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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/31/2025 has been entered.
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed 12/31/2025. Claims 2, 4-12, 16 and 26-32 are cancelled. The drawing objections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. The 35 U.S.C 102 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. Claims 1, 3, 13-15 and 17-25 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 currently recites “The equipment according to claim 2…”, wherein claim 2 is canceled. The claim is interpreted as depending from claim 1 for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. (US 20180087809 A1, hereinafter “Ueda”) and further in view of Fernando (US 10612821 B1).
Regarding Claim 19, Ueda teaches a refrigeration method for cooling the inside of a container [refrigerator 10; Fig. 1], which uses an air current as a working fluid [¶ 0091; air may be the refrigerant] and comprises the steps of:
a. compressing, to increase the pressure of the air current [C1, C2, C3; ¶ 0075],
b. expanding [via expander T], to reduce the temperature of the previously compressed air current [¶ 0077], at the same time that mechanical energy is obtained by means of reducing the pressure of said air current [¶ 0078-0079; turbine T and compressor C2 are connected via output shaft 20a to reduce the power required from motor M1],
c. refrigerating, to allow an exchange of thermal energy between the air current resulting from the expansion step and the inside of the container [Abstract],
d. regenerating [via heat exchanger 30], to allow an exchange of thermal energy between the air current resulting from the compression step and the air current resulting from the refrigeration step, increasing the temperature of the air current resulting from the refrigeration step and reducing the temperature of the current resulting from the compression step [¶ 0084-0085].
Ueda does not explicitly further teach the method further comprising: directing a primary flow of coolant in liquid state towards a first cooler, to receive thermal energy of the air current, such that the coolant in liquid state transitions to a gaseous state; directing a secondary flow of coolant in liquid state towards a second cooler, to receive thermal energy of the air current, such that the coolant transitions to a gaseous state; mixing the primary and second flow of coolant into a single coolant current; throttling back and increasing the pressure of the coolant current; and reducing the temperature of the coolant current such that it changes from the gas phase to the liquid phase.
However, Fernando teaches a heat pump system [Fig. 5b] wherein the system comprises a pump [37] directing refrigerant along a path [38] towards a first cooler [31a] to receive thermal energy and transition to a gaseous state [Col. 16, 1-19], and a throttling valve [16] for directing a secondary flow of coolant towards a second cooler [22] to be evaporated [Col. 10, 8-22]. Fernando further teaches an ejector [60] comprising a nozzle [60a] receiving refrigerant from the first cooler to expand the flow into a mixing chamber [Col. 5, 17-37; Fig. 5b], and an intake [60b] connected to the second cooler [via lines 23, 24, 26, 6, 8, 9 and 11; Fig. 5b; apparent from inspection; Col. 5, 17-37], wherein the inputs of ports 60a and 60b are mixed before discharge [via port 60c] through the diffuser portion [66] of the ejector [Fig. 1b] to increase the mixed stream’s pressure [Col. 5, 26-37]. Fernando further teaches a condenser [14] configured to condense liquid exiting from the ejector port [60c], thus cooling to a liquid [Col. 10, 8-22]. Fernando further teaches that incorporating an ejector improves the system by reducing energy cost of the production of condensate, thus improving the system [Col. 9, 1-22]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the ejector cycle as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the ejector cycle 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. incorporating an ejector improves the system by reducing energy cost of the production of condensate, thus improving the system [Col. 9, 1-22].
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 Ueda to have the method further comprising: directing a primary flow of coolant in liquid state towards a first cooler, to receive thermal energy of the air current, such that the coolant in liquid state transitions to a gaseous state; directing a secondary flow of coolant in liquid state towards a second cooler, to receive thermal energy of the air current, such that the coolant transitions to a gaseous state; mixing the primary and second flow of coolant into a single coolant current; throttling back and increasing the pressure of the coolant current; and reducing the temperature of the coolant current such that it changes from the gas phase to the liquid phase., in view of the teachings of Fernando, 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. incorporating an ejector improves the system by reducing energy cost of the production of condensate, thus improving the system.
Regarding claim 20, Ueda, as modified, teaches the refrigeration method according to claim 19 above and Ueda teaches wherein the compression step is performed in phases [¶ 0075; C1, C2, C3], alternating a compression phase with a cooling phase of the working air, in which one or more coolers remove heat from the air current [¶ 0081-0082; Hx1 and Hx2 are disposed between the compressors to cool refrigerant].
Regarding Claim 21, Ueda, as modified, teaches the refrigeration method according to claim 20 above and Ueda teaches wherein the cooling phase comprises the use of at least two coolers [¶ 0081-0082; Hx1, Hx2], in which the coolers operate like a heat recovery unit or an evaporator [¶ 0081-0082; the heat exchanger cools refrigerant discharged from the compressors],
and Fernando teaches wherein the coolers [31a, 22] are connected with an ejection circuit [Col. 19, 47-58; Fig. 5b].
Regarding Claim 22, Ueda teaches a refrigeration method [Fig. 1] for the ultra-rapid charging of batteries of electric or hybrid drive systems for cooling a coolant circulating through a refrigeration circuit which surrounds batteries and electronic components of a vehicle with an electric or hybrid drive system, and/or through a refrigeration circuit of a supercharger for the batteries of the drive system [Statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02, §2112.02 and 2114-2115], which uses an environmental air current as a working fluid [¶ 0091; air may be the refrigerant] and comprising the steps of:
a. compressing, to increase the pressure of the air current [C1, C2, C3; ¶ 0075],
b. expanding [via expander T], to reduce the temperature of the previously compressed air current [¶ 0077], at the same time that mechanical energy is obtained by means of reducing the pressure of said air current [¶ 0078-0079; turbine T and compressor C2 are connected via output shaft 20a to reduce the power required from motor M1],
c. refrigerating, to allow an exchange of thermal energy between the air current resulting from the expansion step and the coolant of the refrigeration circuit [Abstract],
d. regenerating [via heat exchanger 30], to allow an exchange of thermal energy between the air current resulting from the compression step and the air current resulting from the refrigeration step, increasing the temperature of the air current resulting from the refrigeration step and reducing the temperature of the current resulting from the compression step [¶ 0084-0085].
