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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/05/2025, 05/06/2025 and 06/23/2026 was filed on or after the mailing date of the Application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 through hole in the bottom of the upper accommodating cavity portion, as described in claim 13, 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds either 15 lines of text or 150 words. Applicant should check and attempt to amend the abstract so that it is as concise as the disclosure permits in order to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because the claim form and arrangement does not comply with the form and arrangement guidelines as set out in MPEP 608.01(n) III-IV, wherein a dependent claim should first declare the preceding claim from which it depends, then continuing to specify a further limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
For example, to overcome the Objection, the claim may be rewritten in a similar form as follows:
The generator of claim 1, wherein the generator is disposed within an air conditioning system.
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 13 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.
Regarding Claim 13, the recitation of “...a bottom of the upper accommodating cavity portion is provided with a through hole, such that the bottom of the upper accommodating cavity portion constitutes the distributor,” renders the claim unclear. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites that the distributor is disposed within the middle accommodating portion, and that the middle accommodating portion is beneath and distinct from the upper accommodating portion. Therefore, it is unclear as to how the distributor may be described as part of the middle accommodating portion, while also being constituted as the bottom of the upper accommodating cavity portion. Furthermore, the drawings do not aid in understanding, as it is not apparent to the examiner what component Applicant is referring to as the through hole in the bottom of the upper accommodating portion, as the only represented flowpath to the distributor from the upper portion in the present application is weir 252. Accordingly, this discrepancy makes the claim difficult to interpret and does not meet the threshold requirements of clarity and precision as outlined in MPEP 2173.02.II. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shidara et al. (JP 2001174099 A, hereinafter “Shidara”).
Regarding Claim 1, Shidara teaches a generator [10] [Figs. 1-7], comprising a housing [10; Fig. 1] and a housing accommodating cavity defined by the housing [at least 11 and 21] [¶ 0016; section 11 has a full liquid type configuration (flooded), section 21 has a falling liquid configuration], wherein:
the housing accommodating cavity comprises an upper accommodating cavity portion [11], a middle accommodating cavity portion [¶ 0016-0018; Figs. 1-2; portion containing dish 16], and a lower accommodating cavity portion [21], and the middle accommodating cavity portion is arranged between the upper accommodating cavity portion and the lower accommodating cavity portion [¶ 0016-0018; Figs. 1-2; apparent from inspection; top down are components 11, 16 then 21],
wherein a first heat-exchange tube group is arranged in the upper accommodating cavity portion [¶ 0017; heating lines 15 may be provided in plurality to form the means to heat a heated fluid L1 in liquid tank 13], an upper solution [L1] is accommodated in the upper accommodating cavity portion, and the first heat-exchange tube group is at least partially immersed in the upper solution [¶ 0016-0021; fluid L1 is provided to container 13 via line 19, wherein heating line 15 is submerged in the fluid L1, such as to perform liquid-filling type heat exchange],
wherein at least one row of second heat-exchange tube groups [18] is arranged in the lower accommodating cavity portion [¶ 0018, 0020; Figs. 1-2; plurality of heating lines 18 are disposed to form a second heat exchange section 21, below heating section 11], and
wherein a distributor [16] is arranged in the middle accommodating cavity portion [Figs. 1-6; ¶ 0018, 0021; dish body 16 provides falling liquid droplets D1 to heating lines 18], and the distributor is configured to receive the upper solution from the upper accommodating cavity portion [¶ 0018; 16 receives fluid from fluid outlet 13c above 16] and distribute the upper solution discharged from the upper accommodating cavity portion onto the second heat-exchange tube groups [¶ 0018; Figs. 1-2; outlet 13c supplies fluid to heat exchange section 21 after said fluid has exchanged with the heating pipes in section 11].
Regarding Claim 2, Shidara teaches the generator of claim 1 above and Shidara teaches wherein:
the upper accommodating cavity portion is further provided with a container [13], and the upper solution is accommodated in the container [¶ 0017; Fig. 1; heat exchange section 11 comprises a first liquid tank 13 containing fluid L1].
