality of fins (Figures 17-23),
each of the fins including a plurality of through hole portions (105) through which the plurality of flat tubes pass, a connecting portion (102) that extends in a second direction intersecting the first direction without being passed through by the plurality of flat tubes, and at least one fin pitch defining portion (101) in contact with an adjacent fin and defining a fin pitch (Figures 9-10, 17-23),
in each of the fins, one fin pitch defining portion being provided for every N flat tubes, where N is an integer of at least two (Figure 17 illustrates a plurality of tubes, which is more than the 2 tubes required of the claim), and
the fin pitch defining portion of each of the fins including at least two raised portions (flaps of 101 in Figures 9-10) formed by cutting and raising, in at least two directions, a heat transfer portion of each of the fins, the heat transfer portion being located at a position other than the connecting portion (Figures 9-10 illustrate two flaps at 101 that are cut into the fin and extend in opposite directions).
Re Claim 2. Wu teaches the fin pitch defining portion of each of the fins includes three raised portions formed by cutting and raising, in three directions, the heat transfer portion of each of the fins, the heat transfer portion being located at the position other than the connecting portion (Figures 9-10 illustrates three portions of 101 on the right edge of the fins away from the connecting portion on the left side of the fin).
Re Claim 3. Wu teaches the fin pitch defining portion of each of the fins includes four raised portions formed by cutting and raising, in four directions, the heat transfer portion of each of the fins, the heat transfer portion being located at the position other than the connecting portion (Figures 9-10 illustrates four portions of 101 on the right edge of the fins away from the connecting portion on the left side of the fin).
Re Claim 6, 11, and 15. Wu teaches a number of fin pitch defining portions in each of the fins is at least three, and the at least three fin pitch defining portions of each of the fins are arranged such that a number of flat tubes between adjacent fin pitch defining portions is identical (Figures 9-10, 17-23).
Re Claim 8. Wu teaches air passing in the first direction is indoor air that undergoes heat exchange in an indoor unit that performs indoor air conditioning (Figures 9-10, 17-23).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimizu (JP2005/121288A, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 17. Shimizu teaches a heat exchanger (Figure 21) comprising: a plurality of flat tubes (4); and a plurality of fins (1), each of the fins including a plurality of through hole portions (13) through which the plurality of flat tubes pass, and each of the through hole portions including a first upright portion (31) that rises along a corresponding flat tube and is in contact with an adjacent fin (Figures 14-19).
Re Claim 18. Shimizu teaches the first upright portion is provided only on one of two side surfaces of each of the flat tubes in a longitudinal direction of each of the fins (Figures 14-19).
Re Claim 19. Shimizu teaches each of the through hole portions includes, as a portion other than the first upright portion, a second upright portion (32) that rises along the corresponding flat tube and is not in contact with the adjacent fin, and the first upright portion rises higher than the second upright portion (Figures 14-19).
Re Claim 20. Shimizu teaches each of the through hole portions includes, as a portion other than the first upright portion, a second upright portion (32) that rises along the corresponding flat tube and is not in contact with the adjacent fin, and the first upright portion rises higher than the second upright portion (Figures 14-19).
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 4, 5, 9, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (CN104482791A, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claims 4 , 5, 9, 10, 13, and 14. Wu teaches the number of flat tubes is at least four or six (Figures 17, 19, 21, 23 illustrates more than six tubes), and one fin pitch defining portion is provided for every two tubes (Figures 17 and 19 illustrates every other fin portion has a fin pitch defining portion) but fails to specifically teach one fin pitch defining portion is provided for every four flat tubes or for every six flat tubes.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide one fin pitch defining portion is provided for every four flat tubes or for every six flat tubes, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II). In this instance, the variable is the fin pitch and the result is the structural integrity of the fins when assembled and associated manufacturing cost. By increasing the fin pitch, the fin requires less manufacturing, and by decreasing the fin pitch the fin becomes structurally stronger. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed could optimize the number of fin pitch protruding portions to achieve a desired manufacturing performance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add more or less fin pitch defining portions, 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).
Claims 7, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (CN104482791A, as cited in the IDS) in view of Shimizu (JP2005/121288A, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 7, 12, and 16. Wu teaches each of the through hole portions of each of the fins (Figures 9-10, 17-23) but fails to specifically teach includes a first upright portion that rises along a corresponding flat tube and is in contact with an adjacent fin, and a second upright portion that rises along the corresponding flat tube and is not in contact with the adjacent fin.
However, Shimizu teaches includes each of the through hole portions (13) of each of the fins (1) a first upright portion (31) that rises along a corresponding flat tube and is in contact with an adjacent fin, and a second upright portion (32) that rises along the corresponding flat tube and is not in contact with the adjacent fin (Figures 14-19).
Therefore, in view of Shimizu's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add first and second upright portions to the through hole portions of Wu in order to provide additional supports for the fins as the tubes, while also increasing the heat transfer surface area contact between the fin and the tube, thereby improving the heat transfer capability of the heat exchanger.
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