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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed February 02nd, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 9-10, 12-21, and 29-53 remain pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
Claim 1, line 7: “expansion device” draws corresponding structure to “For example, continuing the example of air conditioning system 100, as the sub-cooled refrigerant liquid 109 passes through the throttling device 115 (e.g., as a TXV) (Pg. 24, paragraph 100)”, or equivalents.
Claim 20, line 12: “expansion device” draws corresponding structure to “For example, continuing the example of air conditioning system 100, as the sub-cooled refrigerant liquid 109 passes through the throttling device 115 (e.g., as a TXV) (Pg. 24, paragraph 100)”, or equivalents.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1, 9-10, 12-21, and 29-53 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.
Claim 1, lines 19-22 recite, “the plurality of loops comprising a subset of the plurality of tubing rows and are integral with but fluidly decoupled from another subset of the plurality of tubing rows of the cooling coil that receive the liquid phase of the refrigerant at the second pressure” which is unclear to the Examiner as to how the subset of the plurality of tubing rows can be both integral and fluidly decoupled from the another subset of the plurality of tubing rows. Further, the Figures depict all of the refrigerant lines to be in fluid communication with one another through at least valves and other system components. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to simply require a cooling coil with one subset of tubing rows used as an evaporator and another subset of tubing rows used as a subcooler.
Claim 20, lines 15-18 recite, “circulating the portion of the liquid phase through a plurality of loops of the heat exchanger that are submerged in the liquid condensate captured in the condensate receiver from the evaporator, the plurality of loops comprising a second subset of the plurality of tubing rows that are integral with but fluidly decoupled from the first subset of the plurality of tubing rows” which is unclear to the Examiner as to how the second subset of the plurality of tubing rows can be both integral and fluidly decoupled from the first subset of the plurality of tubing rows. Further, the Figures depict all of the refrigerant lines to be in fluid communication with one another through at least valves and other system components. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to simply require a cooling coil with a first subset of tubing rows used as an evaporator and a second subset of tubing rows used as a subcooler.
The term “near” in claim 43 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The distance between the second inlet and a top level of the liquid condensate is rendered indefinite by the use of the term “near”. The distance between the second outlet and a bottom level of the liquid condensate is also rendered indefinite by the use of the term “near”. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret any distance between the second inlet and a top level of the liquid condensate and any distance between the second outlet and a bottom level of the liquid condensate to meet the claim limitations.
The term “near” in claim 50 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The distance between the second inlet and a top level of the liquid condensate is rendered indefinite by the use of the term “near”. The distance between the second outlet and a bottom level of the liquid condensate is also rendered indefinite by the use of the term “near”. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret any distance between the second inlet and a top level of the liquid condensate and any distance between the second outlet and a bottom level of the liquid condensate to meet the claim limitations.
Claims 9, 12, 16-17, 19, 37-38, 42, 44, and 46-47 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 10 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 9.
Claim 13 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 12.
Claims 14-15 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 13.
Claim 18 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 17.
Claims 21, 29, 33-34, 36, 39-40, 48-49, and 51-53 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 20.
Claim 30 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 29.
Claims 31-32 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 30.
Claim 35 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 34.
Claim 43 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 42.
Claim 45 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 44.
Claim 50 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 49.
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 1, 9-10, 20-21, 37-39, 41-43, 47-50, and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobmeier et al. (US 20050166614), hereinafter Dobmeier in view of Choi at al. (KR 20120018520), hereinafter Choi, Jo (KR 200337948), hereinafter Jo, and Uselton (US Patent No. 9,879,888), hereinafter Uselton.
Regarding claim 1, Dobmeier discloses an air conditioning system (Fig. 2, vapor compression system 20), comprising:
at least one compressor (Fig. 2, compressor 22) configured to compress a refrigerant in a vapor phase (compressor 22 of Dobmeier has the same structure as the claimed compressor and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed);
a condenser (Fig. 2, condenser 24) fluidly coupled to the at least one compressor to receive the compressed vapor phase of the refrigerant and configured to change the compressed vapor phase of the refrigerant to a liquid phase of the refrigerant by transferring heat from the compressed vapor phase of the refrigerant to a cooling fluid (Fig. 2, external fluid medium 30; Pg. 2, paragraph 22, The refrigerant exits the compressor 22 at a high pressure and a high enthalpy. The refrigerant then flows through the condenser 24 at a high pressure. An external fluid medium 30, such as water or air, also flows through the condenser 24 and exchanges heat with the refrigerant flowing through the condenser 24. In the condenser 24, the refrigerant rejects heat into the external fluid medium 30, and the refrigerant exits the condenser 24 at a relatively low enthalpy and a high pressure);
an expansion device (Fig. 2, expansion device 26) fluidly coupled to the condenser with a liquid line to receive the liquid phase of the refrigerant and configured to expand the liquid phase of the refrigerant from a first pressure to a second pressure lower than the first pressure (Pg. 2, paragraph 23, The refrigerant then passes through the expansion device 26, which expands the refrigerant, reducing its pressure and temperature. The expansion device 26 can be a mechanical expansion device (TXV), an electronic expansion valve (EXV) or other type of known expansion device);
an evaporator (Fig. 2, evaporator 28) fluidly coupled to the expansion device to receive the liquid phase of the refrigerant at the second pressure and configured to transfer heat from an airflow circulated through the evaporator to the liquid phase of the refrigerant at the second pressure to change at least a portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant at the second pressure to the vapor phase of the refrigerant (Fig. 2, air stream 44; Pg. 2, paragraph 24, After expansion, the refrigerant flows through the evaporator 28 and exits at a relatively high enthalpy and a low pressure. In the evaporator 28, the refrigerant absorbs heat from the air stream 44) and change at least a portion of water vapor in the airflow into a liquid condensate (Fig. 2, cold condensate 58; Pg. 2, paragraph 24, When the refrigerant exchanges heat with the air stream 44 in the evaporator 28, moisture is removed from the air stream 44 and forms a cold condensate 58 that collects in a condensate pan 60);
a heat exchanger (Fig. 2, refrigerant line 78) fluidly coupled to the liquid line to receive at least a first portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant from the condenser upstream of the expansion device (Pg. 2, paragraph 27, After exiting the condenser 24, the liquid refrigerant flows through the refrigerant line 78), the heat exchanger at least partially immersed in the liquid condensate captured in a condensate receiver from the evaporator (Fig. 2, condensate pan 60; Pg. 2, paragraph 27, The refrigerant line 78 exiting the condenser 24 is positioned at least partially in the condensate pan 60) and configured to sub-cool the first portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant to a first density based on a transfer of heat from the portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant to the liquid condensate (Pg. 2, paragraph 27, After exiting the condenser 24, the liquid refrigerant flows through the refrigerant line 78 and is further subcooled by the cold condensate 58 collected in the condensate pan 60. The subcooled refrigerant then flows through the expansion device 26 and is expanded to a low pressure and temperature).
However, Dobmeier does not explicitly disclose the evaporator comprising a cooling coil that comprises a plurality of tubing rows; and
the heat exchanger comprising a plurality of loops that are submerged in the liquid condensate captured in the condensate receiver from the evaporator, the plurality of loops comprising a subset of the plurality of tubing rows and are integral with but fluidly decoupled from another subset of the plurality of tubing rows of the cooling coil that receive the liquid phase of the refrigerant at the second pressure.
Choi teaches an evaporator comprising a cooling coil that comprises a plurality of tubing rows (Fig. 2, indoor heat exchanger 130, Fig. 3, paths 1 through n); and
the heat exchanger comprising a plurality of loops that are submerged in the liquid condensate captured in the condensate receiver from the evaporator (Fig. 3 of Choi depicts subcooling part 133 of indoor heat exchanger 130 to be disposed in drain unit 150), the plurality of loops comprising a subset of the plurality of tubing rows and are integral with but fluidly decoupled from another subset of the plurality of tubing rows of the cooling coil that receive the liquid phase of the refrigerant at the second pressure (Fig. 3 of Choi depicts heat exchanger part 132, which acts as an evaporator in the cooling mode, to be integral with subcooling part 133; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the generic evaporator and heat exchanger of Dobmeier to be an integrated cooling coil with separate subset of coils for evaporation and subcooling as taught by Choi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because when the optimal subcooling portion is properly included in the indoor heat exchanger, the performance of the air conditioning system is improved (Pg. 9, paragraph 81). Further, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the generic evaporator and heat exchanger of Dobmeier an integrated heat exchanger, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article that has formerly been formed in more than one piece and put together involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”) MPEP 2144.04-V-B.
Moreover, Dobmeier as modified does not disclose the condensate receiver comprising a port positioned on a side of the condensate receiver above a level of the plurality of loops of the heat exchanger submerged in the liquid condensate, the port configured to drain the liquid condensate from the condensate receiver.
Jo teaches the condensate receiver comprising a port positioned on a side of the condensate receiver above a level of the plurality of loops of the heat exchanger submerged in the liquid condensate, the port configured to drain the liquid condensate from the condensate receiver (Fig. 4, outlet 32; Fig. 5, drip tray 4, drain pipe 5, internal heat exchanger 27, heat exchanger inner coil 28; Pg. 3, The coolant gas passing through the heat exchanger inner coil 28 of the heat exchanger 27 installed inside the indoor unit main body 1 and the low temperature condensed water generated from the evaporation coil 10 during the cooling process are received by the drip tray 4. Collected water is supplied to the inlet of a heat exchanger made of the heat exchange process in the internal heat exchanger (27). The heat-condensed condensate changes into hot water and condensation causes the hot water to stay on top of the heat exchanger 27, and the drain pipe connected to the outlet 32 of the heat exchanger by the condensate supplied to the inlet 31 of the heat exchanger. When the liquid refrigerant, which is discarded through (5) and heat-exchanged using condensate, is supercooled, the amount of fresh gas is reduced after passing through the expansion valve (11) to increase the freezing capacity through the heat exchange of the evaporation coil (10)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the condensate receiver of the system of Dobmeier as modified to include a port positioned on a side of the condensate receiver above a level of the plurality of loops of the heat exchanger submerged in the liquid condensate, the port configured to drain the liquid condensate from the condensate receiver as taught by Jo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve efficiency and energy savings (Jo, Pg. 3).