Ueda does not explicitly further teach the method further comprising: directing a primary flow of coolant in liquid state towards a first cooler, to receive thermal energy of the air current, such that the coolant in liquid state transitions to a gaseous state; directing a secondary flow of coolant in liquid state towards a second cooler, to receive thermal energy of the air current, such that the coolant transitions to a gaseous state; mixing the primary and second flow of coolant into a single coolant current; throttling back and increasing the pressure of the coolant current; and reducing the temperature of the coolant current such that it changes from the gas phase to the liquid phase.
However, Fernando teaches a heat pump system [Fig. 5b] wherein the system comprises a pump [37] directing refrigerant along a path [38] towards a first cooler [31a] to receive thermal energy and transition to a gaseous state [Col. 16, 1-19], and a throttling valve [16] for directing a secondary flow of coolant towards a second cooler [22] to be evaporated [Col. 10, 8-22]. Fernando further teaches an ejector [60] comprising a nozzle [60a] receiving refrigerant from the first cooler to expand the flow into a mixing chamber [Col. 5, 17-37; Fig. 5b], and an intake [60b] connected to the second cooler [via lines 23, 24, 26, 6, 8, 9 and 11; Fig. 5b; apparent from inspection; Col. 5, 17-37], wherein the inputs of ports 60a and 60b are mixed before discharge [via port 60c] through the diffuser portion [66] of the ejector [Fig. 1b] to increase the mixed stream’s pressure [Col. 5, 26-37]. Fernando further teaches a condenser [14] configured to condense liquid exiting from the ejector port [60c], thus cooling to a liquid [Col. 10, 8-22]. Fernando further teaches that incorporating an ejector improves the system by reducing energy cost of the production of condensate, thus improving the system [Col. 9, 1-22]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the ejector cycle as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the ejector cycle 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. incorporating an ejector improves the system by reducing energy cost of the production of condensate, thus improving the system [Col. 9, 1-22].
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 Ueda to have the method further comprising: directing a primary flow of coolant in liquid state towards a first cooler, to receive thermal energy of the air current, such that the coolant in liquid state transitions to a gaseous state; directing a secondary flow of coolant in liquid state towards a second cooler, to receive thermal energy of the air current, such that the coolant transitions to a gaseous state; mixing the primary and second flow of coolant into a single coolant current; throttling back and increasing the pressure of the coolant current; and reducing the temperature of the coolant current such that it changes from the gas phase to the liquid phase, in view of the teachings of Fernando, 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. incorporating an ejector improves the system by reducing energy cost of the production of condensate, thus improving the system.
Regarding claim 23, Ueda, as modified, teaches the refrigeration method according to claim 22 above and Ueda teaches wherein the compression step is performed in phases [¶ 0075; C1, C2, C3], alternating a compression phase with a cooling phase of the working air, in which one or more coolers remove heat from the air current [¶ 0081-0082; Hx1 and Hx2 are disposed between the compressors to cool refrigerant].
Regarding Claim 24, Ueda, as modified, teaches the refrigeration method according to claim 23 above and Ueda teaches wherein the cooling phase comprises the use of at least two coolers [¶ 0081-0082; Hx1, Hx2], in which the coolers operate like a heat recovery unit or an evaporator [¶ 0081-0082; the heat exchanger cools refrigerant discharged from the compressors].
and Fernando teaches wherein the coolers [31a, 22] are connected with an ejection circuit [Col. 19, 47-58; Fig. 5b].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 13-15, 17-18 and 25 allowed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Examiner’s Statement of Reasons for Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for Indication of Allowable Subject Matter:
As per independent Claim 1, the closest prior art, Ueda et al. (US 20180087809 A1) and Fernando (US 10612821 B1), does not teach the device as recited, in particular “…an ejector comprising a nozzle which receives the primary flow of coolant in gaseous state of the first cooler and accelerates said primary flow of coolant in gaseous state to the mixing area…,” when added to the other features claimed in independent Claim 1. Also, the prior art of record fails to provide further teachings or motivation to modify the device of Ueda to arrive at the claimed invention.
It would not be obvious to modify the prior art structure to have the apparatus as claimed without improper hindsight. Therefore, Claim 1 and all claims depending therefrom are currently allowable.
As per independent Claim 25, the closest prior art, Ueda et al. (US 20180087809 A1) and Fernando (US 10612821 B1), does not teach the device as recited, in particular “…an ejector comprising a nozzle which receives the primary flow of coolant in gaseous state of the first cooler and accelerates said primary flow of coolant in gaseous state to the mixing area…,” when added to the other features claimed in independent Claim 25. Also, the prior art of record fails to provide further teachings or motivation to modify the device of Ueda to arrive at the claimed invention.
It would not be obvious to modify the prior art structure to have the apparatus as claimed without improper hindsight. Therefore, Claim 25 and all claims depending therefrom are currently allowable.
Response to Arguments
On pages 21-22 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims overcome the 102 rejections. Applicant' s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, a combination of prior art with Fernando is found to teach the amended claim limitations.
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