DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment and remarks filed on June 01, 2026 in response to the Office action mailed May 18, 2026 have been received and entered under 37 C.F.R. § 1.116.
By the amendment, claims 5, 11 and 17 have been canceled, and claims 1, 7, 12, 19 and 20 have been amended. No new claims have been added.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 12-16 and 18-20 are pending in the application. For the reasons set forth under Withdrawal of the Restriction Requirement below, the restriction requirement is withdrawn and all pending claims are examined on the merits herein.
Withdrawal of the Restriction Requirement
The restriction requirement set forth in the prior communication on 11/26/2024, by which the claimed subject matter was restricted among Species A1 (FIG. 1), Species A2 (FIG. 8), Species A3 (FIG. 9) and Species A4 (FIG. 10), and among Subspecies B1 (FIGS. 2-5) and Subspecies B2 (FIGS. 6-7), is hereby withdrawn. See MPEP § 811.04.
The requirement is withdrawn for two reasons. First, the two groupings were not independent of one another. A choice among the species A1-A4 necessarily determined the subspecies, and a choice between subspecies B1 and B2 necessarily determined the species, because FIG. 1 and FIG. 9 are the application scenarios in which the cooler 32 is implemented as the condenser 321 of Subspecies B1, whereas FIG. 8 and FIG. 10 are the application scenarios in which the cooler 32 is implemented as the dry cooler 322 of Subspecies B2 (specification ¶¶ 0073, 0079, 0081). Only the pairings A1 or A3 with B1, and A2 or A4 with B2, correspond to embodiments actually disclosed. The requirement as framed thus presented combinations that are not disclosed and that no single embodiment can practice, and Applicant’s election of Species A1 together with Subspecies B2 was one such combination.
Second, the species A1-A4 groupings were not in all respects mutually exclusive species. FIG. 9 differs from FIG. 1, and FIG. 10 differs from FIG. 8, only by the further inclusion of the heat exchange core 13 disposed in the circulating ventilation channel 10 (specification ¶¶ 0078, 0081). A grouping that is distinguished from another solely by the addition of an element stands in a subgenus, rather than a mutually exclusive species, relationship to it, and is properly addressed by dependent claim practice rather than by restriction. See MPEP § 806.04(f).
Because the Examiner should not select among species on Applicant’s behalf, and because a defect in the framing of the requirement is properly cured by withdrawing the requirement rather than by construing the election against Applicant, all claims are examined on the merits in this action. Claims 1-3, 6-10, 12-16 and 18-20 are pending and are examined herein. Claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15 and 16 are hereby rejoined and are no longer withdrawn from consideration.
Applicant is advised that the withdrawal of the restriction requirement removes the basis for the protection afforded by 35 U.S.C. § 121 as to any claim examined in this application. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a refrigeration part connected to an indoor space and configured to use refrigerant to cool air sent into the indoor space” recited in claims 1 and 19. The term “part” is a generic placeholder or nonce term that is a substitute for “means” (prong A); it is modified by the functional language “configured to use refrigerant to cool air sent into the indoor space” (prong B); and it is not modified by any structure, material or act sufficient to perform the recited function (prong C). Accordingly, this limitation is construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structure disclosed for performing the recited function is the electronic expansion valve 21, the evaporator 22 and the compressor 23 that are sequentially connected, with the electronic expansion valve 21 on the side of the evaporator 22 close to the first pipeline 41 and the compressor 23 on the side of the evaporator 22 close to the second pipeline 42 (specification ¶¶ 0019-0020, 0047-0048; fig. 3).
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
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 19, as amended, each recite three heat dissipation modes defined exclusively by the flow path of the heat carrier after it completes heat exchange with the refrigerant in the heat exchanger, namely: (i) a first heat dissipation mode in which the heat carrier flows into the dry cooler for heat dissipation; (ii) a second heat dissipation mode in which the heat carrier flows to the rear end of the external pipeline network without entering the dry cooler; and (iii) a third heat dissipation mode in which a first portion of the heat carrier flows into the dry cooler and a second portion flows to the rear end of the external pipeline network. Claims 1 and 19 then further recite that “in the second heat dissipation mode and the third heat dissipation mode, the controller is configured to control the second three-way valve based on a heating temperature required by the heat carrier to adjust distribution of a flow quantity of the heat carrier flowing into the dry cooler and a flow quantity of the heat carrier flowing into the rear end of the external pipeline network.”