Further, Dobmeier as modified does not disclose a modulating valve mounted in the liquid line between the condenser and the expansion device, the modulating valve controllable to (i) circulate the first portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant to the heat exchanger, through the heat exchanger, and to an inlet of the expansion device, and (ii) while the first portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant is circulated to the heat exchanger, bypass a second portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant at a second density less than the first density to the inlet of the expansion device without entering the heat exchanger such that a mixture of the sub-cooled first portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant and the second portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant enters the expansion device.
Uselton teaches a modulating valve (Fig. 1, switch 140) mounted in the liquid line between the condenser and the expansion device (Col. 4, lines 27-32, In some implementations, the air conditioner 100 may include a metering device (not shown), such as a thermal expansion valve. The liquid refrigerant may be allowed to at least partially pass from the auxiliary heat exchanger 130 and/or condenser 120 through the thermal expansion valve; Further, the description of the thermal expansion valve implies it is located downstream of the bypass branch 135 and upstream of the evaporator 105, therefore the switch 140 is located on the liquid line 135 between the condenser 120 and the thermal expansion device), the modulating valve controllable to (i) circulate the first portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant to the heat exchanger, through the heat exchanger, and to an inlet of the expansion device (Col. 4, lines 9-27, For example, the air conditioner 100 may include a switch 140 that allows fluid flow (e.g., at least a part of the refrigerant from the condenser and/or at least a part of the air from the condenser fan) to be directed to and/or bypass the auxiliary heat exchanger 130. A controller (e.g., a computer) may determine whether to allow fluid flow to the auxiliary heat exchanger 130. For example, a controller may respond to a user request for operation of the auxiliary heat exchanger 130. In some implementation, a controller may determine whether to operate the auxiliary heat exchanger 130 based on a request from a user (e.g., when cooling is requested by a user during high ambient temperatures, such as above 85° F.). An air conditioner may include a default setting, such as to allow operation of the auxiliary heat exchanger 130 and/or to restrict operation of the air conditioner without use of the auxiliary heat exchanger. In some implementations, at least a part of the refrigerant may bypass the auxiliary heat exchanger and flow to the evaporator), and (ii) while the first portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant is circulated to the heat exchanger, bypass a second portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant at a second density less than the first density to the inlet of the expansion device without entering the heat exchanger (Col. 4, lines 9-27, For example, the air conditioner 100 may include a switch 140 that allows fluid flow (e.g., at least a part of the refrigerant from the condenser and/or at least a part of the air from the condenser fan) to be directed to and/or bypass the auxiliary heat exchanger 130. A controller (e.g., a computer) may determine whether to allow fluid flow to the auxiliary heat exchanger 130. For example, a controller may respond to a user request for operation of the auxiliary heat exchanger 130. In some implementation, a controller may determine whether to operate the auxiliary heat exchanger 130 based on a request from a user (e.g., when cooling is requested by a user during high ambient temperatures, such as above 85° F.). An air conditioner may include a default setting, such as to allow operation of the auxiliary heat exchanger 130 and/or to restrict operation of the air conditioner without use of the auxiliary heat exchanger. In some implementations, at least a part of the refrigerant may bypass the auxiliary heat exchanger and flow to the evaporator; Further, the portion of refrigerant that is not subcooled will inherently have a lower density than the portion that is subcooled) such that a mixture of the sub-cooled first portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant and the second portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant enters the expansion device (Col. 4, lines 27-32, In some implementations, the air conditioner 100 may include a metering device (not shown), such as a thermal expansion valve. The liquid refrigerant may be allowed to at least partially pass from the auxiliary heat exchanger 130 and/or condenser 120 through the thermal expansion valve; Further, the description of the thermal expansion valve implies it is located downstream of the bypass branch 135 and upstream of the evaporator 105, therefore the switch 140 is located on the liquid line 135 between the condenser 120 and the thermal expansion device. Moreover, when a portion of the refrigerant bypasses the auxiliary heat exchanger 130 while another portion is routed through the auxiliary heat exchanger 130 the two stream would be combined in the thermal expansion before being routed to the evaporator 105).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air conditioning system of Dobmeier of as modified to include a modulating valve as taught by Uselton. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for optional increase refrigeration capacity in high ambient temperatures (Uselton, Col. 4, lines 17-21).
PNG
media_image1.png
558
1237
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Uselton
Regarding claim 9, Dobmeier as modified discloses the system of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Dobmeier does not disclose wherein the heat exchanger comprises a liquid refrigerant inlet directly fluidly coupled to an outlet the condenser and a liquid refrigerant outlet directly coupled to an inlet of the expansion device.
Uselton teaches wherein the heat exchanger comprises a liquid refrigerant inlet (See annotated Fig. 1 of Uselton below, liquid refrigerant inlet D) directly fluidly coupled to an outlet the condenser (See annotated Fig. 2 of Uselton below, liquid refrigerant inlet D is depicted to be to be directly fluidly coupled to an outlet the condenser 120) and a liquid refrigerant outlet (See annotated Fig. 1 of Uselton below, liquid refrigerant outlet E) directly coupled to an inlet of the expansion device (See annotated Fig. 1 of Uselton below, liquid refrigerant outlet E is directly coupled to an inlet of the thermal expansion valve based on the description of the thermal expansion valve’s placement being located downstream of the bypass branch 135 and upstream of the evaporator 105).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dobmeier of as modified wherein the heat exchanger comprises a liquid refrigerant inlet directly fluidly coupled to an outlet the condenser and a liquid refrigerant outlet directly coupled to an inlet of the expansion device as taught by Uselton. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for optional increase refrigeration capacity in high ambient temperatures (Uselton, Col. 4, lines 17-21).
PNG
media_image1.png
558
1237
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Uselton
Regarding claim 10, Dobmeier as modified discloses the system of claim 9 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 9 above), wherein the modulating valve is positioned in the liquid line between the liquid refrigerant inlet and the liquid refrigerant outlet (See annotated Fig. 1 of Uselton below, switch 140 is located between liquid refrigerant inlet D and the liquid refrigerant outlet E). Further, the limitations of claim 10 are a result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 9 above.
PNG
media_image1.png
558
1237
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Uselton
Regarding claim 20, Dobmeier discloses method for sub-cooling a refrigerant in an air conditioning system (Fig. 2, vapor compression system 20), comprising:
Circulating a liquid phase of a refrigerant through an evaporator (Fig. 2, evaporator 28, Pg. 2, paragraph 24, After expansion, the refrigerant flows through the evaporator 28 and exits at a relatively high enthalpy and a low pressure. In the evaporator 28, the refrigerant absorbs heat from the air stream 44);
compressing the refrigerant in a vapor phase with at least one compressor (Fig. 2, compressor 22; Pg. 2, paragraph 22, The refrigerant exits the compressor 22 at a high pressure and a high enthalpy);
circulating the compressed vapor phase of the refrigerant from the at least one compressor to a condenser (Fig. 2, condenser 24; Pg. 2, paragraph 22, The refrigerant then flows through the condenser 24 at a high pressure);
changing the compressed vapor phase of the refrigerant to a liquid phase of the refrigerant in the condenser by transferring heat from the compressed vapor phase of the refrigerant to a cooling fluid (Fig. 2, external fluid medium 30; Pg. 2, paragraph 22, An external fluid medium 30, such as water or air, also flows through the condenser 24 and exchanges heat with the refrigerant flowing through the condenser 24. In the condenser 24, the refrigerant rejects heat into the external fluid medium 30, and the refrigerant exits the condenser 24 at a relatively low enthalpy and a high pressure);
an expansion device (Fig. 2, expansion device 26);
circulating at least a first portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant from the condenser to a heat exchanger that is at least partially immersed in a liquid condensate captured in a condensate receiver of an evaporator (Fig. 2, refrigerant line 78, evaporator 28; Pg. 2, paragraph 27, The refrigerant line 78 exiting the condenser 24 is positioned at least partially in the condensate pan 60. After exiting the condenser 24, the liquid refrigerant flows through the refrigerant line 78);
sub-cooling the first portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant in the heat exchanger to a first density (Pg. 2, paragraph 27, After exiting the condenser 24, the liquid refrigerant flows through the refrigerant line 78 and is further subcooled by the cold condensate 58 collected in the condensate pan 60. The subcooled refrigerant then flows through the expansion device 26 and is expanded to a low pressure and temperature);
circulating the sub-cooled first portion of the liquid phase to the expansion device through the liquid line (Pg. 2, paragraph 23, The refrigerant then passes through the expansion device 26, which expands the refrigerant, reducing its pressure and temperature. The expansion device 26 can be a mechanical expansion device (TXV), an electronic expansion valve (EXV) or other type of known expansion device).
