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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/14/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on 05/30/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 10/07/2025. The previous 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn. Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, 14-15, 17-22, and 24 from which claims 10, 12, 15, and 17-20 have been withdrawn remain pending for consideration.
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:
“cooling element” in claims 1 and 14.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“cooling element” corresponds to a cooling coil, a heat exchanger, an evaporator, or other component configured to provide cooling for temperature-controlled space as described in paragraph [0032] of the specification.
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 § 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, 3, 6-7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (US20130340455A1, herein after referred to as Martin), in view of Xiang et al. (CN106820789A, herein after referred to as Xiang), in view of Miura et al. (US 20220011006 A1, herein after referred to as Miura), and in further view of Choueifati et al. (US 20160209097 A1, herein after referred to as Choueifati).
Regarding claim 1, Martin teaches a temperature-controlled display (storage device 20 Fig. 1) comprising: a multi-loop refrigeration system (refrigeration system 10 Fig. 1) with reclaim heating (heat reclaim branch 50 Fig. 1) comprising a refrigeration loop (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Martin) configured to refrigerate the temperature-controlled display (paragraph [0013]), and a cooling loop (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Martin) in thermal communication with the refrigeration loop (Fig. 1) and configured to remove heat from the refrigeration loop (paragraph [0019]) and provide the heat removed from the refrigeration loop as reclaim heat (paragraph [0019]); and a condensation control system (heating load 54 Fig. 1) comprising a heat exchanger (referring to paragraph [0042], a person skilled in the art would recognize that heating load 54 can be a boiler which would include a heat exchanger) in thermal communication with the cooling loop (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Martin where heating load 54 which is understood to include a heat exchanger is part of the cooling loop), wherein the heat exchanger of the condensation control system is configured as a reclaim heat load (referring to paragraphs [0019] and [0020], a person skilled in the art would recognize that heating loads 54 which are understood to include heat exchangers are reclaim heat loads since heat from the compressed refrigerant is recovered by heat exchangers 52 and 152 to then be sent to the heat exchangers of heating loads 54 as recovered heat); and a controller (controller 70 Fig. 1) configured to balance a flow (disclosed “flow rate” of the heat reclaim heat exchange fluid in paragraph [0026]) of a second working fluid (disclosed “heat reclaim heat exchange fluid” in paragraph [0026]) in the cooling loop between the heat exchanger of the condensation control system and a second heat exchanger (heat exchanger 152 Fig. 1 corresponds to the second heat exchanger, and referring to paragraph [0026], a person skilled in the art would recognize that the flow of the heat reclaim heat exchange fluid between heat exchanger 152 and the heat exchangers of heating loads 54 is done by controller 70 via heat reclaim valve 157 Fig. 1 since they are all in the same loop) in the cooling loop responsive to changes in operation of the condensation control system (referring to paragraphs [0026] and [0040], a person skilled in the art would recognize that the control of reclaim valve 157 Fig. 1 by controller 70 as described in paragraph [0026] can be in response to inputs from heating loads 54 as disclosed in paragraph [0040]); wherein a third heat exchanger (heat exchanger 52 Fig. 1) of the refrigeration loop comprises a first fluid passage (corresponds to the passage that is connected to refrigerant line 28 Fig. 1) in fluid communication with a first working fluid (disclosed “refrigerant” in paragraph [0014]) and a second fluid passage (passage connected to reheat heat exchange fluid pump 55 Fig. 1) in fluid communication with the second working fluid (Fig. 1), and wherein the first fluid passage and the second fluid passage are configured to transfer heat between the first working fluid and the second working fluid (paragraph [0019] to [0020] and Fig. 1), the first fluid passage of the third heat exchanger in fluid communication with a cooling element (disclosed “evaporators” in paragraph [0014] and Fig. 1), and wherein the second heat exchanger is separate from the third heat exchanger (Fig. 1) and comprises a third fluid passage (passage connected to reheat heat exchange fluid pump 55 Fig. 1) that is in fluid communication with the second working fluid (passage connected to reheat heat exchange fluid pump 55 Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
591
1246
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Martin teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the heat exchanger configured to transfer the reclaim heat to a flow of air directed over a transparent surface of the temperature-controlled display”.
However, Xiang teaches the heat exchanger (condenser 20 Fig. 1 corresponds to the heat exchanger of Martin) configured to transfer the reclaim heat (the disclosed “hot air generated by the condenser” in paragraph [24] corresponds to the reclaim heat of Martin) to a flow of air (disclosed “hot air curtain” in paragraph [24] and Fig. 1) directed over a transparent surface (transparent door 13 Fig. 1) of the temperature-controlled display (the display cabinet illustrated in Fig. 1 corresponds to the temperature-controlled display of Martin) to prevent condensation (paragraph [24]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Martin to include “the heat exchanger configured to transfer the reclaim heat to a flow of air directed over a transparent surface of the temperature-controlled display” in view of the teachings of Xiang to prevent condensation.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “an airflow passage through the second heat exchanger, and wherein the third fluid passage and the airflow passage are configured to transfer heat between the second working fluid and air within the airflow passage”.