The originally filed disclosure does not provide written description support for the controller adjusting the distribution of the flow quantity of the heat carrier flowing into the dry cooler while the system is operating in the second heat dissipation mode. Specifically, the originally filed specification states at ¶ 0069 that, in the second heat dissipation mode, “the heat carrier flows only in the external pipeline network 300 and does not enter the dry cooler 322 for heat dissipation,” and states at ¶¶ 0070-0071 that the controller 60 controls the second three-way valve 52 to implement “distribution of a flow quantity of the heat carrier flowing through the dry cooler 322 and a flow quantity of the heat carrier directly flowing into the rear end of the external pipeline network 300.” The disclosure thus describes flow-quantity distribution only for the operating condition in which some portion of the heat carrier actually enters the dry cooler. Nowhere does the originally filed disclosure describe, or reasonably convey possession of, a controller that adjusts the distribution of a flow quantity of the heat carrier flowing into the dry cooler during a mode in which, by the claim’s own definition, no heat carrier enters the dry cooler at all. Accordingly, claims 1 and 19 recite a combination of features — flow-quantity distribution control between the dry cooler and the rear end of the external pipeline network performed in a mode expressly defined by the absence of any flow into the dry cooler — that is not described in the specification as filed. Claims 1 and 19 therefore lack adequate written description support.
Claims 2, 3, 6-10, 12-16, 18 and 20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Applicant may overcome this rejection, for example, by reciting that the controller is configured to control the second three-way valve in the third heat dissipation mode, or by otherwise conforming the recited control operation to the operating conditions actually described at ¶¶ 0068-0071 of the specification as filed.
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 1-3, 6-10, 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 19 recite “in a first heat dissipation mode, after completing heat exchange with the refrigerant in the heat exchanger, the heat carrier flows into the dry cooler for heat dissipation,” and “in a third heat dissipation mode, after completing heat exchange with the refrigerant in the heat exchanger, a first portion of the heat carrier flows into the dry cooler for heat dissipation and a second portion of the heat carrier flows to the rear end of the external pipeline network.” The first mode as recited is not limited to the heat carrier flowing exclusively or entirely into the dry cooler; it is satisfied whenever the heat carrier flows into the dry cooler. The third mode, in which a first portion of the heat carrier flows into the dry cooler, therefore also satisfies the recitation of the first mode. Because the claim purports to define three distinct modes but the first and third modes overlap in scope, one of ordinary skill in the art could not determine with reasonable certainty when the system is operating in the first mode as opposed to the third mode, and the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the Examiner has read the first heat dissipation mode as a mode in which the heat carrier flows into the dry cooler without flowing to the rear end of the external pipeline network, consistent with ¶ 0069 of the specification.
Claims 1 and 19 recite that “in the second heat dissipation mode and the third heat dissipation mode, the controller is configured to control the second three-way valve based on a heating temperature required by the heat carrier to adjust distribution of a flow quantity of the heat carrier flowing into the dry cooler and a flow quantity of the heat carrier flowing into the rear end of the external pipeline network.” However, the second heat dissipation mode is expressly defined in the same claims as a mode in which “the heat carrier flows to the rear end of the external pipeline network without entering the dry cooler.” It is therefore unclear how, in the second heat dissipation mode, the controller can adjust a distribution between a flow quantity of the heat carrier flowing into the dry cooler and a flow quantity flowing to the rear end of the external pipeline network when the former flow quantity is, by definition, zero. For examination purposes, the Examiner has read the recited control operation as being performed in the third heat dissipation mode.
Claims 1 and 19 recite that three ports of the second three-way valve are respectively connected to the heat exchanger, the dry cooler, and “a rear end of the external pipeline network,” and further recite heat-carrier flow “to the rear end of the external pipeline network.” The term “rear end” is a relative term of location, and neither the claims nor the specification provides any standard, reference point or data point by which one of ordinary skill in the art could ascertain which portion of the external pipeline network constitutes its “rear end” as distinguished from any other portion. The scope of this limitation cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. For examination purposes, the Examiner has read “a rear end of the external pipeline network” as the portion of the external pipeline network downstream of the second three-way valve.
The external pipeline network is first introduced in claims 1 and 19 within a functional “configured to” clause — the heat exchanger “is configured to exchange heat between the refrigerant and a heat carrier in an external pipeline network” — which on its face recites an intended use of the heat exchanger rather than a positively claimed element. The claims subsequently recite affirmative structural relationships to the same external pipeline network: the dry cooler “is connected in parallel to the external pipeline network,” and one of the three ports of the second three-way valve is “connected to…a rear end of the external pipeline network.” It is therefore unclear whether the external pipeline network (and the heat carrier flowing therein) is a positively required element of the claimed composite refrigeration system or is merely a workpiece/environment with which the claimed system is intended to cooperate. For examination purposes, the Examiner has read the external pipeline network as a positively required element of the claimed system.
Claims 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12-16, 18 and 20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the cooler is a condenser, the condenser is connected in parallel to the heat exchanger, and the condenser is configured to directly perform air-cooled heat dissipation on the refrigerant.” Amended claim 1, however, requires a heat dissipation part comprising “a heat exchanger and a dry cooler,” requires that dry cooler to be “connected in parallel to the external pipeline network,” and requires it to “perform air-cooled heat dissipation on the heat carrier to implement indirect air-cooled heat dissipation on the refrigerant.” The element recited in claim 2 is therefore not a further limitation of the corresponding element of claim 1 but is instead inconsistent with it in three respects: it is connected in parallel to the heat exchanger rather than to the external pipeline network; it acts upon the refrigerant rather than upon the heat carrier; and it dissipates heat directly rather than indirectly. A single element cannot satisfy both sets of requirements simultaneously. Claim 2 accordingly does not comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112(d). See MPEP § 608.01(n)(III).
