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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 14, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 11 of claim 1, the word “a” in the phrase “a least two” should be replaced with “at”.
In line 14 of claim 1, the word “a” in the phrase “a least two” should be replaced with “at”.
In line 7 of claim 14, the word “a” in the phrase “a least two” should be replaced with “at”.
In line 10 of claim 14, the word “a” in the phrase “a least two” should be replaced with “at”.
In line 8 of claim 18, the word “a” in the phrase “a least two” should be replaced with “at”.
In line 11 of claim 18, the word “a” in the phrase “a least two” should be replaced with “at”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 connection of the second condenser tube bundle to the cooling tower taught in claim 3 (as the cooling tower is only illustrated in relation to condenser embodiments with a single coil bundle for example in fig. 3) and the first and second pumps configured to motivate fluids in the first and second fluid circuits as taught in claim 4 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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “air distribution system” in line 2 of claim 12 and line 11 of claim 14, interpreted according to the teachings of ¶ 38 as a combination of an air return duct, an air supply duct, and/or an air handler and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
It is noted the claim 7 has not been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because although the claim teaches “an air distribution system”, it further teaches this system to include “one or more air handlers” which present sufficient structure to perform the claimed function of “air distribution”.
Further, claim 18 teaches in line 12 “an air distribution system cooling tower”. The phrase “air distribution system” in this context has not been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) both because the interpretation of the phrase cannot be positively ascertained (see the rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth below) and because it appears to suggest “a cooling tower of an air distribution system”, teaching at least this cooling tower as structure for such a 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.
Claims 6-11 and 18-20 are 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.
In lines 6-7 of claim 6, the teaching of “the condenser tube bundle” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 upon which claim 6 depends teaches “at least two condenser bundles” which includes “a first condenser tube bundle” and “a second condenser tube bundle” (lines 8, 10-11 and 13-14) and claim 6 teaches that this “at least two condenser bundles” also includes “a third condenser tube bundle” in line 2, but none of these bundles are referred to simply as “the condenser tube bundle” so that it is unclear whether the teaching in lines 6-7 refers to a specific one of the “at least two condenser bundles”, whether it may refer to any of the bundles, or whether it refers to or may refer to some other tube bundle not included in the previously recited “at least two condenser bundles”. For this reason, the scope of claim 6 with regard to this tube bundle cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
For purposes of examination, claim 6 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and “the condenser tube bundle” has been interpreted as referring to the “third condenser tube bundle” as this is the tube bundle taught in the specification (e.g. in ¶ 72) as carrying the third condenser conditioning fluid.
In line 12 of claim 18, the there is recited “an air distribution system cooling tower” to which the second condenser tube bundle is coupled. It is not clear whether this recitation refers to and requires an additional cooling tower which is an element of or associated with an air distribution system or is presented in error and intended to recite the coupling of the tube bundle to “an air distribution system and the cooling tower” or “an air distribution system or the cooling tower”. The claim has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, but the specification as filed does not teach this “air distribution system cooling tower” except in ¶ 7 which merely duplicates the language of claim 18 without describing the structure of this element. Elsewhere, the specification teaches only a single cooling tower (56) and a separate air distribution system (22) with no teaching of a connection or communication between these elements to aid in the interpretation of claim 18. For this reason, the scope of claim 18 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claims 7-11, 19 and 20 are rejected as depending upon a base claim which has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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, 2, 4, 12-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Japanese Publication No. 2014-55692 A to Matsumoto et al. An English translation of Matsumoto has been provided with this Office Action and citations to specific passages and paragraphs of this reference are directed to this translation rather than to the Japanese-language original document.
PNG
media_image1.png
322
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Matsumoto teaches limitations from claim 1 in fig 1, shown above, a heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and refrigeration (HVAC&R) system (1) comprising:
a compressor (10) configured to motivate a working fluid (“a cooling medium” in the Abstract or “refrigerant gas” in ¶ 16) through a vapor compression circuit (as shown by the arrows in fig. 1);
an evaporator (40) disposed along the vapor compression circuit (as shown) and configured to transfer heat to the working fluid (refrigerant expanded by the expansion valve 30 as discussed in ¶ 22) from one or more evaporator conditioning fluids (cold water from the circulation path 3 as taught in ¶ 22); and
a multi-bundle condenser (20) disposed along the vapor compression circuit (as shown), comprising at least two condenser tube bundles (shown in fig. 1 with one connecting to the path 50 and another connecting to the path 60), and configured to selectively transfer heat from the working fluid (the refrigerant received from the compressor 10 as taught in ¶ 18) to:
a first condenser conditioning fluid (the water circulating in the path 50) operatively within a first condenser tube bundle (the upper bundle of the condenser 20) of the [at] least two condenser tube bundles, wherein the first condenser tube bundle is fluidly coupled to a cooling tower via a first fluid circuit (cooling tower 4 via the circuit 50);
a second condenser conditioning fluid (the water circulating in the path 60) operatively within a second condenser tube bundle (the lower bundle of the condenser 20 shown in fig. 1) of the [at] least two condenser tube bundles (as shown in fig. 1 and taught in ¶ 20); or
both (discussed in ¶ 63).