Regarding Claim 3, Shidara teaches the generator of claim 1 above and Shidara teaches wherein:
a solution introduction channel [Fig. 2; area below portion 13c and above 16 may be considered the solution introduction channel, as fluid L1 flows down to dish 16 after flowing through inflow line 19, over wall portion 13c] is further provided in the housing accommodating cavity [Figs. 1-4; apparent from inspection], and the solution introduction channel is configured to introduce the upper solution into the distributor [¶ 0017-0019; outlet 13c provides fluid to dish 16].
Regarding Claim 4, Shidara teaches the generator of claim 3 above and Shidara teaches wherein:
the upper accommodating cavity portion is further provided with a weir [Fig. 2; apparent from inspection 13c is provided as a weir crest, allowing fluid L1 to flow down to 16], and the weir is a fluid inlet of the solution introduction channel [Fig. 2; apparent from inspection; ¶ 0017-0018, 0020].
Regarding Claim 6, Shidara teaches the generator of claim 1 above and Shidara teaches wherein the generator further comprises:
a fluid inlet [15] [Figs. 1, 8], wherein the fluid inlet is in fluid communication with the first heat-exchange tube group and is configured to input a fluid heat source into the first heat-exchange tube group [¶ 0016-0017; first heating line 15 provides fluid to the bundle of tubes 15 within the heat exchanger 10]; and
a fluid outlet [18] [Figs. 1, 8], wherein the fluid heat source is configured to heat the upper solution flowing through the first heat-exchange tube group [¶ 0016; 15 provides heat to L1 in 13] and then flow into the second heat-exchange tube groups to continue heating a lower solution distributed on the second heat-exchange tube groups [¶ 0016-0018; Fig. 1; heating line 18 receives fluid from 15 via 17], and the fluid heat source is configured to heat the lower solution and then discharge from the fluid outlet [¶ 0016-0018; heating line 18 receives fluid from 15 via 17, wherein 18 within 11 is configured to receive drops of L1 via 16].
Regarding Claim 7, Shidara teaches the generator of claim 1 above and Shidara teaches wherein:
a distribution channel [16] is provided in the distributor [¶ 0018; Figs. 1-2; distributor 16 comprises a plurality of holes 16a bored in the bottom of dish 16, and thus comprises a distribution channel for said holes to generated droplets D1], and the distribution channel is configured to distribute the upper solution introduced from the upper accommodating cavity portion onto the second heat-exchange tube groups [¶ 0018; Figs. 1-2; Droplets D1 drop from 16 having received fluid L1 from container 13 in contact with 15, while D1 falls to heat exchange bundle 18].
Regarding Claim 8, Shidara teaches the generator of claim 7 above and Shidara teaches wherein:
the distribution channel is a through hole [¶ 0018; distributor 16 comprises holes 16a].
Regarding Claim 10, Shidara teaches the generator of claim 1 above and Shidara teaches wherein the housing accommodating cavity further comprises:
a solution replenishment inlet [at least 19], wherein the solution replenishment inlet is configured to replenish a solution to the distributor [¶ 0017; inflow line 19 provides fluid L1 into the heat exchanger 10, wherein fluid L1 flows to the distributor 16].
Regarding Claim 13, Shidara teaches the generator of claim 1 above and Shidara teaches wherein:
a bottom of the upper accommodating cavity portion is provided with a through hole [Fig. 2; channel portion below 13c, falling to 16], such that the bottom of the upper accommodating cavity portion constitutes the distributor [¶ 0018; Figs. 1-2; fluid L1 flows over outlet 13c portion of 13, wherein fluid L1 flows down towards distributor 16, therefore providing a through hole through the bottom of upper accommodating portion 11].
Regarding Claim 16, Shidara teaches an air conditioning system [Fig. 5; Shidara discloses the device is at least within an absorption chiller-heater 2], wherein:
the air conditioning system comprises the generator of claim 1 [See Fig. 5; 10 is disposed within 2, see at least A11].
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shidara as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Numata et al. (US 20150053378 A1, hereinafter “Numata”).
Regarding Claim 5, Shidara teaches the generator of claim 4 above and Shidara teaches wherein:
the first heat-exchange tube group is completely immersed in the upper solution [¶ 0019, 0029; Shidara describes at least heat exchange section A11 as full-fill type; apparent from inspection of at least Figs. 1 and 6].
Shidara does not explicitly teach wherein a height of the weir is set at a position which is not lower than an uppermost end of the first heat-exchange tube group.
However, Numata teaches a heat exchanger [at least 301; Figs. 19-20; ¶ 0071, 0112-0113] comprising a refrigerant supply conduit [6], an inlet pipe part [21] provided in a shell [10], such that a plurality of apertures [22c, 23a] provides the fluid to a single row of refrigerant tubes 31 contained by a trough part [342], such that walls [342b] of the trough overlap with 100% of the heat transfer tubes disposed therein [¶ 0112-0113]. Numata further teaches that providing a trough to contain refrigerant to contact the tube bundles in region A ensures an even distribution of refrigerant along the tube bundle, thereby preventing the formation of dry patches in the tube bundle and ensuring good heat transfer efficiency [¶ 0099]. Numata further teaches a known plurality of configurations, ranging from a trough height of 50-100% coverage of the submerged tube bundle [¶ 0110-0114; Figs. 10, 14, 19-20]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the height of the weir as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the height of the weir would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing a trough to contain refrigerant to contact a submerged tube bundle ensures an even distribution of refrigerant along the tube bundle, thereby preventing the formation of dry patches in the tube bundle and ensuring good heat transfer efficiency [¶ 0099].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Shidara to have wherein a height of the weir is set at a position which is not lower than an uppermost end of the first heat-exchange tube group, in view of the teachings of Numata where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a trough to contain refrigerant to contact a submerged tube bundle ensures an even distribution of refrigerant along the tube bundle, thereby preventing the formation of dry patches in the tube bundle and ensuring good heat transfer efficiency.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shidara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iritani et al. (JP 2003065631 A, hereinafter “Iritani”).
Regarding Claim 9, Shidara teaches the generator of claim 1 above but Shidara does not explicitly teach wherein: calibers of heat-exchange tubes on both sides of the second heat-exchange tube groups are smaller than calibers of heat-exchange tubes in a middle of the second heat-exchange tube groups.
However, Iritani teaches a refrigerated heat exchanger [20] [Figs. 1-9] comprising a plurality of heat transfer tubes [21, 22, 23], wherein the heat exchanger tubes are configured to be in multiple passes with different diameters [¶ 0020]. Iritani teaches that providing heat exchangers with smaller diameters may provide more space for more tubes, thereby increasing the heat transfer area of the tube bundle and improving the heat transfer performance [¶ 0020-0023]. Thus, the diameter of a heat exchanger pipe configured to exchange heat with a surrounding fluid is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is a heat exchanger tube bundle with improved heat transfer performance.
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide wherein calibers of heat-exchange tubes on both sides of the second heat-exchange tube groups are smaller than calibers of heat-exchange tubes in a middle of the second heat-exchange tube groups.
Claims 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shidara as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Nakamura et al. (US 20140231058 A1, hereinafter “Nakamura”).
Regarding Claim 11, Shidara teaches the generator of claim 1 above but Shidara does not teach wherein: a bottom of the distributor is placed obliquely along a length direction of the generator, such that the bottom of the distributor has an inclination angle (β) along the length direction.
However, Nakamura teaches a falling film heat exchanger [20] [Figs. 1-2] comprising a liquid distributor [10], distribution tank [11], as well as a plurality of distribution passages [13] configured to provide a liquid flowing through the distributor to the falling film heat exchanger [20] [¶ 0092-0096]. Nakamura further teaches that the distribution passages may be provided with some downslope at an angle [Fig. 2], wherein Nakamura teaches that this consideration aids to overcome any longitudinal swing that a system utilizing the distributor may encounter [¶ 0062-0063]. In other words, providing a downslope to a distributor reduces the likelihood of liquid in the distribution passages flowing in the reverse direction, in the event of vehicle roll, thereby improving operation of the device. One of ordinary skill in the art could have obliquely placed distributor as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the obliquely placed distributor would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing a downslope to a distributer reduces the likelihood of liquid in the distribution passages flowing in the reverse direction in the event of vehicle roll, thereby improving operation of the device [¶ 0062-0063].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Shidara to have wherein: a bottom of the distributor is placed obliquely along a length direction of the generator, such that the bottom of the distributor has an inclination angle (β) along the length direction, in view of the teachings of Nakamura where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a downslope to a distributer reduces the likelihood of liquid in the distribution passages flowing in the reverse direction in the event of vehicle roll, thereby improving operation of the device.