Claims 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15 and 16 depend directly or indirectly from claim 2 and are rejected on the same basis, each incorporating by reference the inconsistent condenser limitation of claim 2.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15 and 16 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. Claim 2 recites “the cooler,” for which amended claim 1 provides no antecedent basis, claim 1 reciting instead “a dry cooler.” It is therefore unclear whether “the cooler” of claim 2 is intended to refer to the dry cooler of claim 1, in which case the claim is internally inconsistent for the reasons stated above, or to some further element not recited in claim 1. The same ambiguity is inherited by claims 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15 and 16.
For purposes of applying prior art below, and consistent with MPEP § 2143.03, the Examiner has construed claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15 and 16 as reciting a condenser that is provided in addition to the dry cooler required by claim 1, the condenser being connected in parallel to the heat exchanger and directly performing air-cooled heat dissipation on the refrigerant. Applicant may overcome these rejections by canceling the claims, by amending their dependency.
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, 8, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Roy (US 2015/0261229 A1) in view of Sun et al. (US 2020/0191423 A1) and further in view of Ryu et al. (US 7,305,841 B2).
In regard to claim 1, Roy teaches a composite refrigeration system (environmental condition control, monitoring, analysis and adjustment system of operating environment 100, including HVAC system 110 and controller 140) comprising:
a refrigeration part (evaporator section 120 having evaporator fan 122, together with compressor 114) connected to an indoor space (structure 190, which may be a temperature/humidity controlled data center space) and configured to use refrigerant (heat transfer fluid circulated through one or more pressurized closed-loop piping systems 112) to cool air sent into the indoor space (return air recovered through return ducts 194 is cooled across evaporator section 120 and forced back into structure 190 as supply air through supply ducts 192) (¶¶ 0005, 0030, 0040-0041, 0043; fig. 1);
a heat dissipation part (condenser section 130 having condenser fan 132, inlet 134 and outlet 136) configured to release heat of the refrigerant so as to cool the heat transfer fluid from a hot gas vapor state to a less-hot liquid state (¶ 0042; fig. 1);
a first pipeline (the portion of the closed-loop piping system 112 extending from the outlet of condenser section 130 to evaporator section 120) connected between the refrigeration part (120) and the heat dissipation part (130) and configured to send the refrigerant from the heat dissipation part (130) to the refrigeration part (120) (¶¶ 0042-0043; fig. 1);
a second pipeline (the portion of the closed-loop piping system 112 extending from compressor 114 to the inlet of condenser section 130) connected between the refrigeration part (120) and the heat dissipation part (130) and configured to send the refrigerant from the refrigeration part (120) to the heat dissipation part (130) (¶¶ 0041-0042; fig. 1); and
a controller (140) configured to receive signals from a plurality of temperature, humidity, pressure and current sensors of the system over wired or wireless links and to convert and act upon those signals (¶¶ 0045-0046, 0052; fig. 1).
Roy does not explicitly teach that the heat dissipation part comprises a heat exchanger and a dry cooler, or that the heat exchanger is connected between the second pipeline and the first pipeline and is configured to exchange heat between the refrigerant and a heat carrier in an external pipeline network.
However, Sun teaches an air conditioning system (1) comprising an outdoor unit (100) having a compressor (102), an outdoor heat exchanger (108) and a first expansion valve (110), an indoor unit (200), and a hydro unit (300) coupled to the outdoor unit by refrigerant pipes so as to form a cycle (¶¶ 0044-0045; fig. 1), the hydro unit (300) including an A2W heat exchanger (302) in which refrigerant heat exchange plates and water heat exchange plates are alternately arranged so that hot water is generated by heat exchange between the refrigerant and the water (¶¶ 0059-0060; figs. 1, 3), a water supply tank (306) and a water supply pump (308) that supply water to the A2W heat exchanger (302) and receive the hot water generated therein (¶ 0062; fig. 1), the hot water so generated being supplied to a water supply tank, a fan coil unit and a floor cooling/heating device for hot water supply and heating (¶ 0060). The water supply tank (306), water supply pump (308) and the downstream fan coil unit and floor heating device together constitute an external pipeline network in which a heat carrier (water) circulates, and the A2W heat exchanger (302) is connected in the refrigerant path between the discharge side and the return side of the circuit (¶¶ 0087, 0137; figs. 1, 3, 9).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the heat dissipation part of Roy to further comprise a heat exchanger connected between the second pipeline and the first pipeline and configured to exchange heat between the refrigerant and a heat carrier in an external pipeline network, in view of the teachings of Sun, in order to recover the condensing heat that Roy otherwise discharges entirely to the outside air (Roy ¶ 0042) and transfer it to a useful hot-water or heating load, thereby improving the energy efficiency of the installation and reducing the operating costs Roy identifies as a principal concern (Roy ¶¶ 0011-0012; Sun ¶¶ 0059-0060, 0062). Rejecting condenser heat into a liquid heat carrier of substantially higher heat capacity and thermal conductivity than air is.
Roy as modified by Sun does not explicitly teach the dry cooler connected in parallel to the external pipeline network and configured to perform air-cooled heat dissipation on the heat carrier; the second three-way valve, three ports of which are respectively connected to the heat exchanger, the dry cooler and a rear end of the external pipeline network; the recited first, second and third heat dissipation modes; or the controller controlling the second three-way valve based on a heating temperature required by the heat carrier to adjust the distribution of flow quantity.
However, Ryu teaches a cogeneration system associated with a heat pump type air conditioner (50) and comprising a radiating heat exchanger (144) to radiate the heat recovered by a heat exchanger (waste heat recoverer 130); a heat medium circulation conduit (142) that connects the heat exchanger (130) and a downstream heat consumer (waste heat supplying heat exchanger 140) and through which a heat medium is circulated by a heat medium circulation pump (143); a radiating bypass conduit (145) that connects the radiating heat exchanger (144) and the heat medium circulation conduit (142) and guides the heat medium passing through the conduit (142) to bypass the downstream heat consumer (140); and a waste heat distributor (146) to distribute the recovered heat to the downstream heat consumer (140) and the radiating heat exchanger (144), the waste heat distributor (146) comprising a 3-way valve arranged at a portion of the heat medium circulation conduit (142) from which the radiating bypass conduit (145) is branched (Ryu, col. 7, lines 5-50; claim 1; figs. 2-3). The three ports of that 3-way valve (146) are accordingly connected respectively to the heat medium circulation conduit (142) arriving from the heat exchanger (130), the radiating bypass conduit (145) leading to the radiating heat exchanger (144), and the continuing portion of the heat medium circulation conduit (142) leading to the downstream (rear) end of the network at the heat consumer (140). Ryu further teaches a radiating fan (148) arranged near the radiating heat exchanger (144) to blow outdoor air thereto so that the heat carried by the heat medium is radiated to the atmosphere (Ryu, col. 7, lines 60-64; col. 10, lines 1-4, 11-16; figs. 2-3), the radiating heat exchanger (144) with its radiating fan (148) thus constituting a dry cooler that is connected in parallel to the downstream portion of the heat-carrier network and that performs air-cooled heat dissipation on the heat carrier rather than on the refrigerant.
Ryu further teaches operating that 3-way valve (146) in each of three states: a flow path switching operation causing the heat medium to flow to the radiating heat exchanger (144), the radiating fan (148) then being rotated, corresponding to the claimed first heat dissipation mode in which the heat carrier flows into the dry cooler for heat dissipation after completing heat exchange with the refrigerant; a flow path switching operation causing the heat medium instead to flow to the downstream heat consumer (140), corresponding to the claimed second heat dissipation mode in which the heat carrier flows to the rear end of the external pipeline network without entering the dry cooler; and distribution of the recovered heat to both the heat consumer (140) and the radiating heat exchanger (144), corresponding to the claimed third heat dissipation mode in which a first portion of the heat carrier flows into the dry cooler and a second portion flows to the rear end of the external pipeline network (Ryu, col. 9, lines 50-53; col. 9, line 66 – col. 10, line 4; col. 7, lines 43-46; claim 1; figs. 2-3). Ryu expressly states that the radiating heat exchanger and the distributor are provided so that the recovered heat may be re-used only for required purposes and so that an overload may be accommodated (Ryu, col. 4, lines 12-19; col. 14, lines 41-48).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the heat dissipation part of Roy as modified by Sun so that the cooler thereof is a dry cooler connected in parallel to the external pipeline network and configured to perform air-cooled heat dissipation on the heat carrier to implement indirect air-cooled heat dissipation on the refrigerant, and to provide a second three-way valve having three ports respectively connected to the heat exchanger, the dry cooler and a rear end of the external pipeline network and operable to establish the three recited heat dissipation modes, in view of the teachings of Ryu, in order to guarantee that the refrigeration system can continue to reject the full heat load of the refrigerant when the heating demand of the external pipeline network is reduced or absent, and so that recovered heat is delivered to the heat carrier only to the extent actually required downstream. Locating the branch and the distributing valve on the heat-carrier side rather than adding a second refrigerant-side condenser further reduces the number of refrigerant-containing components and leak paths and consolidates flow control in a single valve.
