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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 79-98 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,441,830 (‘830) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0231024 to Shrivastava et al. (Shrivastava).
In reference to claim 79, ‘830 claims a method comprising flowing a liquid down a surface of a heat exchanger (claim 1, lines 1-3); forming ice on the surface of the heat exchanger from water in the liquid flowing down the surface of the heat exchanger (claim 1, lines 6-8); removing a refrigerant from the heat exchanger after curtailing the liquid flowing down the surface of the heat exchanger (inherent in the harvesting step, claim 1, lines 15-17); and flowing the liquid down the surface of the heat exchanger with the refrigerant removed from the heat exchanger (once harvesting is lines 15-17 is done, for the new cycle begins), but does not claim detecting a fault using a controller; curtailing the liquid flowing down the surface of the heat exchanger in response to detecting the fault using the controller.
Shrivastava teaches an electrified vehicle thermal management system (FIG. 1-3) comprising a step of detecting a fault using a controller (par 0005); curtailing the liquid flowing down the surface of the heat exchanger in response to detecting the fault using the controller (cutting of the compressor refrigerant supply as a result of either step 230, FIG. 2 or step 322, FIG. 3) in order to improve the efficiency of the fault detection system, allow for planned maintenance and reduce overall cost (par 0001).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Schlosser, to include detecting a fault using a controller; curtailing the liquid flowing down the surface of the heat exchanger in response to detecting the fault using the controller, as taught by Shrivastava, in order to improve the efficiency of the fault detection system, allow for planned maintenance and reduce overall cost.
In reference to claim 80, ‘830 and Shrivastava claim the method as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and ‘830 additionally claims heating the liquid that flows down the surface of the heat exchanger with the refrigerant removed from the heat exchanger (inherent in the claims (1-13).
In reference to claim 81, ‘830 and Shrivastava claim the method as explained in the rejection of claim 80 above, and ‘830 additionally claims wherein heating the liquid that flows down the surface of the heat exchanger with the refrigerant removed from the heat exchanger includes heating the liquid in a tank from which a pump delivers the liquid to the surface of the heat exchanger. (claim 4).
In reference to claim 82, ‘830 and Shrivastava claim the method as explained in the rejection of claim 79 above, and ‘830 additionally claims heating the liquid that flows down the surface of the heat exchanger utilizing the refrigerant inside the heat exchanger (inherent in claims 1-13).
In reference to claim 83, ‘830 and Shrivastava claim the method as explained in the rejection of claim 79 above, and Shrivastava additionally teaches wherein detecting the fault using the controller further includes measuring a suction pressure of the refrigerant from the heat exchanger, wherein the suction pressure indicates the fault (par 0019-0024).
In reference to claim 84, ‘830 and Shrivastava claim the method as explained in the rejection of claim 79 above, and ‘830 additionally claims lowing the refrigerant to the heat exchanger after flowing the liquid to the heat exchanger with the refrigerant removed from the heat exchanger; and resuming the flow of the liquid down the surface of the heat exchanger to form an ice sheet on the surface of the heat exchanger (claim 1).
In reference to claim 85, ‘830 and Shrivastava claim the method as explained in the rejection of claim 79 above, and ‘830 additionally claims wherein flowing the liquid down the surface of the heat exchanger forms a liquid film over the heat exchanger (inherent in the method claimed in claims 1-6).
In reference to claim 86, ‘830 and Shrivastava claim the method as explained in the rejection of claim 85 above, and ‘830 additionally claims wherein forming the ice on the surface of the heat exchanger includes forming the ice under the liquid film over the heat exchanger (inherent in the method claimed in claims 1-6).
In reference to claim 87, ‘830 and Shrivastava claim the method as explained in the rejection of claim 79 above, and ‘830 additionally claims wherein the liquid includes an emulsion (claim 1, line 2).
In reference to claim 88, ‘830 and Shrivastava claim the method as explained in the rejection of claim 79 above, and ‘830 additionally claims wherein the surface of the heat exchanger includes an oleophilic surface (claim 1, line 4).
In reference to claim 89, ‘830 and Shrivastava claim the method as explained in the rejection of claim 79 above, and ‘830 additionally claims wherein curtailing the flow of the liquid down the surface of the heat exchanger after forming the ice on the surface of the heat exchanger; subcooling the ice on the surface of the heat exchanger after curtailing the flow of the liquid down the surface of the heat exchanger; and harvesting the ice through the ice sheet, which is subcooled on the surface of the heat exchanger, falling away from the surface of the heat exchanger (all claim 1).
In reference to claims 90-97, they claim similar limitations to limitation recited in claims 79-89; thus, said claims 90-97 are rejected in the same manner as claims 79-89, as described in detail above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILIP ZEC whose telephone number is (571)270-5846. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 9-5.
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, JD Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/FILIP ZEC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763