However, Miura teaches an airflow passage (referring to paragraph [0126], a person skilled in the art would recognize that heater core 23 Fig. 1 includes an airflow passage since a volume of air is passing through heater core 23) through a second heat exchanger (heater core 23 Fig. 1 corresponds to the second heat exchanger of Martin), and wherein a third fluid passage (the passage of heater core 23 that is connected to control valve 25 Fig. 1 corresponds to the third fluid passage of Martin) and the airflow passage are configured to transfer heat between a second working fluid (the disclosed “high-temperature side heat medium” in paragraph [0093] corresponds to the second working fluid of Martin) and air (blown air W Fig. 2) within the airflow passage (paragraph [0093]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “an airflow passage through the second heat exchanger, and wherein the third fluid passage and the airflow passage are configured to transfer heat between the second working fluid and air within the airflow passage” in view of the teachings of Miura to simplify and reduce the cost of the system by employing a refrigerant to air heat exchanger.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the cooling element positioned in a housing of the temperature-controlled display”.
However, Choueifati teaches a cooling element (cooling element 28 Fig. 2 corresponds to the cooling element of Martin) positioned in a housing (Fig. 2 where the combination of top 12, bottom 14, back 16, front 18, and sides 20-22 corresponds to the housing) of a temperature-controlled display (Fig. 2 where temperature-controlled display device 10 corresponds to the temperature-controlled display of Martin).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the cooling element positioned in a housing of the temperature-controlled display” in view of the teachings of Choueifati to provide the display case with a cooling space from which the cold is generated.
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach wherein the condensation control system comprises ducting (air duct 16 Fig. 1 of Xiang) arranged to direct the flow of air over the transparent surface (paragraph [24] and Fig. 1 of Xiang).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach wherein the condensation control system directs the flow of air over an outer surface (outer surface of transparent door 13 Fig. 1 and paragraph [24] of Xiang) of a transparent panel (transparent door 13 Fig. 1 of Xiang) of the temperature-controlled display.
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach wherein the condensation control system directs the flow of air along a vertical path (Fig. 1 of Xiang) over the transparent panel.
Regarding claim 14, Martin teaches a temperature-controlled display (storage device 20 Fig. 1) comprising: a condensation control system (heating load 54 Fig. 1) comprising a heat exchanger (referring to paragraph [0042], a person skilled in the art would recognize that heating load 54 can be a boiler which would include a heat exchanger) in thermal communication with a reclaim heat circuit (see below annotated Fig. of Martin) and a cooling loop (see below annotated Fig. of Martin) of a refrigeration system (refrigeration system 10 Fig. 1), wherein the heat exchanger of the condensation control system is configured as a reclaim heat load (referring to paragraphs [0019] and [0020], a person skilled in the art would recognize that heating loads 54 are reclaim heat loads since heat from the compressed refrigerant is recovered by heat exchangers 52 and 152 to then be sent to the heat exchangers of heating loads 54 as recovered heat); and a controller (controller 70 Fig. 1) configured to balance a flow (disclosed “flow rate” of the heat reclaim heat exchange fluid in paragraph [0026]) of a second working fluid (disclosed “heat reclaim heat exchange fluid” in paragraph [0026]) in the cooling loop between the heat exchanger of the condensation control system and a second heat exchanger (heat exchanger 152 Fig. 1 corresponds to the second heat exchanger, and referring to paragraph [0026], a person skilled in the art would recognize that the flow of the heat reclaim heat exchange fluid between heat exchanger 152 and the heat exchangers of heating loads 54 is done by controller 70 via heat reclaim valve 157 Fig. 1 since they are all in the same loop) in the cooling loop responsive to changes in operation of the condensation control system (referring to paragraphs [0026] and [0040], a person skilled in the art would recognize that the control of reclaim valve 157 Fig. 1 by controller 70 as described in paragraph [0026] can be in response to inputs from heating loads 54 as disclosed in paragraph [0040]); wherein a third heat exchanger (heat exchanger 52 Fig. 1) of the refrigeration loop comprises a first fluid passage (corresponds to the passage that is connected to refrigerant line 28 Fig. 1) in fluid communication with a first working fluid (disclosed “refrigerant” in paragraph [0014]) and a second fluid passage (passage connected to reheat heat exchange fluid pump 55 Fig. 1) in fluid communication with the second working fluid (Fig. 1), and wherein the first fluid passage and the second fluid passage are configured to transfer heat between the first working fluid and the second working fluid (paragraph [0019] to [0020] and Fig. 1), the first fluid passage of the third heat exchanger in fluid communication with a cooling element (disclosed “evaporators” in paragraph [0014] and Fig. 1), and wherein the second heat exchanger is separate from the third heat exchanger (Fig. 1) and comprises a third fluid passage (passage connected to reheat heat exchange fluid pump 55 Fig. 1) that is in fluid communication with the second working fluid (passage connected to reheat heat exchange fluid pump 55 Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
556
693
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Martin teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the heat exchanger configured to transfer reclaim heat from the refrigeration system to a flow of air directed along a transparent surface of the temperature-controlled display”.
However, Xiang teaches the heat exchanger (condenser 20 Fig. 1 corresponds to the heat exchanger of Martin) configured to transfer reclaim heat (disclosed “hot air generated by the condenser” in paragraph [24]) from the refrigeration system (the refrigeration system illustrated in Fig. 2 corresponds to the refrigeration system of Martin) to a flow of air (disclosed “hot air curtain” in paragraph [24] and Fig. 1) directed over a transparent surface (transparent door 13 Fig. 1) of the temperature-controlled display (the display cabinet illustrated in Fig. 1 corresponds to the temperature-controlled display of Martin) to prevent condensation (paragraph [24]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Martin to include “the heat exchanger configured to transfer reclaim heat from the refrigeration system to a flow of air directed along a transparent surface of the temperature-controlled display” in view of the teachings of Xiang to prevent condensation.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “an airflow passage through the second heat exchanger, and wherein the third fluid passage and the airflow passage are configured to transfer heat between the second working fluid and air within the airflow passage”.
However, Miura teaches an airflow passage (referring to paragraph [0126], a person skilled in the art would recognize that heater core 23 Fig. 1 includes an airflow passage since a volume of air is passing through heater core 23) through a second heat exchanger (heater core 23 Fig. 1 corresponds to the second heat exchanger of Martin), and wherein a third fluid passage (the passage of heater core 23 that is connected to control valve 25 Fig. 1 corresponds to the third fluid passage of Martin) and the airflow passage are configured to transfer heat between a second working fluid (the disclosed “high-temperature side heat medium” in paragraph [0093] corresponds to the second working fluid of Martin) and air (blown air W Fig. 2) within the airflow passage (paragraph [0093]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “an airflow passage through the second heat exchanger, and wherein the third fluid passage and the airflow passage are configured to transfer heat between the second working fluid and air within the airflow passage” in view of the teachings of Miura to simplify and reduce the cost of the system by employing a refrigerant to air heat exchanger.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the cooling element positioned in a housing of the temperature-controlled display”.
However, Choueifati teaches a cooling element (cooling element 28 Fig. 2 corresponds to the cooling element of Martin) positioned in a housing (Fig. 2 where the combination of top 12, bottom 14, back 16, front 18, and sides 20-22 corresponds to the housing) of a temperature-controlled display (Fig. 2 where temperature-controlled display device 10 corresponds to the temperature-controlled display of Martin).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the cooling element positioned in a housing of the temperature-controlled display” in view of the teachings of Choueifati to provide the display case with a cooling space from which the cold is generated.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin, in view of Xiang, in view of Miura, in view of Choueifati as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murray et al. (US20060196206A1, herein after referred to as Murray).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the controller is configured to control operation of the condensation control system in response to signals received from one or more condensation sensors positioned to detect condensation on the transparent surface”.
However, Murray teaches wherein the controller (microprocessor 53 Fig. 13 corresponds to the controller of Martin) is configured to control operation of the condensation control system (the disclosed “system for condensation control” corresponds to the system of Martin) in response to signals (paragraph [0050]) received from one condensation sensor (dew point sensor 37 Fig. 1) positioned to detect condensation (paragraph [0038]) on the transparent surface (Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the controller is configured to control operation of the condensation control system in response to signals received from one or more condensation sensors positioned to detect condensation on the transparent surface” in view of the teachings of Murray to detect the presence of moisture on the transparent surface.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over martin, in view of Xiang, in view of Miura, in view of Choueifati, in view of Murray as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (CN104236246A, herein after referred to as Chen).
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach “wherein the condensation control system comprises a fan (fan 19 Fig. 1 of Xiang) arranged to convey the air through the heat exchanger (Fig. 1 of Xiang) and along an airflow path (understood to be the path formed by air duct 16 Fig. 1 of Xiang) that directs the flow of air over the transparent surface (Fig. 1 of Xiang).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the controller is configured to adjust an operation of the fan responsive to the signals received from the one or more condensation sensors”.
