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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the first and second tube banks in a single, integrated unit within the same, single housing” as claimed in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim 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:
a. expansion device in at least claim 1.
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.
Expansion device is interpreted to cover an electronic expansion valve as per para [0012];
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 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 11-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 calls for the limitation “an evaporator heat exchanger in situ in an air-to-water heat pump” in line 2; which limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what the applicant is referring to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12 and 14 are indefinite for their dependency on an indefinite base claim.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11-12, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rafalovich (US 5689962 A) in view of Mueller (DE 2954402 C2) Rede (US 20170198986 A1), and Ashida (US 9010143 B2).
Regarding claims 1, 4-7, and 17:
Rafalovich discloses a heat pump system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a compressor #1 for increasing the pressure of a refrigerant;
a condenser heat exchanger #2 arranged downstream of the compressor for receiving a high pressure refrigerant output from the compressor;
an expansion device #4 for reducing the pressure of a refrigerant;
an evaporator heat exchanger (#3 & #5) for extracting heat from ambient air; and
a fan #6 for creating a flow of air over the evaporator heat exchanger (see Fig. 1);
the evaporator heat exchanger comprising:
a first tube bank #3 having a first inlet arranged to receive a high pressure refrigerant output from the condenser, and a first outlet fluidly coupled to the expansion device; and
a second tube bank #5 having a second inlet arranged to receive a low pressure refrigerant output from the expansion device, and a second outlet fluidly coupled to an inlet of the compressor (Fig. 1);
wherein the fan, the first tube bank and the second tube bank are arranged such that, in use, a flow of air generated by the fan first passes over the second tube bank arranged to receive the low pressure refrigerant output from the expansion device and then passes over the first tube bank arranged to receive the high pressure refrigerant output from the condenser (see Fig. 1; col. 2, L 12-19; col. 3, L 54 – col. 4, L 8); and
wherein the first and second tube banks are arranged (Fig. 1) such that, in use, with the flow of air generated by the fan passing over the second tube bank and then the first tube bank, heat from the high pressure refrigerant passing through the first tube bank is transferred to the second tube bank (see Fig. 1; col. 2, L 12-19; col. 3, L 54 – col. 4, L 8) in order to limit and/or prevent ice build-up on an external surface of the second tube bank.
Note: the limitation “in order to limit and/or prevent ice build-up on an external surface of the second tube bank” is a statement of intended use that does not further limit the structure of the claimed invention. By virtue of all the structural limitation required by the limitation being disclosed by Rafalovich, its structure is capable of achieving that limitation. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); MPEP 2114/Il. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.)
Rafalovich does not disclose wherein the condenser transfers heat from the high pressure refrigerant to a source of water; whereby an air-to-water heat pump system is provided.
In the same field of endeavor, Mueller discloses heat pump system comprising a condenser heat exchanger (#11 & #19) arranged downstream of the compressor for receiving a high pressure refrigerant output from the compressor and for transferring heat from the high pressure refrigerant to a source of water ([0011]); whereby an air-to-water heat pump system is provided.
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Rafalovich with the condenser transferring heat from the high pressure refrigerant to a source of water; whereby an air-to-water heat pump system is provided; in a similar manner as taught by Mueller.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that employing a water cooled condenser would have provided higher heat transfer rate; thereby, allowing the system to remove heat more effectively.
Rafalovich does not also disclose wherein the first and/or second tube bank comprises one or more rows arranged in parallel with one another and fluidly coupled to one another in series; wherein each row of the first and/or second tube bank comprises a plurality of first and/or second tubes connected in series with one another; wherein the first and/or second tube banks comprise a plurality of refrigerant circuits; wherein the first tube bank comprises a first plurality of fins and the second tube bank comprises a second plurality of fins; and wherein the plurality of first and/or second tubes are arranged in a serpentine or coil shape.
In the same field of endeavor, Rede teaches wherein a tube bank #77 comprises one or more rows arranged in parallel with one another and fluidly coupled to one another in series; wherein each row of the comprises a plurality of first and/or second tubes connected in series with one another; wherein the tube bank comprise a plurality of refrigerant circuits; wherein the tube bank comprises a first plurality of fins #105; and wherein the plurality of first and/or second tubes are arranged in a serpentine or coil shape (see Fig. 2-6; [0007], [0025], and [0029]).
Note: a similar concept is illustrated by Lee (US 20140284031 A1) in Fig. 2; and Shabtay (US 20200318911 A1) in Fig. 1.
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have further provided the apparatus of Rafalovich with the first and/or second tube bank comprising the aforementioned limitations; in a similar manner as taught by Rede.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have increased the surface area for heat exchange; thereby, increasing heat transfer efficiency.
Lastly, Rafalovich does not also disclose wherein the first and second tube banks are arranged in a single, integrated unit within the same, single housing.
In the same field of endeavor, Ashida teaches in Fig. 2 wherein a first tube bank #41 and a second tube bank #60 are arranged in a single, integrated unit within the same, single housing #100 (see Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have further provided the apparatus of Rafalovich with the first and second tube banks are arranged in a single, integrated unit within the same, single housing; in a similar manner as taught by Ashida.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have
shielded the tube banks from harsh conditions (e.g., extreme direct sunlight, heavy rain, or severe wind); thereby, prolonging the lifespan of the system.
Regarding claim 2 and 16:
Rafalovich as modified discloses wherein a gap exists between the first and second tube banks (see Fig. 1); but does not specifically disclose wherein the gap being 1 mm or less in size; or 0.5 mm or less in size.
However, the first tube bank is provided so as to provided heating to the second tube bank. And because thermal exchange is affected by distance; providing a specific gap between the first and second tube banks is recognized as a result effective variable that can be optimized by routine experimentation. It has been held that only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. See MPEP 2144.05-II, In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Rafalovich as modified with the gap being 1 mm or less in size; or 0.5 mm or less in size.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that providing such proximity would have maximized the heat transfer between the two banks; thereby, optimizing cooling of the subcooler.
Regarding claim 3:
Rafalovich as modified discloses all the limitations.
Rafalovich as modified discloses wherein the first tube bank is arranged in a heat exchange relationship with ambient air such that, in use, heat is transferred from the high pressure refrigerant to the ambient air, thereby cooling the high pressure refrigerant and warming the ambient air; and/or wherein the second tube bank is arranged in a heat exchange relationship with ambient air such that, in use, heat is transferred from the ambient air to the low pressure refrigerant, thereby warming the low pressure refrigerant and cooling the ambient air (see Fig. 1 of Rafalovich; and rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 11:
If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method of claim 11, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus of claim 1. See MPEP 2112.02.
Regarding claim 12:
Rafalovich further discloses increasing the pressure of the refrigerant with a compressor, thereby providing the high pressure refrigerant, before passing the refrigerant to a condenser heat exchanger; and prior to passing the refrigerant to the first tube bank, using the condenser heat exchanger to cool the high pressure refrigerant through heat exchange between the high pressure refrigerant and a water source, thereby warming the water source (see Fig. 1 of Rafalovich; and rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 14:
Rafalovich as modified discloses all the limitations, except for wherein the refrigerant is R-32 refrigerant or propane.
By official notice, the examiner submits that R-32 refrigerant or propane are well known refrigerant of the prior art.
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the method of Rafalovich as modified with the refrigerant being R-32 refrigerant or propane.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that R-32 is an efficient refrigerant with a low global warming potential; and using R-32 would have provided and efficient environmentally friendly method.
Regarding claim 15:
The subject matter claimed here is substantially similar to that of claim 1. Thus, for sake of simplicity, conciseness, and brevity, please refer to the rejection of claim 1 above for the rejection of claim 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/12/2025 have been fully considered.
With respect to the rejection under 103, applicant arguments are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
In response to applicant assertion that Rafalovich does not also disclose wherein the first and second tube banks are arranged in a single, integrated unit within the same, single housing; it was pointed out to the applicant that Ashida teaches in Fig. 2 wherein a first tube bank #41 and a second tube bank #60 are arranged in a single, integrated unit within the same, single housing #100 (see Fig. 1). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art to have further provided the apparatus of Rafalovich with the first and second tube banks are arranged in a single, integrated unit within the same, single housing in a similar manner as taught by Ashida; with the benefit of shielding the tube banks from harsh conditions (e.g., extreme direct sunlight, heavy rain, or severe wind); thereby, prolonging the lifespan of the system.
Thus, the newly added features of the independent claims do not distinguish the claims from the prior art.
In response to applicant assertion that there is no suggestion in Rafalovich that the evaporator 5 is actively heated by heat from the high pressure refrigerant passing through the subcooler 3 during operation of the air conditioning system of Rafalovich, and there is certainly no suggestion that such a heating mechanism exists to limit ice build up on the evaporator 5; the examiner submits that because all the special arrangement of the tube banks along with the fan as claimed by the applicant is clearly disclosed by Rafalovich; the system of Rafalovich can achieve the limitation of to limit and/or prevent ice build-up on an external surface of the second tube bank. See MPEP 2114/Il & MPEP 2112.02.
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 LIONEL W NOUKETCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-8438. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri: 08:00 AM - 04:00 PM.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LIONEL NOUKETCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights