DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the replacement drawings have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as no replacement drawings were submitted. Please see below, where the relevant drawing objections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, filed with respect to the previously set forth rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. Accordingly, the previously set forth rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed with respect to the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. Accordingly, the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn. Please see below for new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, necessitated by Amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are moot. Applicant is arguing about limitations added to the claims in an amendment, which are addressed in the new/modifier grounds of rejection, necessitated by Amendment, below.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 20 May 2025. These drawings are not accepted by the Examiner. Figure 4 is considered to add new matter, since there does not appear to be support in Applicant’s disclosure for the coils to be presented in the manner shown, nor for the radiator, condenser and subcooler to be arranged as depicted.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
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 1-3, 8-12, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “such that each of the condenser and the first radiator receives the flow of unconditioned ambient air in parallel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the flow”. Further claim 1 was amended to later recite “operable to move a flow of unconditioned ambient air across both the condenser and the radiator”. Is this flow the same or different from “the flow” earlier recited? It is believed to be the same. Further is “the radiator” intended to refer back to the first or the second radiator? It is believed to the first. Claims 2-3, 8-12, 15, and 21 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 1 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claims 2-3, and 10-12 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 2 has been amended to recite “at least one condenser fan operable to move the flow of unconditioned ambient air across the condenser and the first radiator”. Is this the same or different from the at least on condenser fan of amended claim 1? It is believed to be the same and that this recitation should be omitted. Claims 3 and 10-12 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 2 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claim 15 is 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 15 is dependent on claim 14. Claim 14 is cancelled. To expedite prosecution, claim 15 has been interpreted as dependent on claim 1. Additionally, claim 15 recites wherein a temperature of the coolant at output from the first radiator is controlled via a flow rate of the coolant”. It is unclear if this is the same or different from “a temperature” in claim 1. It is believed to be the same and that claim 15 should be amended to further limit the controlling of claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-12, 15?, and 22-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsherbini et al. (US 2019/0118618: previously cited) in view of Androff (US 4,348,871: previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Elsherbini et al. shows a refrigeration system (see at least Abstract) comprising:
a trailer refrigeration unit (see at least refrigerated transport system #20) including a refrigerant circuit through which a refrigerant is circulated (see at least refrigerant flowpath #52), the trailer refrigeration unit including a housing, a condenser, the condenser being arranged within the housing (see at least condenser #60; see at least Elsherbini et al. paragraphs [0039]; [0059]: both power and refrigeration components are within housing #28);
a fuel cell configured to generate electrical power for the trailer refrigeration unit (see at least #30; paragraphs [0059]; [0039]); and
a coolant circuit (see at least coolant loop #136), wherein the coolant circuit is a high temperature cooling loop including a first radiator configured to dissipate heat generated by the fuel cell (see at least see at least radiator #130 on loop #136; paragraphs [0046];[0059]: loop #136 will be high temperature since it is in direct communication with fuel cell #30), wherein the condenser and the first radiator are positioned such that each of the condenser and the first radiator receives the flow of unconditioned ambient air (see at least condenser airflow #520; radiator airflow #524); and
a second radiator, the second radiator being associated with a low-temperature cooling loop (see at least heat exchanger #112 on heat recovery loop #86: Examiner notes that loop #86 will be lower temperature than loop #136 since it is in indirect communication with fuel cell #30); and
a controller, wherein the controller is configured to control a temperature of a coolant at an outlet of the first radiator (see at least paragraph [0046]: use of valve #140 to apportion flow to heat exchanger #110 instead of to radiator #130 will adjust the flow rate of the refrigerant to the radiator #130 and the temperature at the outlet).
Elsherbini et al. is silent regarding wherein the condenser and the first radiator are positioned adjacent to one another, such that each of the condenser and the first radiator receives the flow of unconditioned ambient air in parallel; at least one condenser fan operable to move a flow of unconditioned ambient air across both the condenser and the radiator.