However, Dobmeier does not disclose the evaporator to comprise a plurality of tubing rows, the liquid phase circulated through a first subset of the plurality of tubing rows; and
circulating the portion of the liquid phase through a plurality of loops of the heat exchanger that are submerged in the liquid condensate captured in the condensate receiver from the evaporator, the plurality of loops comprising a second subset of the plurality of tubing rows that are integral with but fluidly decoupled from the first subset of the plurality of tubing rows.
Choi teaches the evaporator to comprise a plurality of tubing rows, the liquid phase circulated through a first subset of the plurality of tubing rows (Fig. 2, indoor heat exchanger 130, Fig. 3, paths 1 through n, heat exchanger part 132 comprising paths 1-n which act as an evaporator in the cooling mode); and
circulating the portion of the liquid phase through a plurality of loops of the heat exchanger that are submerged in the liquid condensate captured in the condensate receiver from the evaporator (Fig. 3 of Choi depicts subcooling part 133 of indoor heat exchanger 130 to be disposed in drain unit 150), the plurality of loops comprising a second subset of the plurality of tubing rows that are integral with but fluidly decoupled from the first subset of the plurality of tubing rows (Fig. 3 of Choi depicts heat exchanger part 132, which acts as an evaporator in the cooling mode, to be integral with subcooling part 133; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the generic evaporator and heat exchanger of Dobmeier to be an integrated cooling coil with separate subset of coils for evaporation and subcooling as taught by Choi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because when the optimal subcooling portion is properly included in the indoor heat exchanger, the performance of the air conditioning system is improved (Pg. 9, paragraph 81). Further, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the generic evaporator and heat exchanger of Dobmeier an integrated heat exchanger, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article that has formerly been formed in more than one piece and put together involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”) MPEP 2144.04-V-B.
However, Dobmeier does not disclose controlling a modulating valve positioned in a liquid line between the condenser and the expansion device;
controlling the modulating valve positioned in the liquid line to circulate a second portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant at a second density less than the first density from the condenser to the expansion device while bypassing the heat exchanger;
combining the sub-cooled first portion of the liquid phase and the second portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant in the liquid line upstream of the expansion device and downstream of the modulating valve;
expanding the combined sub-cooled first portion of the liquid phase and the second portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant from a first pressure to a second pressure lower than the first pressure in the expansion device.
Uselton teaches controlling a modulating valve (Fig. 1, switch 140) positioned in a liquid line between the condenser and the expansion device (Col. 4, lines 27-32, In some implementations, the air conditioner 100 may include a metering device (not shown), such as a thermal expansion valve. The liquid refrigerant may be allowed to at least partially pass from the auxiliary heat exchanger 130 and/or condenser 120 through the thermal expansion valve; Further, the description of the thermal expansion valve implies it is located downstream of the bypass branch 135 and upstream of the evaporator 105, therefore the switch 140 is located on the liquid line 135 between the condenser 120 and the thermal expansion device);
controlling the modulating valve positioned in the liquid line to circulate a second portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant at a second density less than the first density from the condenser to the expansion device while bypassing the heat exchanger (Col. 4, lines 9-27, For example, the air conditioner 100 may include a switch 140 that allows fluid flow (e.g., at least a part of the refrigerant from the condenser and/or at least a part of the air from the condenser fan) to be directed to and/or bypass the auxiliary heat exchanger 130. A controller (e.g., a computer) may determine whether to allow fluid flow to the auxiliary heat exchanger 130. For example, a controller may respond to a user request for operation of the auxiliary heat exchanger 130. In some implementation, a controller may determine whether to operate the auxiliary heat exchanger 130 based on a request from a user (e.g., when cooling is requested by a user during high ambient temperatures, such as above 85° F.). An air conditioner may include a default setting, such as to allow operation of the auxiliary heat exchanger 130 and/or to restrict operation of the air conditioner without use of the auxiliary heat exchanger. In some implementations, at least a part of the refrigerant may bypass the auxiliary heat exchanger and flow to the evaporator; Further, the portion of refrigerant that is not subcooled will inherently have a lower density than the portion that is subcooled);
combining the sub-cooled first portion of the liquid phase and the second portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant in the liquid line upstream of the expansion device and downstream of the modulating valve (Col. 4, lines 27-32, In some implementations, the air conditioner 100 may include a metering device (not shown), such as a thermal expansion valve. The liquid refrigerant may be allowed to at least partially pass from the auxiliary heat exchanger 130 and/or condenser 120 through the thermal expansion valve; Further, the description of the thermal expansion valve implies it is located downstream of the bypass branch 135 and upstream of the evaporator 105, therefore the switch 140 is located on the liquid line 135 between the condenser 120 and the thermal expansion device. Moreover, when a portion of the refrigerant bypasses the auxiliary heat exchanger 130 while another portion is routed through the auxiliary heat exchanger 130 the two stream would be combined in the thermal expansion before being routed to the evaporator 105);
expanding the combined sub-cooled first portion of the liquid phase and the second portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant from a first pressure to a second pressure lower than the first pressure in the expansion device (Col. 4, lines 32-35, The thermal expansion valve may allow and/or restrict fluid flow through the valve at least partially based on the automatic adjustment of the thermal expansion valve and/or the control system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Dobmeier of claim 20 to include a modulating valve which separates the flow as taught by Uselton. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for optional increase refrigeration capacity in high ambient temperatures (Uselton, Col. 4, lines 17-21).
Dobmeier as modified further discloses circulating the combined sub-cooled first portion of the liquid phase and the second portion of liquid phase of the refrigerant at the second pressure to the evaporator (Dobmeier, Pg. 2, paragraph 24, After expansion, the refrigerant flows through the evaporator 28 and exits at a relatively high enthalpy and a low pressure. In the evaporator 28, the refrigerant absorbs heat from the air stream 44); and
transferring heat from an airflow circulated through the evaporator to the combined sub-cooled first portion of the liquid phase and the second portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant at the second pressure to change at least a portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant at the second pressure to the vapor phase of the refrigerant and change at least a portion of water vapor in the airflow into the liquid condensate (Dobmeier, Fig. 2, air stream 44 Fig. 2, cold condensate 58; Pg. 2, paragraph 24, After expansion, the refrigerant flows through the evaporator 28 and exits at a relatively high enthalpy and a low pressure. In the evaporator 28, the refrigerant absorbs heat from the air stream 44. When the refrigerant exchanges heat with the air stream 44 in the evaporator 28, moisture is removed from the air stream 44 and forms a cold condensate 58 that collects in a condensate pan 60). Further, the limitations of claim 20 are a result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 20 herein.
Moreover, Dobmeier as modified does not disclose draining at least a portion of the liquid condensate captured in the condensate receiver through a port positioned on a side of the condensate receiver above a level of the plurality of loops of the heat exchanger submerged in the liquid condensate.
Jo teaches draining at least a portion of the liquid condensate captured in the condensate receiver through a port positioned on a side of the condensate receiver above a level of the plurality of loops of the heat exchanger submerged in the liquid condensate (Fig. 4, outlet 32; Fig. 5, drip tray 4, drain pipe 5, internal heat exchanger 27, heat exchanger inner coil 28; Pg. 3, The coolant gas passing through the heat exchanger inner coil 28 of the heat exchanger 27 installed inside the indoor unit main body 1 and the low temperature condensed water generated from the evaporation coil 10 during the cooling process are received by the drip tray 4. Collected water is supplied to the inlet of a heat exchanger made of the heat exchange process in the internal heat exchanger (27). The heat-condensed condensate changes into hot water and condensation causes the hot water to stay on top of the heat exchanger 27, and the drain pipe connected to the outlet 32 of the heat exchanger by the condensate supplied to the inlet 31 of the heat exchanger. When the liquid refrigerant, which is discarded through (5) and heat-exchanged using condensate, is supercooled, the amount of fresh gas is reduced after passing through the expansion valve (11) to increase the freezing capacity through the heat exchange of the evaporation coil (10)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the condensate receiver of the method of Dobmeier as modified to the step or limitation of draining at least a portion of the liquid condensate captured in the condensate receiver through a port positioned on a side of the condensate receiver above a level of the plurality of loops of the heat exchanger submerged in the liquid condensate as taught by Jo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve efficiency and energy savings (Jo, Pg. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
558
1237
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Uselton
Regarding claim 21, Dobmeier as modified discloses the method of claim 20 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 20 above), wherein the heat exchanger is integral with and part of the liquid line (Dobmeier, Pg. 2, paragraph 27, The refrigerant line 78 exiting the condenser 24 is positioned at least partially in the condensate pan 60. After exiting the condenser 24, the liquid refrigerant flows through the refrigerant line 78 and is further subcooled by the cold condensate 58 collected in the condensate pan 60. The subcooled refrigerant then flows through the expansion device 26 and is expanded to a low pressure and temperature; Therefore, the heat exchanger is integral with the refrigerant line 78 as the heat exchange happens directly between the refrigerant line 78 and the condensate 58 in the condensate pan 60; Choi, paragraph 34, The heat exchange part 132 and the subcooling part 133 may be defined as part of a refrigerant pipe constituting the indoor heat exchanger 130, respectively). Further, the recitation, “wherein the heat exchanger is integral with and part of the liquid line” is not a patentably distinct feature of the claims as it has been held that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (MPEP 2144.04, Section V, Paragraph B).
Regarding claim 37, Dobmeier as modified discloses the system of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the expansion device is external to the cooling coil (Fig. 2 of Dobmeier depicts the expansion device 26 to be external to the evaporator 28).