Matsumoto teaches limitations from claim 2 in fig. 1, shown above, the HVAC&R system of claim 1, wherein the second condenser tube bundle (42) is fluidly coupled to the cooling tower (4) via a second fluid circuit (the path 60, through the valves 100 and the subcooler 70 as shown in fig. 1).
Matsumoto teaches limitations from claim 4 in fig. 1, shown above, the HVAC&R system of claim 2, wherein the first fluid circuit (50) comprises a first pump (51) configured to motivate the first condenser conditioning fluid through the first fluid circuit (50, as taught in ¶ 24), and the second fluid circuit (60) comprises a second pump (61) configured to motivate the second condenser conditioning fluid through the second fluid circuit (60, as taught in ¶ 26).
Matsumoto teaches limitations from claim 12 in fig. 1, shown above, the HVAC&R system of claim 1, wherein the second condenser tube bundle (of the circuit 60) is fluidly coupled to an air distribution system (heater 5, taught for space heating in ¶ 42 and thus equivalent to the air handler discussed above regarding the interpretation of this claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)) and configured to provide heat to the air distribution system via the second condenser conditioning fluid (as taught in ¶ 26).
Matsumoto teaches limitations from claim 13 in fig. 1, shown above, the HVAC&R system of claim 1, comprising a controller (control unit 110) configured to select to which of the first condenser conditioning fluid, the second condenser conditioning fluid, or both to supply heat from the working fluid via the multi-bundle condenser (with an example of such control discussed in ¶ 42).
Matsumoto teaches limitations from claim 14 in fig. 1, shown above, a vapor compression system comprising:
a multi-bundle condenser (20) comprising at least two condenser tube bundles (shown in fig. 1 with one connecting to the path 50 and another connecting to the path 60) and configured to selectively transfer heat from a working fluid to one or more condenser conditioning fluids of a set of condenser conditioning fluids (in the two fluid circuits 50 and 60), wherein the set of condenser conditioning fluids comprises:
a first condenser conditioning fluid (the water circulating in the path 50) operatively within a first condenser tube bundle (the upper bundle of the condenser 20) of the [at] least two condenser tube bundles, wherein the first condenser tube bundle is fluidly coupled to a cooling tower via a first fluid circuit (cooling tower 4 via the circuit 50); and
a second condenser conditioning fluid (the water circulating in the path 60) operatively within a second condenser tube bundle (the lower bundle of the condenser 20 shown in fig. 1) of the [at] least two condenser tube bundles (as shown in fig. 1 and taught in ¶ 20), wherein the second condenser tube bundle is fluidly coupled to an air distribution system via a second fluid circuit (connecting by the circuit 60 to a heater 5, taught for space heating in ¶ 42 and thus equivalent to the air handler discussed above regarding the interpretation of this claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)); and
a controller (control unit 110) configured to select the one or more condenser conditioning fluids from the set of condenser conditioning fluids based on a conditioning load of the air distribution system (with an example of such control discussed in ¶ 42, describing control based on whether or not the heater is to be used, for example based on the current season).
Matsumoto teaches limitations from claim 18 in fig. 1, shown above, a multi-bundle condenser (20) comprising:
a shell (shown in fig. 1); and
at least two condenser tube bundles disposed within the shell (as shown, one bundle connecting to the fluid path 50 and the other to the path 60) and configured to independently transfer heat from a working fluid of a vapor compression circuit (1) to one or more condenser conditioning fluids of a set of condenser conditioning fluids, wherein the set of condenser conditioning fluids comprises:
a first condenser conditioning fluid (the water circulating in the path 50) operatively within a first condenser tube bundle (the upper bundle of the condenser 20) of the [at] least two condenser tube bundles, wherein the first condenser tube bundle is fluidly coupled to a cooling tower via a first fluid circuit (cooling tower 4 via the circuit 50); and
(the water circulating in the path 60) operatively within a second condenser tube bundle (the lower bundle of the condenser 20 shown in fig. 1) of the [at] least two condenser tube bundles (as shown in fig. 1 and taught in ¶ 20), wherein the second condenser tube bundle is fluidly coupled to an air distribution system cooling tower (the cooling tower 4 which communicated with a heater 5 through the valves 100 and the subcooler 70 as shown in fig. 1 thus functioning as “an air distribution system cooling tower”) via a second fluid circuit (60).
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.
Claims 3, 5-8, 11, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of WIPO Publication No. 2020/176780 A1 to Kopko et al.
PNG
media_image2.png
348
686
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
404
382
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Matsumoto teaches a refrigeration cycle device having a condenser which includes two separate refrigerant-to-water heat exchange tube bundles disposed therein, a first bundle communicating heat from the condenser to a water circuit which circulates water to a cooling tower and a second bundle which circulates water to a space heating device. Matsumoto does not teach the second bundle having fewer tubes, smaller tubes, or both relative to the first as taught in claim 3, or the condenser being configured to transfer less heat to the second fluid via the second tube bundle relative to the first fluid and tube bundle as taught in claim 5. Kopko teaches in figs. 5 and 8, shown above, a condenser (102) for a refrigeration system in which a shell (220) is provided with a plurality of coil bundles (221 and 223 in the first condensing section 106A and 225 and 226 in the second condensing section 102B) provided such that a lower bundle of each section (223 or 226) has a smaller number of tubes than the corresponding upper bundle (221 or 225) as taught in claim 3. This smaller number of tubes presents a lower surface area for heat exchange between the refrigerant and the water flow therein than is provided by the larger number of tubes in the upper bundle, thus providing a lower transfer of heat as taught by claim 5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Matsumoto with the uneven numbers of fluid tubes taught by Kopko in order to adjust the relative amount of heat provided from the condenser to each of the water circulation paths, allowing their performance to be adjusted to suit the needs of a given installation.
Regarding claim 6, Matsumoto does not teach the “at least two condenser tube bundles” including a third bundle or the condenser being configured to selectively transfer heat from one or a combination of the first fluid, the second fluid, and a third fluid flowing in the third bundle. Kopko teaches in figs. 5 and 8, shown above, a condenser (102) combining two condensing sections (102A and 102B) in a single shell (220) provided with four separate coil bundles (221, 223, 225, and 226) each communicating with a flow of cooling fluid from a supply (101).
It would have been obvious to modify Matsumoto with one or more additional coil bundles (similar to the condenser arrangement taught by Kopko) in order to provide additional flows of water heated by the condenser for use of the heat rejected by the condenser, for example for providing additional heaters (5 as taught by Matsumoto) for heating additional spaces. Further, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) state that the mere duplication of parts within a system (such as providing an additional water circuit including an additional tube bundle in the system of Matsumoto) is a matter of routine skill in the art where no new or unexpected results are produced.
Matsumoto teaches limitations from claim 7 in fig. 1, shown above, the HVAC&R system (1) of claim 6, comprising an air distribution system (including the heater 5 and air conditioner 2 for transferring the heating and cooling of the refrigeration cycle to air) having one or more air handlers (the air conditioner 2 and heater 5).
Matsumoto does not teach the third condenser tube bundle being coupled to the air distribution system to provide heat to the system via the third condenser conditioning fluid. Refer to the above rejection of claim 5 regarding the duplication of parts resulting in the system including both the third condenser tube bundle and a corresponding heater.
Matsumoto teaches limitations from claim 8 in fig. 1, shown above, the HVAC&R system of claim 7, wherein the evaporator (40) is configured to provide a first evaporator conditioning fluid of the one or more evaporator conditioning fluids (the cold water from the circulation path 3 as taught in ¶ 22) to the air distribution system (particularly to the air conditioner 2), wherein the first evaporator conditioning fluid is chilled by the evaporator prior to being provided to the air distribution system (as taught in ¶ 22).
Regarding claim 11, Matsumoto teaches a refrigeration cycle device having a condenser which includes two separate refrigerant-to-water heat exchange tube bundles disposed therein, a first bundle communicating heat from the condenser to a water circuit which circulates water to a cooling tower and a second bundle which circulates water to a space heating device and particularly teaches in ¶ 63 that water may be circulated through both of these tube bundles at the same time. As discussed above with regard to claim 3, it would have been obvious to modify Matsumoto to include a third tube bundle and corresponding heater. One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed would have found it an obvious mechanical expedient in modifying Matsumoto to include an additional tube coil and water loop to configure the system to operate this system simultaneously with the existing loops both because Matsumoto already teaches simultaneous operation for the existing water paths of his system and in order to provide greater utility and user comfort by allowing for the simultaneous heating of multiple spaces.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Matsumoto does not teach that the set of condenser conditioning fluids includes a third fluid within a third condenser tube bundle as taught in claim 15, or this third tube bundle coupling to the cooling tower or to a second cooling tower by a third fluid circuit as taught in claim 16. Kopko teaches in figs. 5 and 8, shown above, a condenser (102) combining two condensing sections (102A and 102B) in a single shell (220) provided with four separate coil bundles (221, 223, 225, and 226) each communicating with a different flow of cooling fluid from a supply (101) and thus teaching the third fluid and third tube bundle as taught in claim 15.
It would have been obvious to modify Matsumoto with one or more additional coil bundles (similar to the condenser arrangement taught by Kopko) in order to provide additional flows of water heated by the condenser for use of the heat rejected by the condenser, for example for providing additional heaters (5 as taught by Matsumoto) for heating additional spaces or for rejecting additional heat via an additional cooling tower (4 as taught by Matsumoto) as taught in claim 16. Further, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) state that the mere duplication of parts within a system (such as providing an additional water circuit including an additional tube bundle and cooling tower in the system of Matsumoto) is a matter of routine skill in the art where no new or unexpected results are produced.
Regarding the limitations of claim 19, refer to the above rejections of claims 15 and 16.
Regarding claim 20, Matsumoto teaches a refrigeration cycle device having a condenser which includes two separate refrigerant-to-water heat exchange tube bundles disposed therein, a first bundle communicating heat from the condenser to a water circuit which circulates water to a cooling tower and a second bundle which circulates water to a space heating device. Matsumoto does not teach the third bundle having fewer tubes, smaller tubes, or both relative to the first as taught in claim 3. Kopko teaches in figs. 5 and 8, shown above, a condenser (102) for a refrigeration system in which a shell (220) is provided with a plurality of coil bundles (221 and 223 in the first condensing section 106A and 225 and 226 in the second condensing section 102B) provided such that a lower bundle of each section (223 or 226) has a smaller number of tubes than the corresponding upper bundle (221 or 225). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Matsumoto with the uneven numbers of fluid tubes taught by Kopko in order to adjust the relative amount of heat provided from the condenser to each of the water circulation paths, allowing their performance to be adjusted to suit the needs of a given installation.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto and Kopko as applied to claims 1, 2, and 6-8 above, and further in view of Japanese Publication No. H06-34236 A to Kano et al. An English translation of Kano has been provided with this Office Action and citations to specific passages and paragraphs of this reference are directed to this translation rather than to the Japanese-language original document.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Matsumoto teaches a refrigeration cycle device having an evaporator coupled to an air conditioner by a cold water circuit and a condenser which includes two separate refrigerant-to-water heat exchange tube bundles disposed therein, a first bundle communicating heat from the condenser to a water circuit which circulates water to a cooling tower and a second bundle which circulates water to a space heating device. Matsumoto does not teach the evaporator being a double bundle evaporator configured to provide heat to the refrigerant therein from a heat source via a second evaporator conditioning fluid as taught in claim 9, or this fluid being waste water as taught in claim 10.
PNG
media_image4.png
376
250
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kano teaches in fig. 1, shown above, a heat pump system having a condenser (4) and an evaporator (7) provided with two heat exchange tube bundles (as shown in fig. 1 and taught in ¶ 13) for cooling cold water provided to a cold water supply pipe (D) and absorbing heat from “sanitary sewage” in a sewage tube (B) (Abstract and ¶¶ 16-17) described in ¶ 18 as “dirty water” thus teaching “waste water” as taught in claim 10, and further referring to it as “a heat source” in ¶¶ 18-19 as taught in claim 9. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Matsumoto with the waste water heat recovery constructions for the evaporator taught by Kano in order to allow heat that would otherwise go to waste to be provided to users in a conditioned space in a heating operation, increasing the energy efficiency of the system.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto and Kopko as applied to claims 14-16 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2007/0101761 A1 to Yanik et al.
Regarding claim 17, Matsumoto teaches a refrigeration cycle device having an evaporator coupled to an air conditioner by a cold water circuit and a condenser which includes two separate refrigerant-to-water heat exchange tube bundles disposed therein, a first bundle communicating heat from the condenser to a water circuit which circulates water to a cooling tower and a second bundle which circulates water to a space heating device. Matsumoto does not teach the respective condenser fluids being provided to the first tube bundle by a “first fluid box” and being provided to the second tube bundle by a “second fluid box” which is physically separate from the first.
Yanik teaches in fig. 7, shown below, and in ¶¶ 30 and 36 and a heat exchanger assembly comprising a shell (201) and a plurality of tubes (601) wherein one subset of the plurality of tubes receives fluid from a first inlet header (203) to be distributed to the tubes to flow through to a first outlet header (205) and a second subset of the tubes receives fluid from a second inlet header (707) physically separate from the first inlet header (203) to flow through the tubes to a second outlet header (701), these inlet headers thus teaching the limitations taught in claim 17 for the “fluid boxes”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Matsumoto with the fluid inlet headers taught by Yanik in order to provide even distribution of fluid to the different tubes of the condenser of Matsumoto to achieve effective and efficient heating by fully utilizing the area of the tubes for the flow of the fluid and to effectively cool the refrigerant in the condenser.
PNG
media_image5.png
330
764
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C COMINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
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.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
