Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/362,456

Higher Efficiency, Demand Flexible Refrigeration or Heat Pump Systems with On Demand Vibrational Deicing Technology

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jul 31, 2023
Examiner
TEITELBAUM, DAVID J
Art Unit
3763
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Ultrasonic Technology solutions
OA Round
2 (Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
459 granted / 669 resolved
-1.4% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+25.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
717
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
53.1%
+13.1% vs TC avg
§102
17.4%
-22.6% vs TC avg
§112
27.3%
-12.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 669 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Specification The ABSTRACT filed on 1/21/2026 is ACCEPTED. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 of this title, 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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) 1-2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR-20080110138) in view of Kwack et al. (KR 1020120084109) and Ueda et al. (US 6,977,474). Per claim 1, Kim teaches a refrigeration & heat pump system comprising: one or more heat exchangers (4); one or more vibration systems (“a mechanical vibrator that applies mechanical vibration directly to a heat exchanger”, pg. 2, second to last paragraph) attached to the heat exchanger; and a plurality of sensors attached to the heat exchanger (“the load detector 40 is an outdoor heat exchanger temperature sensor 42 for detecting the temperature of the outdoor heat exchanger 4”, pg. 6, second paragraph) but fails to explicitly teach the vibration system being mechanically attached to the heat exchanger for removing ice formation by mechanically breaking ice crystals and one or more amplifiers connected to the one or more vibration systems. Regarding the mechanically attached system, Kwack teaches a heat pump having a vibration system (system of figure 4) being mechanically attached (see figure 4) to a heat exchanger (141) for removing ice formation by mechanically breaking ice crystals (“Therefore, the outdoor heat exchanger 140 subjected to the impact by the strike of the striking member 153 is vibrated, and frost generated on the surface of the outdoor heat exchanger 140 can be more easily removed”, pg. 5 of translation) for improved performance (pg. 1 of translation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a vibration system being mechanically attached to a heat exchanger for removing ice formation by mechanically breaking ice crystals, as taught by Kwack in thein invention of Kim, in order to advantageously improve system performance (pg. 1 of translation). Regarding the amplifier, Ueda teaches using having an amplifier (“power amplifier”, col. 11, lines 12-13) connected to a vibration system (100) for providing high efficiency (col. 11, lines 13). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have an amplifier connected to a vibration system, as taught by Ueda in the combined teachings, in order to advantageously provide high efficiency vibration (col. 11, line 13). Per claim 2, Kim, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Kim, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the vibration system is a motor vibration system having an eccentric mass. However, Kwack teaches a heat exchanger defrosting system having a vibration system as a motor vibration system (motor used to rotate “rotation cam 151”, pg. 2 of translation) having eccentric mass (see cam 151) for improved performance (pg. 1 of translation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a motor vibration system having eccentric mass, as taught by Kwack in thein invention of Kim, as modified, in order to advantageously improve system performance (pg. 1 of translation). Per claim 8, Kim, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Kim, as modified, teaches wherein the sensors (40) are communicatively connected to a user device (30) but fails to explicitly teach the user device is for displaying control data. However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that having user devices display control data in refrigeration systems is old and well known in the refrigeration art to maintain optimal operational control of the refrigeration system and allow operators to see real time data. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a user device for displaying control data in order to advantageously maintain optimal operational control of the system and allow operators to see real time data. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR-20080110138) in view of Kwack et al. (KR 1020120084109) and Ueda et al. (US 6,977,474) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Yan et al. (CN 114111136). Per claim 6, Kim, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Kim, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the vibration system includes a hammer vibration. However, Yan teaches an air conditioner defrosting system having a vibration system including a hammer vibration (“defrosting structure 10 continuously knocking the heat exchanger 20, to defrost the heat exchanger 20”, pg. 8, third paragraph of translation) for high defrosting efficiency (pg. 7, first paragraph of translation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a vibration system including a hammer vibration, as taught by Yan in the invention of Kim, as modified, in order to advantageously provide high defrosting efficiency (pg. 7, first paragraph of translation). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references being used in the current rejection. 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 DAVID J TEITELBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5142. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571) 272-66816681. 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. /DAVID J TEITELBAUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 31, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 21, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595951
REFRIGERATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595945
AIR-CONDITIONING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584665
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR CONTROLLING AIR CONDITIONER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578131
COMPRESSOR OIL RECOVERY IN HYBRID VCC PUMPED TWO PHASE LOOPS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571546
LIQUID DESICCANT AIR CONDITIONING USING AIR AS HEAT TRANSFER MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+25.4%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 669 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month