Androff teaches another trailer refrigeration unit, wherein the trailer refrigeration unit further comprises: a housing (see at least Figure 1, refrigerating machine #10), the condenser and the first radiator being positioned adjacent to one another within the housing, such that each of the condenser and the first radiator receives the flow of unconditioned ambient air in parallel; at least one condenser fan operable to move a flow of unconditioned ambient air across both the condenser and the radiator (see at least Figure 7, condenser coil #180 and radiator #182 both within refrigerating machine #10; column 6, lines 6-10; lines 10-29: the condenser coil #180 and radiator receive the airflow in parallel from condenser fan #62).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Elsherbini et al. with the first radiator and condenser being positioned adjacent to one another within the housing, such that each of the condenser and the first radiator receives the flow of unconditioned ambient air in parallel; at least one condenser fan operable to move a flow of unconditioned ambient air across both the condenser and the radiator, as taught by Androff, to improve the system of Elsherbini et al. by by allowing for improved airflow across the first radiator and the condenser and for a single fan to service both the condenser and the first radiator, thus allowing for a smaller footprint for the heat dissipation equipment of the refrigeration system (see at least Androff column 7, lines 17-38; column 1, lines 40-42) (see at least Androff column 7, lines 17-38; column 1, lines 40-42).
Elsherbini et al. as modified by Androff does not disclose the condenser and the first radiator being aligned with respect to a horizontal axis extending between a left side and right side of the trailer refrigerant, instead teaching stacked along a vertical axis (see at least Androff Figure 7, condenser coil #180 and radiator coil #182 are stacked along a vertical axis).
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing the condenser and the first radiator being aligned with respect to a horizontal axis extending between a left side and right side of the trailer refrigerant would result in a difference in function of the Elsherbini et al. in view of Androff system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Elsherbini et al. in view of Androff, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed position. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed position solves any stated problem, indicating that the condenser and first radiator may be placed in a plurality of configurations, i.e. above, below, left, right, centrally (see at least paragraphs [0008]-[0013]; [0043]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the location as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Elsherbini et al. in view of Androff with the condenser and the first radiator being aligned with respect to a horizontal axis extending between a left side and right side of the trailer refrigerant as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art (see also In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).).
Elsherbini et al. as modified by Androff does not disclose by controlling a speed of the at least one condenser fan.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that by controlling a speed of the at least one condenser fan would result in a difference in function of the Elsherbini et al. in view of Androff system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Elsherbini et al. in view of Androff, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed “by controlling”. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed “by controlling” solves any stated problem, indicating that the controlling may be by a flow rate of the coolant and/or by controlling a speed of the condenser fan, and that programming the controller is within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see at least paragraphs [0040]; [0038]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the particular controlling as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Elsherbini et al. in view of Androff with by controlling a speed of the at least one condenser fan as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 2, Elsherbini et al. further discloses the first radiator is positioned within the housing (see at least Elsherbini et al. paragraphs [0039]; [0059]: both power and refrigeration components are within housing #28).
Elsherbini et al. does not disclose at least one condenser fan operable to move the flow of unconditioned ambient air across the condenser and the first radiator.
Androff further teacher at least one condenser fan operable to move the flow of unconditioned ambient air across the condenser and the first radiator (see at least Figure 7, condenser fan #62).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Elsherbini et al. with at least one condenser fan operable to move the flow of unconditioned ambient air across the condenser and the first radiator, as taught by Androff, to improve the system of Elsherbini et al. by allowing for improved airflow across the radiator and the condenser and for a single fan to service both the condenser and the first radiator, thus allowing for a smaller footprint for the heat dissipation equipment of the refrigeration system (see at least Androff column 7, lines 17-38; column 1, lines 40-42).
Regarding claim 3, Elsherbini et al. as modified by Androff further discloses wherein a first end of both the condenser and the first radiator is positioned adjacent to a front of the housing (see at least Androff column 6, lines 6-10; lines 10-29).
Regarding claims 8-9, Elsherbini et al. as modified by Androff does not disclose wherein the condenser is arranged left of the first radiator along the horizontal axis or wherein the condenser is arranged right of the first radiator along the horizontal axis, instead teaching stacked along a vertical axis (see at least Androff Figure 7, condenser coil #180 and radiator coil #182 are stacked along a vertical axis).
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing the condenser and the radiator with wherein the condenser is arranged left of the first radiator along the horizontal axis or wherein the condenser is arranged right of the first radiator along the horizontal axis would result in a difference in function of the Elsherbini et al. in view of Androff system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Elsherbini et al. in view of Androff, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed position. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed position solves any stated problem, indicating that the condenser and first radiator may be placed in a plurality of configurations, i.e. above, below, left, right, centrally (see at least paragraphs [0008]-[0013]; [0043]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the location as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Elsherbini et al. in view of Androff with wherein the condenser is arranged left of the first radiator along the horizontal axis or wherein the condenser is arranged right of the first radiator along the horizontal axis as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art (see also In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).).
Regarding claim 10, Elsherbini et al. as modified by Androff further discloses wherein a depth of the first radiator is equal to or less than a depth of the condenser (see at least Androff Figure 7, radiator coil #182 and condenser coil #180 have the same depth; column 6, lines 22-29).
Regarding claim 11, Elsherbini et al. further discloses wherein the coolant circuit is arranged in fluid communication with the fuel cell (see at least paragraphs [0046]; [0059]).
Regarding claim 12, Elsherbini et al. as modified by Androff further discloses wherein the fuel cell is arranged at least partially within the housing (see at least Elsherbini et al. paragraphs [0039]; [0059]: both power and refrigeration components are within housing #28; see at least Androff column 2, lines 30-39: power means #30 is located within the housing for machine #10).
Regarding claim 15, Elsherbini et al. further discloses wherein a temperature of the coolant at output from the first radiator is controlled via a flow rate of the coolant (see at least paragraph [0046]: use of valve #140 to apportion flow to heat exchanger #110 instead of to radiator #130 will adjust the flow rate of the refrigerant to the radiator #130 and the temperature).
Regarding claims 22-25, Elsherbini et al. in view of Androff is silent regarding wherein the fuel cell is in an ambient environment having a temperature above 25°C, wherein the fuel cell is in an ambient environment having a temperature above 30°C; wherein the fuel cell is in an ambient environment having a temperature above 35°C; wherein the fuel cell is in an ambient environment having a temperature above 40°C; though it appears that it is capable of being in such ambient environment (Examiner notes that ambient temperatures reaching above 40°C are commonly encountered in the summer months in regions of the United States, and thus it should and would be expected that the fuel cell of Elsherbini et al. in view of Androff would be located in ambient environments above 25°C to above 40°C).
There is no evidence of record that establishes that wherein the fuel cell is in an ambient environment having a temperature above 25°C, wherein the fuel cell is in an ambient environment having a temperature above 30°C; wherein the fuel cell is in an ambient environment having a temperature above 35°C; wherein the fuel cell is in an ambient environment having a temperature above 40°C would result in a difference in function of the Elsherbini et al. in view of Androff system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Elsherbini et al. in view of Androff, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed environment. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed environment solves any stated problem, listing the temperatures above as “such as”, and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the environment as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Elsherbini et al. in view of Androff with wherein the fuel cell is in an ambient environment having a temperature above 25°C, wherein the fuel cell is in an ambient environment having a temperature above 30°C; wherein the fuel cell is in an ambient environment having a temperature above 35°C; wherein the fuel cell is in an ambient environment having a temperature above 40°C as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claims 26 and 27, Elsherbini et al. in view of Androff is silent regarding wherein the second radiator is arranged at a right side of a housing of the trailer refrigeration unit; wherein the second radiator is vertically offset from the first radiator.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that wherein the second radiator is arranged at a right side of a housing of the trailer refrigeration unit; wherein the second radiator is vertically offset from the first radiator would result in a difference in function of the Elsherbini et al. in view of Androff system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Elsherbini et al. in view of Androff, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed position. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed position solves any stated problem, indicating only that the refrigeration unit may additionally include at least one radiator associated with a low-temperature cooling loop (see at least paragraph [0040]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the location as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Elsherbini et al. in view of Androff with wherein the second radiator is arranged at a right side of a housing of the trailer refrigeration unit; wherein the second radiator is vertically offset from the first radiator as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art (see also In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).).
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 TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763