Regarding claim 38, Dobmeier as modified discloses the system of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the plurality of loops that comprise the subset of the first plurality of tubing rows are in heat transfer communication with at least one of the plurality of tubing rows of the evaporator exclusive of the second subset of the plurality of tubing rows to facilitate heat transfer from the liquid condensate to the liquid phase of the refrigerant in the evaporator (Fig. 3 of Douglas depicts all of the tubes to of the indoor heat exchanger 130 to be in thermal communication with each other and the condensate contained in the drain unit 150). Further, the limitations of claim 38 are a result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 39, Dobmeier as modified discloses the method of claim 20 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 20 above).
Dobmeier as modified does not explicitly disclose comprising adjusting the expansion device toward a closed position in response to sub-cooling the first portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant in the heat exchanger to the first density.
However, control of fluid through the auxiliary heat exchanger is a result effective variable of the required cooling capacity of the system as recognized by the teachings of Uselton (Col. 4, lines 9-27, For example, the air conditioner 100 may include a switch 140 that allows fluid flow (e.g., at least a part of the refrigerant from the condenser and/or at least a part of the air from the condenser fan) to be directed to and/or bypass the auxiliary heat exchanger 130. A controller (e.g., a computer) may determine whether to allow fluid flow to the auxiliary heat exchanger 130. For example, a controller may respond to a user request for operation of the auxiliary heat exchanger 130. In some implementation, a controller may determine whether to operate the auxiliary heat exchanger 130 based on a request from a user (e.g., when cooling is requested by a user during high ambient temperatures, such as above 85° F.). An air conditioner may include a default setting, such as to allow operation of the auxiliary heat exchanger 130 and/or to restrict operation of the air conditioner without use of the auxiliary heat exchanger. In some implementations, at least a part of the refrigerant may bypass the auxiliary heat exchanger and flow to the evaporator). As such, it appears the control of fluid through the auxiliary heat exchanger is disclosed to be result effective variable in that changing the flow of fluid through the auxiliary heat exchanger changes the available cooling capacity of the system. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying method of Dobmeier as modified to include the step or limitation of adjusting the expansion device toward a closed position in response to sub-cooling the first portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant in the heat exchanger to the first density, as it only involves controlling the flow of refrigerant through the heat exchanger. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the expansion device toward a closed position in response to sub-cooling the first portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant in the heat exchanger to the first density as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (MPEP 2144.05, Section II, Paragraph A).
Regarding claim 41, Dobmeier as modified discloses the system of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the plurality of loops are completely submerged in the liquid condensate captured in the condensate receiver (Dobmeier, Pg. 3, Claim 3, wherein the portion of the refrigerant line is positioned to be at least partially immersed in the condensate in the condensate pan). Further, it has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Regarding claim 42, Dobmeier as modified discloses the system of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein:
the evaporator comprises a first inlet to the another subset of the plurality of tubing rows of the cooling coil and a first outlet from the another subset of the plurality of tubing rows of the cooling coil (See annotated Fig. 3 of Choi, first inlet A, first outlet B), and
the heat exchanger comprises a second inlet to the plurality of loops that comprise the subset of the plurality of tubing rows that is separate from the first inlet and a second outlet from the plurality of loops that comprise the subset of the plurality of tubing rows that is separate from the first outlet (See annotated Fig. 3 of Choi, second inlet A’ and second outlet B’ are shown to be separate from first inlet A and first outlet B; Further, the Examiner would like to note that Fig. 3 of Choi depicts the indoor heat exchanger 130 in the heating mode, however, the inlets and outlets have been annotated as if it were in the cooling mode for consistency with the non-reversible system of Dobmeier). Further, the limitations of claim 42 are a result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
PNG
media_image2.png
490
298
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Choi
Regarding claim 43, Dobmeier as modified discloses the system of claim 42 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 42 above), wherein the second inlet is near a top level of the liquid condensate captured in the condensate receiver, and the second outlet is near a bottom level of the liquid condensate captured in the condensate receiver (See annotated Fig. 3 of Choi below, second inlet A’ to be near a top level F of the liquid condensate captured in the drain unit 150 and second outlet B’ to be near a bottom level of the liquid condensate captured in the drain unit 150; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
PNG
media_image2.png
490
298
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Choi
Regarding claim 47, Dobmeier as modified discloses the system of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the another subset of the plurality of tubing rows is positioned above the condensate receiver (Fig. 3 of Choi depicts heat exchange part 132 to be disposed above the drain unit 150). Further, the limitations of claim 47 are a result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 48, Dobmeier as modified discloses the method of claim 20 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 20 above), wherein the plurality of loops are completely submerged in the liquid condensate captured in the condensate receiver (Dobmeier, Pg. 3, Claim 3, wherein the portion of the refrigerant line is positioned to be at least partially immersed in the condensate in the condensate pan). Further, it has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Regarding claim 49, Dobmeier as modified discloses the method of claim 20 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 20 above), wherein:
the evaporator comprises a first inlet to the first subset of the plurality of tubing rows of the cooling coil and a first outlet from the first subset of the plurality of tubing rows of the cooling coil (See annotated Fig. 3 of Choi, first inlet A, first outlet B), and
the heat exchanger comprises a second inlet to the plurality of loops that comprise the second subset of the plurality of tubing rows that is separate from the first inlet and a second outlet from the plurality of loops that comprise the second subset of the plurality of tubing rows that is separate from the first outlet (See annotated Fig. 3 of Choi, second inlet A’ and second outlet B’ are shown to be separate from first inlet A and first outlet B; Further, the Examiner would like to note that Fig. 3 of Choi depicts the indoor heat exchanger 130 in the heating mode, however, the inlets and outlets have been annotated as if it were in the cooling mode for consistency with the non-reversible system of Dobmeier). Further, the limitations of claim 42 are a result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
PNG
media_image2.png
490
298
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Choi
Regarding claim 50, Dobmeier as modified discloses the system of claim 49 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 49 above), wherein the second inlet is near a top level of the liquid condensate captured in the condensate receiver, and the second outlet is near a bottom level of the liquid condensate captured in the condensate receiver (See annotated Fig. 3 of Choi below, second inlet A’ to be near a top level F of the liquid condensate captured in the drain unit 150 and second outlet B’ to be near a bottom level of the liquid condensate captured in the drain unit 150; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
PNG
media_image2.png
490
298
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Choi
Regarding claim 53, Dobmeier as modified discloses the system of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the first subset of the plurality of tubing rows is positioned above the condensate receiver (Fig. 3 of Choi depicts heat exchange part 132 to be disposed above the drain unit 150). Further, the limitations of claim 47 are a result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 12-15 and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobmeier as modified by Choi, Jo, and Uselton as applied to claims 1 and 20 above, respectively, and further in view of Fujita et al. (US Patent No. 5,910,161), hereinafter Fujita.
Regarding claim 12, Dobmeier as modified discloses the system of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Dobmeier as modified does not disclose wherein the refrigerant comprises a non-natural refrigerant.
Fujita teaches wherein the refrigerant comprises a non-natural refrigerant (Col. 4, lines 55-58, In this embodiment, a triple-mixed hydrocarbon fluoride refrigerant which is composed of 40-48 wt %, e.g., 44 wt % of HFC-125, 47-57 wt%, e.g., 52 wt% of HFC-143a and up to 10 wt %, e.g., 4 wt % of HFC-134a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dobmeier as modified wherein the refrigerant comprises a non-natural refrigerant as taught by Fujita. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to secure reliability of components without damaging the performance of the system (Fujita, Col. 2, lines 34-35).
Regarding claim 13, Dobmeier as modified discloses the system of claim 12 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the non-natural refrigerant comprises at least one hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerant (Fujita, Col. 4, lines 55-58, In this embodiment, a triple-mixed hydrocarbon fluoride refrigerant which is composed of 40-48 wt %, e.g., 44 wt % of HFC-125, 47-57 wt%, e.g., 52 wt% of HFC-143a and up to 10 wt %, e.g., 4 wt % of HFC-134a). Further, the limitations of claim 13 are a result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 14, Dobmeier as modified discloses the system of claim 13 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 13 above), wherein the at least one HFC refrigerant comprises a blend of two or more HFC refrigerants (Fujita, Col. 4, lines 55-58, In this embodiment, a triple-mixed hydrocarbon fluoride refrigerant which is composed of 40-48 wt %, e.g., 44 wt % of HFC-125, 47-57 wt%, e.g., 52 wt% of HFC-143a and up to 10 wt %, e.g., 4 wt % of HFC-134a). Further, the limitations of claim 14 are a result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 13 above.
Regarding claim 15, Dobmeier as modified discloses the system of claim 13 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 13 above), wherein the at least one HFC refrigerant comprises at least one of HFC-134a, HFC-404a, HFC-410a, or HFC-407c (Fujita, Col. 4, lines 55-58, In this embodiment, a triple-mixed hydrocarbon fluoride refrigerant which is composed of 40-48 wt %, e.g., 44 wt % of HFC-125, 47-57 wt%, e.g., 52 wt% of HFC-143a and up to 10 wt %, e.g., 4 wt % of HFC-134a). Further, the limitations of claim 15 are a result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 13 above.
Regarding claim 29, Dobmeier as modified discloses the method of claim 20 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 20 above).
However, Dobmeier as modified does not disclose wherein the refrigerant comprises a non-natural refrigerant.
Fujita teaches wherein the refrigerant comprises a non-natural refrigerant (Col. 4, lines 55-58, In this embodiment, a triple-mixed hydrocarbon fluoride refrigerant which is composed of 40-48 wt %, e.g., 44 wt % of HFC-125, 47-57 wt%, e.g., 52 wt% of HFC-143a and up to 10 wt %, e.g., 4 wt % of HFC-134a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Dobmeier as modified wherein the refrigerant comprises a non-natural refrigerant as taught by Fujita. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to secure reliability of components without damaging the performance of the system (Fujita, Col. 2, lines 34-35).
Regarding claim 30, Dobmeier as modified discloses the method of claim 29 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 29 above), wherein the non-natural refrigerant comprises at least one hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerant (Fujita, Col. 4, lines 55-58, In this embodiment, a triple-mixed hydrocarbon fluoride refrigerant which is composed of 40-48 wt %, e.g., 44 wt % of HFC-125, 47-57 wt%, e.g., 52 wt% of HFC-143a and up to 10 wt %, e.g., 4 wt % of HFC-134a). Further, the limitations of claim 30 are a result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 29 above.
Regarding claim 31, Dobmeier as modified discloses the method of claim 30 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 30 above), wherein the at least one HFC refrigerant comprises a blend of two or more HFC refrigerants (Fujita, Col. 4, lines 55-58, In this embodiment, a triple-mixed hydrocarbon fluoride refrigerant which is composed of 40-48 wt %, e.g., 44 wt % of HFC-125, 47-57 wt%, e.g., 52 wt% of HFC-143a and up to 10 wt %, e.g., 4 wt % of HFC-134a). Further, the limitations of claim 31 are a result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 30 above.
Regarding claim 32, Dobmeier as modified discloses the system of claim 30 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 30 above), wherein the at least one HFC refrigerant comprises at least one of HFC-134a, HFC-404a, HFC-410a, or HFC-407c (Fujita, Col. 4, lines 55-58, In this embodiment, a triple-mixed hydrocarbon fluoride refrigerant which is composed of 40-48 wt %, e.g., 44 wt % of HFC-125, 47-57 wt%, e.g., 52 wt% of HFC-143a and up to 10 wt %, e.g., 4 wt % of HFC-134a). Further, the limitations of claim 32 are a result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 30 above.
Claims 16 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobmeier as modified by Choi, Jo, and Uselton as applied to claims 1 and 20 above, respectively, and further in view of Harris (US Patent No. 5,651,258), hereinafter Harris.
Regarding claim 16, Dobmeier as modified discloses the system of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the cooling fluid comprises a cooling airflow circulated through the condenser to transfer heat from the vapor phase of the refrigerant to the cooling airflow (Dobmeier, Fig. 2, external fluid medium 30; Pg. 2, paragraph 22, The refrigerant exits the compressor 22 at a high pressure and a high enthalpy. The refrigerant then flows through the condenser 24 at a high pressure. An external fluid medium 30, such as water or air, also flows through the condenser 24 and exchanges heat with the refrigerant flowing through the condenser 24. In the condenser 24, the refrigerant rejects heat into the external fluid medium 30, and the refrigerant exits the condenser 24 at a relatively low enthalpy and a high pressure).
However, Dobmeier as modified does not disclose the cooling airflow circulated through the condenser by at least one fan.
Harris teaches the cooling airflow circulated through the condenser by at least one fan (Fig. 1, blower 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dobmeier as modified to include a fan as taught by Harris. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to control the condenser temperature (Harris, Col. 6, line 12).
Regarding claim 33, Dobmeier as modified discloses the method of claim 20 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 20 above), wherein the cooling fluid comprises a cooling airflow, the method further comprising circulating the cooling airflow through the condenser to transfer heat from the vapor phase of the refrigerant to the cooling airflow (Dobmeier, Fig. 2, external fluid medium 30; Pg. 2, paragraph 22, The refrigerant exits the compressor 22 at a high pressure and a high enthalpy. The refrigerant then flows through the condenser 24 at a high pressure. An external fluid medium 30, such as water or air, also flows through the condenser 24 and exchanges heat with the refrigerant flowing through the condenser 24. In the condenser 24, the refrigerant rejects heat into the external fluid medium 30, and the refrigerant exits the condenser 24 at a relatively low enthalpy and a high pressure).
However, Dobmeier as modified does not disclose circulating the cooling airflow through the condenser by at least one fan.
Harris teaches circulating the cooling airflow through the condenser by at least one fan (Fig. 1, blower 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Dobmeier as modified to include a fan as taught by Harris. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to control the condenser temperature (Harris, Col. 6, line 12).
Claims 17-19 and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobmeier as modified by Choi, Jo, and Uselton as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, respectively, and further in view of Maeda (WO 02086392), hereinafter Maeda.
Regarding claim 17, Dobmeier as modified discloses the system of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the heat exchanger comprises a liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger (Dobmeier, Fig. 2, refrigerant line 78).
However, Dobmeier as modified does not disclose the system further comprising a liquid-to-air heat exchanger positioned to receive at least a portion of the airflow that exits the evaporator and the portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant from the condenser upstream of the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger, the liquid-to-air heat exchanger configured to transfer heat from the portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant to the portion of the airflow that exits the evaporator.
Maeda teaches the system further comprising a liquid-to-air heat exchanger (Fig. 2, second heat exchanging portion 22) positioned to receive at least a portion of the airflow that exits the evaporator (Fig. 2, path 32; Pg. 17, lines 26-28, The process air in the state represented by the point L flows through the path 32 into the second heat exchanging portion 22 in the heat exchanger 2) and the portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant from the condenser upstream of the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger (Pg. 17, lines 28-30, where the process air is heated, with the constant absolute humidity, by the refrigerant condensed in the condensing section 62; further sections 62a-62d where the air exchanges heat with the refrigerant is upstream of sections 62e-62g where the refrigerant is subcooled which corresponds to the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger of Dobmeier), the liquid-to-air heat exchanger configured to transfer heat from the portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant to the portion of the airflow that exits the evaporator (Pg. 17, lines 28-30, where the process air is heated, with the constant absolute humidity, by the refrigerant condensed in the condensing section 62; Further, the second heat exchanging portion 22 has the same structure as the claimed liquid-to-air heat exchanger and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dobmeier as modified to include a liquid-to-air heat exchanger as taught by Madea. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the cooling effect is improved to achieve a high moisture removal (the dehumidifying performance) (Maeda, Pg. 6, lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 18, Dobmeier as modified discloses the system of claim 17 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 17 above).
However, Dobmeier as modified does not disclose wherein the liquid-to-air heat exchanger comprises a first liquid-to-air heat exchanger, the system further comprising a second liquid-to-air heat exchanger positioned to receive at least a portion of the airflow that enters the evaporator and the portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant from the first liquid-to-air heat exchanger upstream of the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger, the second liquid-to-air heat exchanger configured to transfer additional heat from the portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant to the portion of the airflow that enters the evaporator.
Maeda teaches wherein the liquid-to-air heat exchanger comprises a first liquid-to-air heat exchanger (Fig. 2, second heat exchanging portion 22), the system further comprising a second liquid-to-air heat exchanger (Fig. 2, first heat exchanging portion 21) positioned to receive at least a portion of the airflow that enters the evaporator and the portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant from the first liquid-to-air heat exchanger upstream of the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger (Pg. 8, lines 2-5, The heat exchanger 2 has a first heat exchanging portion 21 for evaporating the refrigerant to cool the process air, and a second heat exchanging portion 22 for condensing the refrigerant to heat the process air; further sections 61a-61e where the air exchanges heat with the refrigerant is upstream of sections 62e-62g where the refrigerant is subcooled which corresponds to the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger of Dobmeier), the second liquid-to-air heat exchanger configured to transfer additional heat from the portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant to the portion of the airflow that enters the evaporator (Pg. 8, lines 2-5, The heat exchanger 2 has a first heat exchanging portion 21 for evaporating the refrigerant to cool the process air, and a second heat exchanging portion 22 for condensing the refrigerant to heat the process air; Further, the first heat exchanging portion 21 has the same structure as the claimed second liquid-to-air heat exchanger and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dobmeier as modified to include second a liquid-to-air heat exchanger as taught by Madea. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the cooling effect is improved to achieve a high moisture removal (the dehumidifying performance) (Maeda, Pg. 6, lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 19, Dobmeier as modified discloses the system of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the heat exchanger comprises a liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger (Dobmeier, Fig. 2, refrigerant line 78).
However, Dobmeier as modified does not disclose the system further comprising a liquid-to-air heat exchanger positioned to receive at least a portion of the airflow that enters the evaporator and the portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant from the condenser upstream of the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger, the liquid-to-air heat exchanger configured to transfer heat from the portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant to the portion of the airflow that enters the evaporator.
Maeda teaches the system further comprising a liquid-to-air heat exchanger (Fig. 2, first heat exchanging portion 21) positioned to receive at least a portion of the airflow that enters the evaporator and the portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant from the condenser upstream of the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger (Pg. 8, lines 2-5, The heat exchanger 2 has a first heat exchanging portion 21 for evaporating the refrigerant to cool the process air, and a second heat exchanging portion 22 for condensing the refrigerant to heat the process air; further sections 61a-61e where the air exchanges heat with the refrigerant is upstream of sections 62e-62g where the refrigerant is subcooled which corresponds to the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger of Dobmeier), the liquid-to-air heat exchanger configured to transfer heat from the portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant to the portion of the airflow that enters the evaporator (Pg. 8, lines 2-5, The heat exchanger 2 has a first heat exchanging portion 21 for evaporating the refrigerant to cool the process air, and a second heat exchanging portion 22 for condensing the refrigerant to heat the process air; Further, the first heat exchanging portion 21 has the same structure as the claimed second liquid-to-air heat exchanger and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dobmeier as modified to include a liquid-to-air heat exchanger as taught by Madea. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the cooling effect is improved to achieve a high moisture removal (the dehumidifying performance) (Maeda, Pg. 6, lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 34, Dobmeier as modified discloses the method of claim 20 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 20 above), wherein the heat exchanger comprises a liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger Dobmeier, Fig. 2, refrigerant line 78).
However, Dobmeier as modified does not disclose the method further comprising:
circulating the portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant from the condenser to a liquid-to-air heat exchanger prior to circulating the portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant to the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger;
circulating at least a portion of the airflow that exits the evaporator through the liquid-to-air heat exchanger;
transferring heat from the portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant to the portion of the airflow that exits the evaporator in the liquid-to-air heat exchanger; and
circulating the cooled portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant from the liquid-to-air heat exchanger to the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger.
Maeda teaches the method further comprising:
circulating the portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant from the condenser to a liquid-to-air heat exchanger prior to circulating the portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant to the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger (Fig. 2, second heat exchanging portion 22; Pg. 17, lines 28-30, where the process air is heated, with the constant absolute humidity, by the refrigerant condensed in the condensing section 62; further sections 62a-62d where the air exchanges heat with the refrigerant is upstream of sections 62e-62g where the refrigerant is subcooled which corresponds to the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger of Dobmeier);
circulating at least a portion of the airflow that exits the evaporator through the liquid-to-air heat exchanger (Fig. 2, path 32; Pg. 17, lines 26-28, The process air in the state represented by the point L flows through the path 32 into the second heat exchanging portion 22 in the heat exchanger 2);
transferring heat from the portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant to the portion of the airflow that exits the evaporator in the liquid-to-air heat exchanger (Pg. 17, lines 28-30, where the process air is heated, with the constant absolute humidity, by the refrigerant condensed in the condensing section 62); and
circulating the cooled portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant from the liquid-to-air heat exchanger to the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger (Pg. 17, lines 28-30, where the process air is heated, with the constant absolute humidity, by the refrigerant condensed in the condensing section 62; Further, the most downstream section of condensing section 62 is the subcooling potion 62e-62g which corresponds to the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger of Dobmeier).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Dobmeier as modified to include a liquid-to-air heat exchanger as taught by Madea. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the cooling effect is improved to achieve a high moisture removal (the dehumidifying performance) (Maeda, Pg. 6, lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 35, Dobmeier as modified discloses the method of claim 34 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 34 above).
However, Dobmeier as modified does not disclose wherein the liquid-to-air heat exchanger comprises a first liquid-to-air heat exchanger, the method further comprising:
circulating the cooled portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant from the first liquid-to-air heat exchanger to a second liquid-to-air heat exchanger prior to circulating the portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant to the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger;
circulating at least a portion of the airflow that enters the evaporator through the second liquid-to-air heat exchanger;
transferring heat from the cooled portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant to the portion of the airflow that enters the evaporator in the second liquid-to-air heat exchanger; and
circulating the further cooled portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant from the second liquid-to-air heat exchanger to the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger.
Maeda teaches wherein the liquid-to-air heat exchanger comprises a first liquid-to-air heat exchanger (Fig. 2, second heat exchanging portion 22), the method further comprising:
circulating the cooled portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant from the first liquid-to-air heat exchanger to a second liquid-to-air heat exchanger prior to circulating the portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant to the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger (Pg. 8, lines 2-5, The heat exchanger 2 has a first heat exchanging portion 21 for evaporating the refrigerant to cool the process air, and a second heat exchanging portion 22 for condensing the refrigerant to heat the process air; further sections 61a-61e where the air exchanges heat with the refrigerant is upstream of sections 62e-62g where the refrigerant is subcooled which corresponds to the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger of Dobmeier);
circulating at least a portion of the airflow that enters the evaporator through the second liquid-to-air heat exchanger (Fig. 2, path 30);
transferring heat from the cooled portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant to the portion of the airflow that enters the evaporator in the second liquid-to-air heat exchanger (Pg. 8, lines 2-5, The heat exchanger 2 has a first heat exchanging portion 21 for evaporating the refrigerant to cool the process air, and a second heat exchanging portion 22 for condensing the refrigerant to heat the process air); and
circulating the further cooled portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant from the second liquid-to-air heat exchanger to the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger (Pg. 17, lines 28-30, where the process air is heated, with the constant absolute humidity, by the refrigerant condensed in the condensing section 62; Further, the most downstream section of condensing section 62 is the subcooling potion 62e-62g which corresponds to the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger of Dobmeier).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Dobmeier as modified to include second a liquid-to-air heat exchanger as taught by Madea. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the cooling effect is improved to achieve a high moisture removal (the dehumidifying performance) (Maeda, Pg. 6, lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 36, Dobmeier as modified discloses the method of claim 20 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 20 above), wherein the heat exchanger comprises a liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger (Dobmeier, Fig. 2, refrigerant line 78).
However, Dobmeier as modified does not disclose the method further comprising:
circulating at least a portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant from the condenser to a liquid-to-air heat exchanger prior to circulating the portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant to the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger;
circulating at least a portion of the airflow that enters the evaporator through the liquid-to-air heat exchanger;
transferring heat from the portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant to the portion of the airflow that enters the evaporator in the liquid-to-air heat exchanger; and
circulating the cooled portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant from the liquid-to-air heat exchanger to the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger.
Maeda teaches circulating at least a portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant from the condenser to a liquid-to-air heat exchanger (Fig. 2, first heat exchanging portion 21) prior to circulating the portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant to the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger (Pg. 8, lines 2-5, The heat exchanger 2 has a first heat exchanging portion 21 for evaporating the refrigerant to cool the process air, and a second heat exchanging portion 22 for condensing the refrigerant to heat the process air; further sections 61a-61e where the air exchanges heat with the refrigerant is upstream of sections 62e-62g where the refrigerant is subcooled which corresponds to the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger of Dobmeier);
circulating at least a portion of the airflow that enters the evaporator through the liquid-to-air heat exchanger (Fig. 2, path 30);
transferring heat from the portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant to the portion of the airflow that enters the evaporator in the liquid-to-air heat exchanger (Pg. 8, lines 2-5, The heat exchanger 2 has a first heat exchanging portion 21 for evaporating the refrigerant to cool the process air, and a second heat exchanging portion 22 for condensing the refrigerant to heat the process air); and
circulating the cooled portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant from the liquid-to-air heat exchanger to the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger (Pg. 17, lines 28-30, where the process air is heated, with the constant absolute humidity, by the refrigerant condensed in the condensing section 62; Further, the most downstream section of condensing section 62 is the subcooling potion 62e-62g which corresponds to the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger of Dobmeier).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Dobmeier as modified to include a liquid-to-air heat exchanger as taught by Madea. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the cooling effect is improved to achieve a high moisture removal (the dehumidifying performance) (Maeda, Pg. 6, lines 5-6).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobmeier as modified by Choi, Jo, and Uselton as applied to claims 20 above, respectively, and further in view of Sloan et al. (US 20190128544), hereinafter Sloan.
Regarding claim 40, Dobmeier as modified discloses the method of claim 20 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 20 above).
Dobmeier as modified does not explicitly disclose comprising adjusting a speed of the at least one compressor in response to sub-cooling the first portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant in the heat exchanger to the first density.
However, control of a variable speed compressor in relation to desired operating characteristics of a system is a result effective variable as recognized by teaching of Sloan (Pg. 2, paragraph 21, The speed of the compressor may be modulated to effectuate desired operating characteristics). As such, it appears control of a variable speed compressor in relation to desired operating characteristics is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that varying the speed of the compressor changes operating characteristics of a system, which including refrigerant densities due to subcooling. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the method of Dobmeier as modified to include the step or limitation of adjusting a speed of the at least one compressor in response to sub-cooling the first portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant in the heat exchanger to the first density, as it only involves adjusting the speed of the variable speed compressor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust a speed of the at least one compressor in response to sub-cooling the first portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant in the heat exchanger to the first density as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (MPEP 2144.05, Section II, Paragraph A).
Claims 44-45 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobmeier as modified by Choi, Jo, and Uselton as applied to claims 1 and 20 above, respectively, and further in view of Kamada et al. (US 20080035318), hereinafter Kamada.
Regarding claim 44, Dobmeier as modified discloses the system of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Dobmeier as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the heat exchanger comprises one or more heat exchange plates connected to the plurality of loops that comprise the subset of the plurality of tubing rows.
Kamada teaches wherein the heat exchanger comprises one or more aluminum heat exchange plates connected to the plurality of loops that comprise the subset of the plurality of tubing rows (Fig. 1, outdoor heat exchanger 2, plate fins 3, heat exchanger pipe 5; Pg. 3, paragraph 36, As shown in FIG. 1, the outdoor heat exchanger 2, which is a so-called cross fin and tube heat exchanger, includes many plate fins 3 and a single heat exchanger pipe 5. The plate fins 3 form a heat exchanging surface and are arranged in parallel at intervals in a direction perpendicular to an air circulation direction 4. The heat exchanger pipe 5 is formed to meander and extend through the plate fins 3. A refrigerant circulates inside the heat exchanger pipe 5; Pg. 5, paragraph 66, to the plate fins 3 when the plate fins 3 are made of aluminum).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the generic heat exchanger of Dobmeier as modified to be a plate fin and tube heat exchanger as taught by Kamada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the overall heat exchanger surface of the heat exchanger to improve overall system efficiencies.
Regarding claim 45, Dobmeier as modified discloses the system of claim 44 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 44 above), wherein the one or more heat exchange plates is formed of aluminum (Kamada, Pg. 5, paragraph 66, to the plate fins 3 when the plate fins 3 are made of aluminum). Further, the limitations of claim 45 are a result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 44 above.
Regarding claim 51, Dobmeier as modified discloses the method of claim 20 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 20 above).
However, Dobmeier as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the heat exchanger comprises one or more heat exchange plates connected to the plurality of loops that comprise the second subset of the plurality of tubing rows.
Kamada teaches wherein the heat exchanger comprises one or more aluminum heat exchange plates connected to the plurality of loops that comprise the subset of the plurality of tubing rows (Fig. 1, outdoor heat exchanger 2, plate fins 3, heat exchanger pipe 5; Pg. 3, paragraph 36, As shown in FIG. 1, the outdoor heat exchanger 2, which is a so-called cross fin and tube heat exchanger, includes many plate fins 3 and a single heat exchanger pipe 5. The plate fins 3 form a heat exchanging surface and are arranged in parallel at intervals in a direction perpendicular to an air circulation direction 4. The heat exchanger pipe 5 is formed to meander and extend through the plate fins 3. A refrigerant circulates inside the heat exchanger pipe 5; Pg. 5, paragraph 66, to the plate fins 3 when the plate fins 3 are made of aluminum).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the generic heat exchanger of Dobmeier as modified to be a plate fin and tube heat exchanger as taught by Kamada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the overall heat exchanger surface of the heat exchanger to improve overall system efficiencies.
Claims 46 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobmeier as modified by Choi, jo, and Uselton as applied to claims 1 and 20 above, respectively, and further in view of Wankhede et al. (US 20100180610), hereinafter Wankhede.
Regarding claim 46, Dobmeier as modified discloses the system of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Dobmeier as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the airflow circulated through the evaporator is circulated only through the another subset of the plurality of tubing rows of the cooling coil.
Wankhede teaches only circulating an airflow through an evaporator and not through a subcooler of the system (Fig. 1 of Wankhede depicts a blower 28 only in communication with an evaporator 30 and not in communication with the condensate-to-refrigerant heat exchanger 44; Pg. 1, paragraph 8, blower 28 for forcing air through the HVAC module 26 and an evaporator 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dobmeier as modified wherein the airflow circulated through the evaporator is circulated only through the another subset of the plurality of tubing rows of the cooling coil as taught by Wankhede. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a system that operates as efficiently as is practicable while minimizing the cost of the air conditioning system (Wankhede, Pg. 1, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 52, Dobmeier as modified discloses the method of claim 20 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 20 above).
However, Dobmeier as modified does not explicitly disclose comprising circulating the airflow only through the first subset of the plurality of tubing rows of the cooling coil.
Wankhede teaches only circulating an airflow through an evaporator and not through a subcooler of the system (Fig. 1 of Wankhede depicts a blower 28 only in communication with an evaporator 30 and not in communication with the condensate-to-refrigerant heat exchanger 44; Pg. 1, paragraph 8, blower 28 for forcing air through the HVAC module 26 and an evaporator 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Dobmeier as modified to include the step or limitation of circulating the airflow only through the first subset of the plurality of tubing rows of the cooling coil as taught by Wankhede. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a system that operates as efficiently as is practicable while minimizing the cost of the air conditioning system (Wankhede, Pg. 1, paragraph 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 02nd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pg. 1 of the response, “The Office Action interprets certain terms under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Generally, Applicant does not admit to any characterization or limitation of the claims or to any interpretation of the claims by the Examiner, particularly any that are inconsistent with the language of the claims considered in their entirety in view of the disclosure and including all of their constituent limitations. As an initial matter, Applicant respectfully submits that these terms are not subject to interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), because the presumption due these terms - for example that do not include "means" or "step" - has not been rebutted by the Office Action. In particular, it has not been shown that any claim that includes these terms also recite the required functional language associated with the particular term. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully traverses these interpretations.” However, this argument is not persuasive as the Examiner has rebutted the traverse of terms interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) in at least the Non-final rejection mailed on October 01st, 2025. To reiterate this point, term “expansion device” being interpreted herein under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) recites the function of “expansion” in combination with the nonce term “device” without sufficient modifying structure in the claims to structurally define the expansion device. The interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) for the term “expansion device” is maintained.
Applicant argues on Pg. 1 of the response, “Claims 1, 9, 10, 12-21, and 29-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as allegedly being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Applicant respectfully disagrees and notes that the Examiner has appeared to understand these claims when read in light of the Application. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are not indefinite. Applicant requests reconsideration and allowance of claims 1, 9, 10, 12-21, and 29-53 over this rejection.” However, this argument is not persuasive as the claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant. Further, Applicant has not responded by explaining why the language is definite or by amending the claim, thus making the record clear regarding the claim boundaries prior to issuance. As an indefiniteness rejection requires the applicant to respond by explaining why the language is definite or by amending the claim (See MPEP2173). See 112(b) rejections above.
Applicant argues on Pg. 3 of the response, “First, the Office Action has not shown that the combination of references teaches or suggests the features of: the heat exchanger comprising a plurality of loops that are submerged in the liquid condensate captured in a condensate receiver from the evaporator, the plurality of loops comprising a subset of the plurality of tubing rows and are integral with but fluidly decoupled from another subset of the plurality of tubing rows of the cooling coil that receive the liquid phase of the refrigerant at the second pressure[.] This unique, specific structural integration of a sub-cooler within a primary cooling and/or dehumidifying evaporator coil has not been shown in the cited references. For example, Uselton's various figures show separate components or different integration methods, but not a precise, dual-function coil design as claimed. The absence of this specific structural element from the prior art renders shows that the Graham factors have not been completely resolved.” However, this argument is not persuasive as Choi, not Uselton is relied upon to disclose “the evaporator to comprise a plurality of tubing rows, the liquid phase circulated through a first subset of the plurality of tubing rows; and circulating the portion of the liquid phase through a plurality of loops of the heat exchanger that are submerged in the liquid condensate captured in the condensate receiver from the evaporator, the plurality of loops comprising a second subset of the plurality of tubing rows that are integral with but fluidly decoupled from the first subset of the plurality of tubing rows” as Fig. 3 of Choi depicts heat exchanger part 132, which acts as an evaporator in the cooling mode, to be integral with subcooling part 133. See the rejections of claim 1 and 20 above.
Applicant argues on Pg. 3 of the response, “As another example, claim 1 recites the features of "the condensate receiver comprising a port positioned on a side of the condensate receiver above a level of the plurality of loops of the heat exchanger submerged in the liquid condensate, the port configured to drain the liquid condensate from the condensate receiver[.]" Uselton appears to rely on evaporative cooling from a pad or channels, not submersion in a body of liquid. Dobmeier' s evaporator coil does not meet the limitations of claim I as to this component, which necessarily would lead a PHOSITA away from its modification in combination with submergence of the sub-cooler portion within condensate. In addition, claim I recites a specific location for the condensate port, that being "positioned on a side of the condensate receiver above a level of the plurality of loops of the heat exchanger[.]" This feature facilitates a minimum condensate liquid level to ensure consistent submersion of the sub-cooler loops, which would not be interpreted by a PHOSITA to be taught or suggested in Uselton or any other cited reference, which discuss general drainage or level sensing.” However, this argument is not persuasive as Jo, not Uselton is relied upon to disclose “the condensate receiver comprising a port positioned on a side of the condensate receiver above a level of the plurality of loops of the heat exchanger submerged in the liquid condensate, the port configured to drain the liquid condensate from the condensate receiver”. See the rejections of claim 1 and 20 above.
Applicant argues on Pg. 3-4 of the response, “Finally, claim I recites: a modulating valve mounted in the liquid line between the condenser and the expansion device, the modulating valve controllable to (i) circulate the first portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant to the heat exchanger, through the heat exchanger, and to an inlet of the expansion device, and (ii) while the first portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant is circulated to the heat exchanger, bypass a second portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant at a second density less than the first density to the inlet of the expansion device without entering the heat exchanger[.] In short, the claimed "modulating valve" that blends subcooled and non-subcooled refrigerant to create a "mixture" at the expansion device inlet. In contrast, Uselton discusses a "switch" or bypass mechanism (e.g., ON/OFF functionality), which is a different control scheme than a true modulating valve used for liquid mixing and density control. For these reasons, the Applicant submits that the claimed invention as recited in claim 1 is not obvious over the cited references, and reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.” However, this argument is not persuasive as the teachings of Uselton at least imply a mixture of the sub-cooled first portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant and the second portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant as the liquid refrigerant entering the metering device is said to pass from “the auxiliary heat exchanger 130 and/or condenser 120 through the thermal expansion valve (Uselton, Col. 4, lines 30-32)” which at least imply the switching valve to be a modulating valve to create a mixture at the expansion device inlet since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01). See the rejections of claim 1 and 20 above.
In response to applicant's argument that “A prima facie showing of obviousness of claim I has not been established largely due to the divergent design philosophies of the four references used in the § 103 rejection or claim 1. The cited references disclose different, and often incompatible, approaches to improving the efficiency of air conditioning systems. As an example, Uselton teaches an evaporative cooling method using a fluid-retaining pad exposed to airflow, or the use of active thermoelectric coolers. Dobmeier teaches immersing a liquid line in a separate pan of condensate or spraying water. Jo primarily focuses on cooling high-temperature refrigerant gas with condensate. These are functionally and structurally distinct systems. A PHOSITA would face significant engineering challenges in integrating these disparate designs into the single, specific, "integral with but fluidly decoupled" structure of claim 1. Indeed, a PHOSITA would not have found it clear from the cited references how one would successfully blend Uselton's pad-based system with the submerged loops and precise drain port of the claimed invention while maintaining functional integrity and efficiency. Moreover, none of the references provide a clear pathway or teaching on how to modify an existing evaporator coil to incorporate a "subset of the plurality of tubing rows" that are "integral with but fluidly decoupled" to achieve the simultaneous, modulated subcooling claimed in claim 1. The success of such a modification would be unpredictable given the thermal dynamics and fluid flow characteristics of an operating evaporator coil. Finally, the "modulating valve" control scheme of claim 1 goes beyond a simple bypass switch or general flow controls mentioned in these references. A PHOSITA would have no reasonable expectation that simply adding such a valve to the disparate systems of Uselton, Dobmeier, or Jo would result in a working system with the specific benefits described by the Applicant”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues on Pg. 5-6 of the response, “For example, the references teach distinct approaches to subcooling that are not readily combinable. Uselton teaches an evaporative cooling method using a fluid-retaining pad exposed to airflow, or thermoelectric cooling. This differs significantly from Dobmeier' s method of immersing a line in a pan or spraying water, and Jo's use of a separate heat exchanger to cool refrigerant gas. These different operational modes teach away from their ultimate combination and suggest a lack of motivation to combine their specific structural elements into the unique configuration of claim 1. This combination, therefore, employs hindsight bias by selectively combining features from multiple patents to build the claimed invention. There is no explicit suggestion in any of the cited references to modify the others to achieve the specific, integral design of claim 1.” However, this argument is not persuasive as the methods of subcooling of the secondary references Jo and Uselton are not the features that are being relied upon in the rejection of the claims. More specifically, Dobmeier and Jo both disclose the same in line subcooling method via a condensate receiver, however, Dobmeier lacks the claimed port positioned on a side of the condensate receiver above a level of the plurality of loops of the heat exchanger submerged in the liquid condensate, the port configured to drain the liquid condensate from the condensate receiver which is taught by Jo. Applicant has not provided any specific arguments directed to sections in Dobmeier which teach away from a modification to include a port positioned on a side of the condensate receiver above a level of the plurality of loops of the heat exchanger submerged in the liquid condensate, the port configured to drain the liquid condensate from the condensate receiver which is taught by Jo. Further, although Dobmeier and Uselton utilize different methods of cooling for subcooling in their respective system, the method of cooling of Uselton is not relied upon by the Examiner. Uselton is relied upon to show it is known in the art to use a valve to modulate flows through and around a subclooling heat exchanger to create a desired mixture of refrigerant upstream of an expansion valve (Col. 4, lines 9-32, For example, the air conditioner 100 may include a switch 140 that allows fluid flow (e.g., at least a part of the refrigerant from the condenser and/or at least a part of the air from the condenser fan) to be directed to and/or bypass the auxiliary heat exchanger 130. A controller (e.g., a computer) may determine whether to allow fluid flow to the auxiliary heat exchanger 130. For example, a controller may respond to a user request for operation of the auxiliary heat exchanger 130. In some implementation, a controller may determine whether to operate the auxiliary heat exchanger 130 based on a request from a user (e.g., when cooling is requested by a user during high ambient temperatures, such as above 85° F.). An air conditioner may include a default setting, such as to allow operation of the auxiliary heat exchanger 130 and/or to restrict operation of the air conditioner without use of the auxiliary heat exchanger. In some implementations, at least a part of the refrigerant may bypass the auxiliary heat exchanger and flow to the evaporator. In some implementations, the air conditioner 100 may include a metering device (not shown), such as a thermal expansion valve. The liquid refrigerant may be allowed to at least partially pass from the auxiliary heat exchanger 130 and/or condenser 120 through the thermal expansion valve; Further, the description of the thermal expansion valve implies it is located downstream of the bypass branch 135 and upstream of the evaporator 105, therefore the switch 140 is located on the liquid line 135 between the condenser 120 and the thermal expansion device. Moreover, when a portion of the refrigerant bypasses the auxiliary heat exchanger 130 while another portion is routed through the auxiliary heat exchanger 130 the two stream would be combined in the thermal expansion before being routed to the evaporator 105). Further, Applicant has not provided any specific arguments directed to sections in Dobmeier which teach away from a modification to include a modulating valve mounted in the liquid line between the condenser and the expansion device, the modulating valve controllable to (i) circulate the first portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant to the heat exchanger, through the heat exchanger, and to an inlet of the expansion device, and (ii) while the first portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant is circulated to the heat exchanger, bypass a second portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant at a second density less than the first density to the inlet of the expansion device without entering the heat exchanger such that a mixture of the sub-cooled first portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant and the second portion of the liquid phase of the refrigerant enters the expansion device which is taught by Uselton. Moreover, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). See the rejections of claim 1 and 20 above.
Applicant argues on Pg. 6 of the response, “To meet the limitations of claim 1-specifically, the "integral with but fluidly decoupled" tubing configuration within the evaporator coil, the specific drain port location, and the "modulating valve" control-the Office Action proposes modifications to the cited art that fundamentally alter their intended function. As one example, Uselton and Dobmeier would need to be modified beyond their intended purposes. Both Uselton and Dobmeier discuss auxiliary subcooling methods separate from the main evaporator coil's core function. Uselton uses a pad based evaporative system or a thermoelectric cooler, and Dobmeier uses a separate pan for immersion or a spray. Their intended purpose is to add an auxiliary, often optional, subcooling step via separate components. Forcing these designs into an integrated configuration where loops are a subset of the main evaporator tubing rows and submerged would drastically change their airflow requirements, water management systems, and thermal performance characteristics, defeating their simpler, add-on intended purpose.” However, this argument is not persuasive as the modification in view of Choi is only applied to Dobmeier, not Uselton. Further, the subcooling steps of both Dobmeier and Choi are both auxiliary and are not optional as neither Dobmeier or Choi discuss any valving to bypass their subcooling heat exchangers. See the rejections of claim 1 and 20 above.
Applicant argues on Pg. 6 of the response, “As to Choi, this reference discusses integrating a subcooling part into the drain part of the indoor unit. However, the design includes a "flow interference part" to reduce air velocity across the subcooling section (133) to optimize for latent heat exchange with the water rather than the air. This is in stark contrast to the air-to-liquid evaporator coil recited in claim 1 of the present Application. Modifying Choi' s design to fit the Applicant's evaporator coil and "integral but decoupled" structure would likely disrupt the airflow management that is central to Choi' s operation, rendering it unsuitable for its intended optimal performance.” In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., air-to-liquid evaporator coil) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues on Pg. 7 of the response, “Finally, Jo explicitly describes a system intended to cool high-temperature refrigerant gas (from the compressor) before it is condensed, which is a different point in the refrigeration cycle than the focus of claim I of the present disclosure, which is sub-cooling of a liquid phase downstream (e.g., directly) of a condenser (e.g., air-cooled condenser). Modifying Jo to operate efficiently on the liquid line after the condenser would fundamentally change its purpose and the thermodynamic benefits that this cited reference aims to achieve.” However, this argument is not persuasive as Jo has the same flow path arrangement of heat exchangers as Dobmeier (See Fig. 2 of Dobmeier and Fig. of Jo). Further, Jo is merely relied upon to show it is known in the art for a condensate receiver comprising a port positioned on a side of the condensate receiver above a level of the plurality of loops of the heat exchanger submerged in the liquid condensate, the port configured to drain the liquid condensate from the condensate receiver. Jo is not modified as alleged by the Applicant as the teachings of Jo are applied to Dobmeier as modified. See the rejections of claim 1 and 20 above.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Both Dobmeier and Jo disclose condensate receivers that use condensate from the system’s evaporator to cool a heat exchanger, Jo simply shows it is known in the art for a condensate receiver comprising a port positioned on a side of the condensate receiver above a level of the plurality of loops of the heat exchanger submerged in the liquid condensate, the port configured to drain the liquid condensate from the condensate receiver for the purposes of improving efficiency and energy savings (Jo, Pg. 3).
In response to applicant's argument that “Second, there are distinct, physical integration differences described in Choi as opposed to the other cited references. Choi discloses a subcooling section with focus on specific airflow management features. Uselton and Dobmeier discuss auxiliary, often separate, systems (e.g., pads, immersion lines, retrofit kits). A PHOSITA motivated to use an auxiliary, separate system (Uselton/Dobmeier) would not be motivated to simultaneously implement the specific, rigid, integrated structure of Choi or the Applicant's claim I design, as these are fundamentally different design paths”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
This argument is on page 7-8 of the response, “Crucially, none of the prior art references, nor the combination thereof, provide any motivation to arrive at the unique structural limitation of having evaporator coil tubing rows that are "integral with but fluidly decoupled" to function as a subcooling heat exchanger loops "submerged in the liquid condensate" with a specific "drain port positioned on a side ... above a level of the plurality of loops." These are highly specific structural and geometric requirements that are not suggested by the generalized teachings of using condensate for efficiency improvements found in the cited art. The lack of an explicit, technically sound motivation to combine these specific elements in this precise configuration can only lead to the conclusion that a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established.” However, this argument is not persuasive as the Examiner maintains the cited references disclose all of the claimed features and has established a prima facie case of obviousness. See the rejections of claim 1 and 20 above.
The rejections of independent claims 1 and 20 are maintained. The rejections of dependent claims 9-10, 12-19, 21, and 29-53 are also maintained for at least the reasons described herein.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/DEVON MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 March 03rd, 2026