However, Chen teaches wherein the controller (controller 50 Fig. 3 corresponds to the controller of Martin) is configured to adjust an operation of the fan (paragraph [0048] where fan 60 Fig. 3 corresponds to the fan of Xiang) responsive to the signals received from the one condensation sensor (paragraph [0048] where condensation sensor 50 Fig. 3 corresponds to the condensation sensor of Murray).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the controller is configured to adjust an operation of the fan responsive to the signals received from the one or more condensation sensors” in view of the teachings of Chen to efficiently remove the condensation from the transparent surface.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin, in view of Xiang, in view of Miura, in view of Choueifati as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Wallace et al. (US4750335, herein after referred to as Wallace).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the condensation control system directs the flow of air along a horizontal path over the transparent panel”.
However, Wallace teaches wherein the condensation control system (the condensation control system illustrated in Fig. 4 corresponds to the system of Martin) directs the flow of air (Fig. 6 where the arrows correspond to the flow of air of Xiang) along a horizontal path (see below annotated Fig. 6 of Wallace) over the transparent panel (window 28 Fig. 6 corresponds to the transparent panel of Xiang).
PNG
media_image3.png
626
700
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the condensation control system directs the flow of air along a horizontal path over the transparent panel” in view of the teachings of Wallace to remove the moisture on every portion of the transparent panel.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin, in view of Xiang, in view of Miura, in view of Murray, in view of Choueifati as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Pittion et al. (EP1078788A2, herein after referred to as Pittion).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the controller is configured to adjust a flow rate of the second working fluid through the heat exchanger of the condensation control system responsive to the signals received from the one or more condensation sensors”.
However, Pittion teaches wherein the controller (control unit 30 Fig. 1 corresponds to the controller of Martin) is configured to adjust (paragraph [0016]) a flow rate (understood to be the flow rate associated to the disclosed “pumping capacity of the compressor 12” in paragraph [0016]) of the second working fluid (disclosed “fluid” being pump by compressor 12 in the abstract section) through the heat exchanger of the condensation control system (second heat exchanger 18 Fig. 2 corresponds to the heat exchanger of the condensation control system of Martin) responsive to the signals received from the one condensation sensor (paragraph [0016] where dew point sensor 40 Fig. 1 corresponds to the condensation sensor of Murray) to substantially prevent fogging (see paragraph [0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the controller is configured to adjust a flow rate of the second working fluid through the heat exchanger of the condensation control system responsive to the signals received from the one or more condensation sensors” in view of the teachings of Pittion to substantially prevent fogging.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin, in view of Xiang, in view of Miura, in view of Choueifati as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 20100236296 A1, herein after referred to as Choi).
Regarding claim 21, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the second heat exchanger in the cooling loop is configured to be positioned on a top surface of the temperature-controlled display”.
However, Choi teaches wherein a second heat exchanger (first heat exchanger 521 Fig. 14 corresponds to the second heat exchanger of Martin) in a cooling loop (the loop illustrated in Fig. 14 corresponds to the cooling loop of Martin) is configured to be positioned on a top surface of the temperature-controlled display (paragraph [0160] where cabinet 510 Fig. 15 corresponds to the temperature-controlled display of Martin).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the second heat exchanger in the cooling loop is configured to be positioned on a top surface of the temperature-controlled display” in view of the teachings of Choi to provide a different arrangement between the parts.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin, in view of Xiang, in view of Miura, in view of Choueifati as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kopko et al. (US20220316780A1, herein after referred to as Kopko).
Regarding claim 22, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the second heat exchanger in the cooling loop is not a heat-reclaim heat exchanger configured to heat a reclaim heat load”.
However, Kopko teaches wherein the second heat exchanger (air-cooled heat exchanger 56 Fig. 3 corresponds to the second heat exchanger of Martin) in the cooling loop (see below annotated Fig. of Kopko) is not a heat-reclaim heat exchanger (referring to paragraph [0027], a person skilled in the art would recognize that heat exchanger 56 is not a heat-reclaim heat exchanger since it is used to dissipate the heat in ambient air and dose not reclaim the heat for later use) configured to heat a reclaim heat load (load 62 Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the second heat exchanger in the cooling loop is not a heat-reclaim heat exchanger configured to heat a reclaim heat load” in view of the teachings of Kopko to improve the cooling capacity of the refrigeration system.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin, in view of Xiang, in view of Miura, in view of Choueifati as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hongdao et al. (CN100549587C, herein after referred to as Hongdao).
Regarding claim 24, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the condensation control system is configured to be positioned on a top surface of the temperature-controlled display’.
However, Hongdao teaches wherein a condensation control system (disclosed “defogging device” in paragraph [30] corresponds to the condensation control system of Martin) is configured to be positioned on a top surface of the temperature-controlled display (Fig. 2 where the freezer corresponds to the temperature-controlled display of Martin).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the condensation control system is configured to be positioned on a top surface of the temperature-controlled display’” in view of the teachings of Hongdao to provide a different arrangement between the parts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry -Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763