As to the controller, Roy already provides a controller (140) that receives sensor signals and governs the operation of the environmental condition control system (Roy ¶¶ 0045, 0052; fig. 1), and Ryu’s waste heat distributor distributes the heat carrier between the two branches according to the heat required downstream. Configuring that controller to operate the second three-way valve on the basis of the heating temperature required by the heat carrier is therefore no more than the selection of the parameter in which the downstream requirement taught by Ryu is expressed. Applicant’s own specification confirms that the two are alternative expressions of the same demand, stating that the controller may control the second three-way valve “based on a heat dissipation requirement of the heat carrier or based on a heating temperature required by the heat carrier” (specification ¶ 0071). Such routine control-parameter selection yields no more than the predictable result of holding the delivered heat carrier at the temperature the downstream load requires.
It is further noted that, under the § 112(f) interpretation set forth above, the recited “refrigeration part” is construed to cover the disclosed electronic expansion valve, evaporator and compressor sequentially connected, and equivalents thereof. Roy as modified by Sun provides that structure or its equivalent, namely the evaporator section (120) and compressor (114) of Roy together with the electronic expansion valve of Sun (second expansion valve 204, disposed upstream of the heat exchanger 202 that operates as an evaporator in the cooling mode) (Roy ¶¶ 0041, 0043; Sun ¶¶ 0057-0058, 0086).
In regard to claim 8, Roy teaches the composite refrigeration system according to claim 1, wherein the refrigeration part further comprises an evaporator (evaporator section 120) and a compressor (114) that are sequentially connected, the compressor (114) being disposed downstream of the evaporator (120) relative to refrigerant flow and in fluid communication with the second pipeline, the compressor (114) drawing low-pressure, low-temperature heat transfer fluid from the evaporator section (120) and delivering high-pressure, higher-temperature heat transfer fluid to the condenser section (130) (¶¶ 0041, 0043; fig. 1), but does not explicitly teach an electronic expansion valve disposed upstream of the evaporator and in fluid communication with the first pipeline.
However, Sun teaches a second expansion valve (204) implemented as an electronic expansion valve and connected to one side of an indoor heat exchanger (202) that operates as the evaporator in the cooling mode, the refrigerant discharged from the compressor (102) sequentially circulating through the flow path switching valve (106), the outdoor heat exchanger (108), the second expansion valve (204), the indoor heat exchanger (202) and back to the compressor (102), so that the electronic expansion valve (204) lies upstream of the evaporator (202) on the line arriving from the heat-rejecting heat exchanger and the compressor (102) lies downstream of the evaporator (202); the electronic expansion valve (204) expands the refrigerant, adjusts its flow rate and prevents its flow as needed (¶¶ 0057-0058, 0086; figs. 1, 3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the refrigeration part of Roy by implementing an electronic expansion valve disposed upstream of the evaporator and in fluid communication with the first pipeline, in view of the teachings of Sun, in order to throttle and depressurize the liquid refrigerant leaving the heat dissipation part so that it undergoes the pressure and temperature drop required for evaporation and heat absorption in the evaporator, and to permit the refrigerant flow rate to be adjusted or interrupted electronically as operating conditions require (Sun ¶¶ 0050, 0058).
In regard to claim 14, Roy teaches the composite refrigeration system according to claim 1, further comprising a circulating ventilation channel (the closed air path defined by the one or more supply ducts 192, the structure 190, the one or more return ducts 194 and the evaporator section 120), wherein an air supply port (the one or more supply ducts 192) and an air outlet port (the one or more return ducts 194) of the circulating ventilation channel are separately connected to the indoor space (structure 190), and the refrigeration part (evaporator section 120 with evaporator fan 122) is disposed in the circulating ventilation channel and is configured to refrigerate air flowing out of the air outlet port, the return air recovered from the structure (190) in direction B through the return ducts (194) being forced through the evaporator section (120) across the closed-loop piping systems (112) so that the heat transfer fluid absorbs the heat transferred from that air, and to send refrigerated air into the indoor space through the air supply port, the supply air being forced back into the structure (190) via the supply ducts (192) in direction A (¶¶ 0040, 0043; fig. 1).
In regard to claim 19, Roy teaches a data center (¶¶ 0005, 0030-0031; fig. 1) comprising:
an equipment room (structure 190, configured as a temperature/humidity controlled data center space supporting the critical control of temperature and humidity for the cooling of electronics components) (¶¶ 0005, 0030-0031, 0040; fig. 1); and
a composite refrigeration system (environmental condition control system of operating environment 100 including HVAC system 110 and controller 140) comprising a refrigeration part (evaporator section 120 with evaporator fan 122) connected to an indoor space of the equipment room and configured to use refrigerant (heat transfer fluid in closed-loop piping systems 112) to cool air sent into the indoor space of the equipment room (¶¶ 0040-0041, 0043; fig. 1); a heat dissipation part (condenser section 130) (¶ 0042; fig. 1); a first pipeline (the portion of the closed-loop piping system 112 extending from condenser section 130 to evaporator section 120) connected between the refrigeration part (120) and the heat dissipation part (130) and configured to send the refrigerant from the heat dissipation part (130) to the refrigeration part (120) (¶¶ 0042-0043; fig. 1); a second pipeline (the portion of the closed-loop piping system 112 extending from compressor 114 to condenser section 130) connected between the refrigeration part (120) and the heat dissipation part (130) and configured to send the refrigerant from the refrigeration part (120) to the heat dissipation part (130) (¶¶ 0041-0042; fig. 1); and a controller (140) (¶¶ 0045, 0052; fig. 1).