Regarding Claim 12, Shidara, as modified, teaches the generator of claim 11 above and Nakamura teaches wherein:
the inclination angle (β) at the bottom of the distributor is within 5° [¶ 0061; the distributor passage may be formed in a range of at least 5 to 45 degrees]
Regarding Claim 14, Shidara teaches the generator of claim 4 above and Shidara teaches wherein:
the housing further comprises a housing wall [Fig. 1; apparent from inspection], and
Shidara does not teach wherein the generator further comprises two solution inlets, wherein the two solution inlets are configured to input the upper solution, the two solution inlets pass through the housing wall, respectively, from both ends of an upper portion of the housing accommodating cavity into an interior of the housing accommodating cavity, and the weir is arranged at a position between the two solution inlets.
However, Nakamura teaches a falling film heat exchanger [20] [Figs. 1-2] comprising a liquid distributor [10], distribution tank [11] as well as a plurality of distribution passages [13] configured to provide a liquid flowing through the distributor to the falling film heat exchanger [20] [¶ 0092-0096]. Nakamura further teaches that the distribution passages [13] are provided in plurality in order to flow fluid to another plurality of distribution passages [14A, 14B] [Fig. 1; ¶ 0058-0061]. The second distribution passages [14A, 14B] provide a plurality of inputs for distributing liquid onto the falling film heat exchanger [20]. Nakamura further teaches that providing multiple inputs for a liquid to be provided to heat exchanger tubes enables a more even distribution of the liquid over the area over which the heat exchangers tubes are distributed without overflowing, thereby improving the system [¶ 0058]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the plurality of inlets as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the plurality of inlets would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing multiple inputs for a liquid to be provided to heat exchanger tubes enables a more even distribution of the liquid over the area over which the heat exchangers tubes are distributed without overflowing, thereby improving the system [¶ 0058].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Shidara to have wherein the generator further comprises two solution inlets, wherein the two solution inlets are configured to input the upper solution, the two solution inlets pass through the housing wall, respectively, from both ends of an upper portion of the housing accommodating cavity into an interior of the housing accommodating cavity, and the weir is arranged at a position between the two solution inlets, in view of the teachings of Nakamura where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing multiple inputs for a liquid to be provided to heat exchanger tubes enables a more even distribution of the liquid over the area over which the heat exchangers tubes are distributed without overflowing, thereby improving the system.
Regarding the location of the weir being between the two inlets, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that duplicating to a plurality of inputs, as taught by Nakamura, may commonsensically also duplicate the pathways for L1 in Fig. 2 of Shidara. As further evidence of this configuration being known in the art, and in the interest of compact prosecution, please see at least Fig. 17 of Numata et al. (US 20150053378 A1), showing a plurality of distribution inlets [23a] spanning across the chamber, wherein the weirs of respective trough parts [40] are disposed in a relative center of the chamber, therefore providing the weirs between the plurality of inlets.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shidara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Applicant Submitted Prior Art (JP H04122964 U, hereinafter “ASPA1”).
Regarding Claim 15, Shidara teaches the generator of claim 1 above but Shidara does not teach wherein: fins are provided on the second heat-exchange tube groups, or surfaces of the second heat-exchange tube groups are rough surfaces.
However, ASPA1 teaches a heat transfer tube [1] [Fig. 1] wherein the heat transfer tube may comprise a plurality of fins [2] surrounding the periphery of the tube [¶ 0010]. The prior art further teaches that the arrangement of fins in a heat exchanger system improves the performance of heat transfer as the cross-sectional shape of the tube is increased, thus improving the system [¶ 0010-0012]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the fins as claimed by known methods/techniques and that in combination, the fins would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. the arrangement of fins in a heat exchanger system improves the performance of heat transfer as the cross-sectional shape of the tube is increased, thus improving the system [¶ 0010-0012].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Shidara to have wherein: fins are provided on the second heat-exchange tube groups, or surfaces of the second heat-exchange tube groups are rough surfaces, in view of the teachings of ASPA1 where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. the arrangement of fins in a heat exchanger system improves the performance of heat transfer as the cross-sectional shape of the tube is increased, thus improving the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH S MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5102. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571) 270-5054. 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.
/KEITH STANLEY MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights