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 .
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.
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satou et al. (US 20150330703), hereinafter referred to as Satou, in view of Patterson (US Pat No. 3,664,150), hereinafter referred to as Patterson,.
Re claim 16, Satou teaches a
a cooling circuit (10) comprising
a hot gas flow path (24) comprising
an inlet (inlet after 31) located on the cooling circuit between a discharge port of a compressor (11) and a heat rejection heat exchanger valve (see Fig below; where it shows that regardless of the check valve, the inlet is located between the discharge port of 11 and the heat exchanger valve 32; see circle in between the line shown below);
a first outlet (outlet of 24) and a second outlet (outlet of 23);
a proportional valve (43);
a first evaporator valve (44)
a first drain pan inlet (inlet to 37) (see Fig 1)
Satou does not explicitly teach a second evaporator valve and a second drain pan inlet.
However, Patterson teaches a multi-compartment system comprising a cooling circuit (Fig 1) comprising a hot gas flow path comprising a second evaporator valve (24) and a second drain pan inlet (inlet to 20).
PNG
media_image1.png
486
391
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Satou and integrated a second evaporator valve and a second drain pan inlet, as taught by Patterson, in order to have the capability of cooling/heating multiple compartments.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satou, in view of Patterson, in view of Ishimura et al. (US 20250155154), hereinafter referred to as Ishimura.
Re claim 17 and 20, Satou, as modified, teaches the multi-compartment transport refrigeration system of claim 16. Satou, as modified, does not teach the limitation of further comprising a controller configured to regulate hot gas flow to provide heat to a first compartment while cooling to a second compartment.
However, Ishimura teaches a system comprising a cooling circuit (10) comprising a controller configured to regulate hot gas flow to provide heat to a first compartment (compartment where 14b is placed) and cooling to a second compartment (compartment where 14a is placed) (e.g. see Fig 9).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in
the art to have modified Satou and integrated a controller configured to regulate hot gas flow to provide heat to a first compartment while cooling to a second compartment, as taught by Ishimura, in order to have the
capability of cooling/heating multiple compartments.
Re claim 18, Satou, as modified, teaches the multi-compartment transport refrigeration system of claim 16. Satou, as modified, does not teach the limitation of further comprising a controller configured to regulate hot gas flow to provide heat to a first compartment while defrosting a second evaporator associated with a second compartment.
However, Ishimura teaches a system comprising a cooling circuit (10) comprising a controller is configured to regulate hot gas flow to provide heat to a first compartment (compartment where 14a is placed) and defrosting to the second evaporator associated with a second compartment (compartment where 14b is placed) (e.g. see Fig 5).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in
the art to have modified Satou and integrated a controller configured to regulate hot gas flow to provide heat to a first compartment while defrosting a second evaporator associated with a second compartment, as taught by Ishimura, in order to have the
capability of cooling/heating multiple compartments.
Re claim 19, Satou, as modified, teaches the multi-compartment transport refrigeration system of claim 16. Satou, as modified, does not teach the limitation of further comprising a controller configured to regulate hot gas flow to provide defrosting to a first evaporator associated with a first compartment while defrosting a second evaporator associated with a second compartment.
However, Ishimura teaches a system comprising a cooling circuit (10) comprising a controller is configured to regulate hot gas flow to provide defrosting to a first evaporator associated with a first compartment (compartment where 14a is placed) and defrosting to a second evaporator associated with a second compartment (compartment where 14b is placed) (e.g. see Fig 5).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in
the art to have modified Satou and integrated controller configured to regulate hot gas flow to provide defrosting to a first evaporator associated with a first compartment while defrosting a second evaporator associated with a second compartment, as taught by Ishimura, in order to have the capability of cooling/heating multiple compartments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with regards to claim 16 filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argues, page 2, that “However, Satou fails to teach or suggest an arrangement where the inlet of the second defrosting pipe 24 (the alleged "hot gas flow path") is located between a discharge port of the compressor 11 (the alleged "compressor") and a discharge pressure regulating valve 32 (the alleged "heat rejection heat exchanger valve"), in a manner recited in amended independent claim 1. Rather, Satou describes that the inlet of second defrosting pipe 24 is located between the check valve 31 and the discharge pressure regulating valve 32”. This argument has not been found persuasive. Satou does teach the limitation of an inlet (inlet after 31) located on the cooling circuit between a discharge port of a compressor (11) and a heat rejection heat exchanger valve (see Fig below; where it shows that regardless of the check valve, the inlet is located between the discharge port of 11 and the heat exchanger valve 32; see circle in between the line shown below).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (see PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON NIEVES whose telephone number is (571)270-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm.
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.
/NELSON J NIEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 5/29/2026
Prosecution Insights