The heat exchanger, the dry cooler, the second three-way valve, the three heat dissipation modes and the recited controller function of claim 19 are rejected for the reasons and on the evidence and rationale set forth above with respect to claim 1 (Sun ¶¶ 0044-0045, 0059-0062, 0087, 0137, figs. 1, 3; Ryu col. 4, lines 12-19; col. 7, lines 34-50, 60-64; col. 9, lines 50-53; col. 9, line 66 – col. 10, line 4; claim 1; figs. 2-3).
Roy does not explicitly teach that the composite refrigeration system is disposed in the equipment room. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to so dispose the composite refrigeration system of the modified Roy, as an obvious matter of rearrangement of parts, in order to shorten the refrigerant and air-side runs between the refrigeration part and the conditioned load, to reduce duct and piping heat gain and pressure loss, and to permit operators to monitor and service the system without separate access to a remote mechanical space. Shifting the location of a component, without change in the operation of the device, is not a patentable modification. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Roy, Sun and Ryu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blanton et al. (US 2021/0102738 A1).
In regard to claim 7, Roy teaches the composite refrigeration system according to claim 1, wherein the composite refrigeration system further comprises a temperature sensor (structural environment cool air sensor 156) disposed in the indoor space, placed in a comparatively low position within the structure (190) and configured to monitor a temperature in the indoor space so as to assess an overall cool air temperature condition within the structure (190), the temperature sensor (156) being electrically connected to the controller (140) by wired or wireless links that allow the controller (140) to receive a signal from the sensor (¶¶ 0046, 0050, 0052; fig. 1).
The modified Roy does not explicitly teach that the controller is configured to control the second three-way valve with reference to a temperature value detected by that temperature sensor.
However, Blanton teaches an HVAC system (150) having a three-way valve (156) and a further valve (176) disposed along parallel branches of a circuit, and a controller (220) including a memory (222) and a processor (224) configured to execute instructions controlling those components (¶ 0060; figs. 5-7), the controller (220) being communicatively coupled to sensors (226) that transmit feedback indicative of operating parameters including a temperature of the conditioned space and an ambient temperature, the controller (220) adjusting the three-way valve (156) and the valve (176) on the basis of a determined temperature (¶¶ 0061, 0067-0068; figs. 5-7, 9-11), the three-way valve (156) being settable to a particular position enabling particular flow rates through each outlet rather than full diversion alone (¶ 0081; claims 12-13).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the second three-way valve of the modified Roy with reference to the temperature value detected by the indoor temperature sensor (156), in view of the teachings of Blanton, because the indoor temperature determines the cooling duty imposed on the refrigeration part and therefore the quantity of heat available for transfer to the heat carrier, so that using the detected indoor temperature as the control input keeps the heating effect on the heat carrier balanced. This is the predictable use of known sensor feedback to achieve an expected result.
In regard to claim 12, Roy as modified by Sun, Ryu and Blanton teaches the composite refrigeration system according to claim 7, wherein the refrigeration part further comprises an electronic expansion valve, an evaporator and a compressor that are sequentially connected, the electronic expansion valve being disposed upstream of the evaporator and in fluid communication with the first pipeline and the compressor being disposed downstream of the evaporator and in fluid communication with the second pipeline, for the reasons and on the evidence set forth above with respect to claim 8 (Roy ¶¶ 0041, 0043, fig. 1; Sun ¶¶ 0050, 0057-0058, 0086, figs. 1, 3).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Roy, Sun and Ryu as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Madaffari et al. (US 2012/0298334 A1).
In regard to claim 18, the modified Roy teaches the composite refrigeration system according to claim 14, including the circulating ventilation channel having the air supply port (supply ducts 192) and the air outlet port (return ducts 194) with the refrigeration part (evaporator section 120) disposed therein (Roy ¶¶ 0040, 0043; fig. 1), but does not explicitly teach a heat exchange core disposed in the circulating ventilation channel between the air outlet port and the refrigeration part at which external air flows and which introduces that external air to perform pre-refrigeration on the air flowing out of the air outlet port.
However, Madaffari teaches an air handling unit (100) for cooling a data center, comprising a first air duct (105) having an outside air inlet (101) and an exhaust air outlet (102), a second air duct (106) having a return air inlet (103) and a supply air outlet (104), a mechanical cooling device (140) and a supply fan (150) disposed in the second air duct (106), and a heat exchanger (120) positioned partially within the first air duct and partially within the second air duct, the heat exchanger (120) being a heat pipe having a cold deck portion (121) in the first duct and a hot deck portion (122) in the second duct, or alternatively a heat wheel or a fixed-plate exchanger, and the supply fan (150) circulating the second air stream (191) of recirculating inside air successively through the return air inlet (103), the second portion of the heat exchanger (120), the mechanical cooling device (140) and the supply air outlet (104) (Madaffari ¶¶ 0018-0021; figs. 2, 6). Heat energy is thereby transmitted from the recirculating inside air stream (191) to the outside air stream (190) flowing at the cold deck portion (121), reducing the sensible heat of the inside air stream (191) before it reaches the mechanical cooling device (140), which the control system activates only if additional cooling is then needed, and the two streams do not come into contact so that the humidity of the conditioned space is unaffected (Madaffari ¶¶ 0009-0010, 0021; abstract; figs. 2, 6).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the circulating ventilation channel of the modified Roy to include a heat exchange core located between the air outlet port and the refrigeration part and configured to introduce external air so as to perform pre-refrigeration on the air flowing out of the air outlet port, in view of the teachings of Madaffari, in order to reduce the temperature of the return air before it reaches the refrigeration part and thereby reduce the mechanical cooling load and its associated power consumption — a benefit Roy identifies as a principal objective (Roy ¶¶ 0011-0012) — while preserving the cleanliness and humidity of the air returned to the conditioned space, the two air streams not coming into contact within the core (Madaffari ¶¶ 0009, 0021).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Roy, Sun and Ryu as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of VanGilder et al. (US 8,560,677 B2).
In regard to claim 20, Roy teaches the data center according to claim 19, wherein the composite refrigeration system comprises a controller (140) that, together with the data collected from the sensors, constitutes an integrated monitoring system communicatively connected by way of the HVAC system controller/sensor interface (235) and the HVAC system monitor device (240) with an analysis system (200) having a processor (215) and data storage devices (220), which analysis system may be implemented as a unit integral to the HVAC system or located in the monitored building (¶¶ 0071, 0075, 0082-0083; figs. 1, 2), and further teaches that the heat load arising from operations within the monitored space is quantified by measuring electricity consumption by specifically measurable categories including computers, and is used in determining the heating and cooling required of the environmental condition control system (¶¶ 0064, 0066, 0073). Roy does not explicitly teach a server disposed in the equipment room, a controller communicatively connected to that server, or control of a heat dissipation mode with reference to a workload of the server.
However, VanGilder teaches a data center (100) including racks (108) that contain servers and at least one cooling unit (104), together with a data center controller (210) that may be located within the data center (100) and that interconnects with the data center components over a network (205), the controller (210) receiving data indicating the operational state of individual devices, components or subsystems of the data center including information that a particular server is not operating at capacity (col. 6, lines 1-30; figs. 1-2; claims 1, 9). VanGilder teaches that the controller (210) receives information regarding the cooling unit, the server and the racks, the information including workload of the data center (claims 1, 9, 17); that a server and network manager (315) of the controller monitors server performance and determines that a server is operating at a certain percentage of its processing capacity (col. 8, line 60 – col. 9, line 10; figs. 3-5); that the controller determines, in real time, a rack utilization rate representing the fraction of maximum computing load assigned to each rack and a cooling utilization rate representing the fraction of maximum airflow delivered by a cooler (col. 24, line 55 – col. 25, line 2); and that the controller determines the usage, operational state and combination of racks and cooling units that minimize total power consumption, the cooling units being fully utilized, partially utilized or powered off accordingly, and cooling load being distributed among cooling units while cooling performance is maintained at an acceptable level (col. 24, lines 30-50; claims 5, 13-14; figs. 7-9).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to dispose the server in the equipment room, to communicatively connect the controller (140) of the modified Roy to that server, and to control the heat dissipation mode of the composite refrigeration system with reference to the workload of the server, in view of the teachings of VanGilder, in order to obtain the computer heat-load information Roy already relies upon from its most direct and accurate source rather than by inference from aggregate sub-metered electricity consumption, and so that the operating state of the heat-rejection equipment tracks the actual computing load in real time as VanGilder teaches. In the modified system, the heat carrier is apportioned between the dry cooler and the external pipeline network according to the quantity of heat available for recovery; because the server workload determines the heat generated in the equipment room and hence the temperature rise of the refrigerant, using that workload to select the heat dissipation mode is the predictable use of known information to achieve an expected result.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Roy, Sun and Ryu as applied to claims 1, 8 and 14 above, and further in view of Blanton et al. (US 2021/0102738 A1).
These claims are rejected as construed under the heading Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) above, that is, as reciting a condenser provided in addition to the dry cooler required by claim 1.
In regard to claim 2, Roy as modified by Sun and Ryu teaches the composite refrigeration system according to claim 1, and Roy further teaches a condenser (condenser section 130) that is configured to directly perform air-cooled heat dissipation on the refrigerant, a condenser fan (132) taking air from an inlet (134), forcing that air across the closed-loop piping systems (112) within the condenser section (130) and exhausting it through an outlet (136), so as to release enough heat to the outside air to cool the heat transfer fluid from a hot gas vapor state to a less-hot liquid state (¶ 0042; fig. 1). Roy as modified does not explicitly teach that the condenser is connected in parallel to the heat exchanger.
However, Blanton teaches a condenser system (162) of a refrigerant circuit (151) in which a first condenser coil (168) and a second condenser coil (170) are positioned in a parallel arrangement relative to the respective refrigerant flows directed through them, a first junction (177) dividing the refrigerant into a first portion (178) directed through a first conduit (172) and the first condenser coil (168) and a second portion (180) directed through a second conduit (174) and the second condenser coil (170), and a second junction (196) at which the two portions recombine (¶¶ 0049-0050, 0056; figs. 5-7; claim 7), the refrigerant circuit (151) further including a reheat coil (166) fed from the same three-way valve (156) that feeds the condenser system (162) (¶ 0048; fig. 5).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to connect the condenser of Roy in parallel with the heat exchanger of the modified system, in view of the teachings of Blanton, so that the refrigerant discharged from the compressor may be divided between a directly air-cooled path and a heat-recovering path and recombined downstream, thereby permitting the system to reject heat directly to ambient air when the external pipeline network cannot absorb it while continuing to recover heat through the heat exchanger. Arranging two heat-rejecting elements in parallel across a common junction so that the flow may be apportioned between them is the predictable use of a known arrangement to achieve an expected result. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
In regard to claim 3, Roy as modified by Sun, Ryu and Blanton teaches the composite refrigeration system according to claim 2, wherein the composite refrigeration system further comprises a controller (140 of Roy) (Roy ¶¶ 0045, 0052; fig. 1), and Blanton further teaches a first three-way valve (156) having an inlet (158) configured to receive the pressurized refrigerant discharged from the compressor (152), a first outlet (160) configured to direct the refrigerant toward the condenser system (162), and a second outlet (164) configured to direct the refrigerant toward the reheat coil (166) (¶ 0048; fig. 5), the three ports of that valve thus being connected respectively to the line arriving from the compressor, the condenser, and the further heat-exchanging element; and Blanton further teaches a controller (220) having a memory (222) and a processor (224) configured to execute instructions controlling the three-way valve (156) so as to adjust the flow rates directed through each outlet (¶¶ 0060, 0081; figs. 5-7; claims 21, 24).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the modified system of Roy with a first three-way valve having three ports respectively connected to the second pipeline, the heat exchanger and the condenser, and to configure the controller to control that valve so as to adjust the heat dissipation mode of the heat dissipation part, in view of the teachings of Blanton, in order to apportion the refrigerant between the heat-recovering path and the directly air-cooled path by means of a single valve, thereby reducing component count, leak paths and cost as compared with separate valves in each branch.
In regard to claim 6, Roy as modified by Sun, Ryu and Blanton teaches the composite refrigeration system according to claim 3, wherein the composite refrigeration system further comprises a temperature sensor (structural environment cool air sensor 156 of Roy) disposed in the indoor space and configured to monitor a temperature in the indoor space, the temperature sensor being electrically connected to the controller (140) (Roy ¶¶ 0046, 0050, 0052; fig. 1), and wherein the controller is configured to control the first three-way valve with reference to a temperature value detected by the temperature sensor (Blanton ¶¶ 0060-0061; figs. 5-7), for the reasons and on the rationale set forth above with respect to claim 7.
In regard to claims 9, 10 and 13, Roy as modified by Sun, Ryu and Blanton teaches the composite refrigeration system according to claims 2, 3 and 6 respectively, wherein the refrigeration part further comprises an electronic expansion valve, an evaporator and a compressor that are sequentially connected, the electronic expansion valve being located on the side of the evaporator close to the first pipeline and the compressor on the side of the evaporator close to the second pipeline, for the reasons and on the evidence set forth above with respect to claim 8 (Roy ¶¶ 0041, 0043, fig. 1; Sun ¶¶ 0050, 0057-0058, 0086, figs. 1, 3).
In regard to claims 15 and 16, Roy as modified by Sun, Ryu and Blanton teaches the composite refrigeration system according to claims 2 and 3 respectively, further comprising a circulating ventilation channel having an air supply port and an air outlet port separately connected to the indoor space, the refrigeration part being disposed in the circulating ventilation channel and configured to refrigerate air flowing out of the air outlet port and to send refrigerated air into the indoor space through the air supply port, for the reasons and on the evidence set forth above with respect to claim 14 (Roy ¶¶ 0040, 0043; fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEBESHET MENGESHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1793. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7-4, alternate Fridays, EST. 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.
/W.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights