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 “wherein the one or more first outlets of the first header are configured at a third predefined angle with respect to a longitudinal axis or transverse axis of the first header, and the one or more second outlets of the second header are configured at a fourth predefined angle with respect to the longitudinal axis or transverse axis of the first header in claim 10, and wherein a cross-section of the bell-shaped outlet increases while moving in a direction away from the connection port in claim 15, wherein the one or more connection ports extend orthogonally between a top end of the first header and the second header in claim 17” 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.
Claim 10 recite the phrase “and/or” which renders the claim indefinite. This language is indefinite because it is not clear what is being claimed and what the scope is. No person of the ordinary skill in the art would know what “and/or” means with reasonable certainty. Therefore, the scope is unclear and for purposes of examination, the limitations that follow “and/or” will be considered in the alternative.
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, 11-13, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ring et al (US 20080163637 A1, hereinafter Ring).
Regarding claim 1, Ring teaches a distributor (distributor 28) for a shell-and-tube flooded evaporator (evaporator 18), the distributor comprising: a first header (distributor sections 64/66, figure 6) comprising one or more first outlets (outlets 48) located along a length at a bottom side of the first header (figures 2-4 and 6); and a second header (distributor sections 68/70, figure 6) comprising one or more second outlets (outlets 48) located along a length at a bottom side of the second header (figures 2-4 and 6), wherein the first header (distributor sections 64/66, figure 6) and the second header (distributor sections 68/70, figure 6) are configured to be disposed within a shell (as shown on figure 6) associated with the evaporator (evaporator 18) such that the first header and the second header extend along a length (as shown on figure 6), on opposite sides of an inner wall of the shell (as shown on figure 2), and the first header (distributor sections 64/66, figure 6) and the second header (distributor sections 68/70, figure 6) are fluidically connected to one or more refrigerant inlet tubes (line 34) provided on the shell (as shown on figure 6).
Further, it is understood, claim 1 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 2, Ring teaches wherein the distributor (distributor 28) is configured to receive a refrigerant (figure 6) within the first header and/or the second header (distributor sections 64/66/68/70, as shown on figure 6) and allow the refrigerant to flow along the length of the first header and the second header (figure 6) and flow within the shell in a downward direction via the corresponding first and second outlets (towards flanges 76, figure 6).
Further, it is understood, claim 2 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 3, Ring teaches wherein the second header (distributor sections 68/70, figure 6) is fluidically connected to the first header (distributor sections 64/66, figure 6) via one or more connection ports (conduit 72) extending between the first header and the second header (as shown on figure 6), and wherein the distributor (distributor 28) is configured to receive a refrigerant (refrigerant 24g, figure 6) within the first header and supply the refrigerant into the second header via the one or more connection ports (as shown on figure 6).
Further, it is understood, claim 3 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 11, Ring teaches wherein the one or more connection ports (conduit 72) are a hollow member (as shown on figure 5) having a rectangular profile or square profile (as shown on figures 5-6).
Regarding claim 12, Ring teaches wherein the one or more connection ports (conduit 72) are located adjacent to or in-line with an inlet of the first header or the inlet tube (in-line with sections 64/66 and inlet 26, as shown on figures 4 and 6).
Regarding claim 13, Ring teaches wherein the one or more connection ports (conduit 72) comprise a connection port (as shown on figure 6) centrally located between the first header and the second header (between sections 64/66 and 68/70, as shown on figure 6), the connection port extending orthogonally to a longitudinal axis of the first header and the second header (extending orthogonally to the longitudinal axis of sections 64/66 and 68/70, as shown on figure 6).
Regarding claim 16, Ring teaches wherein the one or more connection ports (conduit 72) extend orthogonally (as shown on figure 5) between a bottom end of the first header (sections 64/66, figure 5) and the second header (sections 68/70 on the opposite end of conduit 72, figure 5).
Regarding claim 17, Ring teaches wherein the one or more connection ports (conduit 72) extend orthogonally between a top end of the first header (top portion of sections 64/66 from distributor 60, as shown on figure 2) and the second header (top portion of sections 68/70 from distributor 40, as shown on figure 2).
Regarding claim 18, Ring teaches wherein the one or more connection ports (conduit 72) extend orthogonally between a middle section of the first header (middle portion of sections 64/66 from distributor 60, as shown on figure 2) and the second header (middle portion of sections 68/70 from distributor 40, as shown on figure 2).
Regarding claim 20, Ring teaches wherein the one or more first outlets (outlets 48) and the one or more second outlets (outlets 48) are offset from each other (as shown on figure 6).
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ring et al (US 20080163637 A1, hereinafter Ring) in view of Pitts et al (US 20160025416 A1, hereinafter Pitts).
Regarding claim 4, Ring teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the distributor is disposed at a bottom portion of the shell, and wherein the distributor is configured at a predefined height from a bottom-most point of the shell.
However, Pitts teaches wherein the distributor (distributor 230, figure 2) is disposed at a bottom portion of the shell (as shown on figure 2), and wherein the distributor (distributor 230, figure 2) is configured at a predefined height from a bottom-most point of the shell (as shown on figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the distributor in the teachings of Ring to include wherein the distributor is disposed at a bottom portion of the shell, and wherein the distributor is configured at a predefined height from a bottom-most point of the shell in view of the teachings of Pitts in order to yield the predictable result of allowing an arrangement and structure can help to obtain increased wettability and to provide displacement of refrigerant to obtain some relatively reduced refrigerant charge in the shell of the evaporator.
Further, it is understood, claim 4 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured at...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach further comprising a plurality of tubes (tube bundle 240 of Pitts) associated with the evaporator (evaporator 210 of Pitts), wherein a first set of tubes of the plurality of tubes remains or extends below the distributor (below distributor 230, as shown on figure 2 of Pitts).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach further comprising a plurality of tubes (tube bundle 240 of Pitts) associated with the evaporator (evaporator 210 of Pitts), wherein the plurality of tubes (tube bundle 240 of Pitts) remains or extends above the one or more connection ports or the distributor (above distributor 230, as shown on figure 2 of Pitts).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ring et al (US 20080163637 A1, hereinafter Ring) in view of Kang et al (US 20150168035 A1, hereinafter Kang).
Regarding claim 7, Ring teaches wherein the one or more connection ports (conduit 72) extends parallel to the plane (as shown on figure 2).
Ring teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein a first side of each of the first header and the second header are oriented at a first predefined angle, in opposite directions, with respect to a plane, the plane extending tangentially along a bottom-most point of the shell.
However, Kang teaches wherein a first side (area 450, figure 8) of each of the first header (left side header, figure 8) and the second header (right side header, figure 8) are oriented at a first predefined angle (90 degrees or more, paragraph 0082), in opposite directions (figure 8), with respect to a plane (lower plane of evaporator 20), the plane extending tangentially along a bottom-most point of the shell (horizontally in relation to evaporator 20),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the distributor in the teachings of Ring to include wherein a first side of each of the first header and the second header are oriented at a first predefined angle, in opposite directions, with respect to a plane, the plane extending tangentially along a bottom-most point of the shell in view of the teachings of Kang in order to yield the predictable result of extending in a same direction as the direction of gravity, so that refrigerant may drop vertically from the plurality of refrigerant dropping devices.
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach wherein the first predefined angle is greater than or equal to 10 degrees (90 degrees or more, paragraph 0082 of Kang).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach wherein a second side (area 440, figure 8 of Kang), opposite to the first side (figure 8 of Kang), of each of the first header (left side header, figure 8 of Kang) and the second header (right side header, figure 8 of Kang) are oriented at a second predefined angle (90 degrees or more, paragraph 0082 of Kang) with respect to the plane (lower plane of evaporator 20 of Kang).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach wherein the one or more first outlets (outlets 48 of Ring) of the first header (distributor sections 64/66, figure 6 of Ring) are configured at a third predefined angle (angled downwards with respect to sections 64/66, as shown on figure 6 of Ring) with respect to a longitudinal axis or transverse axis of the first header (distributor sections 64/66, figure 6 of Ring), and the one or more second outlets (outlets 48 of Ring) of the second header (distributor sections 68/70, figure 6 of Ring) are configured at a fourth predefined angle (angled downwards with respect to sections 64/66, as shown on figure 6 of Ring) with respect to the longitudinal axis or transverse axis of the first header (distributor sections 64/66, figure 6 of Ring).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ring et al (US 20080163637 A1, hereinafter Ring) in view of Dingle et al (US 5836382 A, hereinafter Dingle).
Regarding claim 19, Ring teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the one or more first outlets and the one or more second outlets are in line.
However, Dingle teaches wherein the one or more first outlets (orifices 84, figure 5) and the one or more second outlets (orifices 84, figure 5) are in line (as shown on figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the distributor in the teachings of Ring to include wherein the one or more first outlets and the one or more second outlets are in line in view of the teachings of Dingle in order to yield the predictable result of optimizing to enhance the distribution of refrigerant along the length of shell.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 14, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Ring et al (US 20080163637 A1). The prior art of record when considered as a whole, alone, or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “wherein an end, adjacent to the first header of the connection port has a bell-shaped inlet, and wherein a cross-section of the bell-shaped inlet reduces while moving in a direction toward the connection port”. The closest prior art, Ring teaches a shell-and-tube evaporator of a refrigerant system includes a refrigerant inlet distributor that traps a pocket of gaseous refrigerant to displace liquid refrigerant underneath the evaporator's tube bundle, thereby reducing the total charge of refrigerant in the evaporator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIO DELEON whose telephone number is (571)272-8687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/DARIO ANTONIO DELEON/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights