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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 21 November, 2023; 28 May, 2024; 15 January, 2025; and 16 October, 2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “a tubular transfer line coupled with the housing and communicating with recess”, which should be corrected to - - a tubular transfer line coupled with the housing and communicating with the recess - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOWNHAM (GB 2462109 A – published 27 January, 2010), in view of ALAHYARI (US 2018/0356169 A1 – published 13 December, 2018) and JOHNSON (US 3724537 A – published 3 April, 1973).
As to claim 1, DOWNHAM discloses a heat transfer cube comprising:
a housing (2; figure 1) at least partially bounding a compartment (interior thereof and/or chiller cabinet interior, 3; figure 1), the housing having a first end with a first opening (end of housing, 2, with opening 17) formed thereat that communicates with the compartment (figure 1; pg. 9, lines 10-21 and pg. 10, lines 1-4) and an opposing second end with a second opening (end of housing, 2, with opening 18) formed hereat that communicates with the compartment (figure 1; pg. 9, lines 10-21 and pg. 10, lines 1-4);
a coil unit (16, understood to have at least one tube, in light of a refrigerant tube being routed to and from the coil unit as shown in figure 1) disposed within the compartment between the first opening and the opposing second opening (pg. 9, line 24 – pg. 10, line 18; figure 1),
wherein the housing further comprises an inlet communicating with the first end of each of the plurality of tubes and an outlet communicating with each of the plurality of tubes (figure 1, in view of the housing surrounding the coil unit, as shown in figure 2 and 4).
However, DOWNHAM does not expressly disclose the structure of the coil unit to comprise a first plate having a plurality of perforations extending therethrough, a last plate having a plurality of perforations extending therethrough, the last plate being spaced apart from the first plate, and a plurality of tubes each having a first end and an opposing second end with a fluid path extending therebetween, each of the plurality of tubes extending from a select one of the plurality of perforations of the first plate to a select one of the plurality of perforations of the second plate, and wherein the inlet and outlet of the plurality f of tubes are at respective first and second ends of the housing.
JOHNSON, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a heat transfer cube (abstract). JOHNSON teaches a coil unit (figures 1-2) which include a first opening (upstream or downstream face of coil unit shown in figure 2 to permit airflow therethrough; col. 2, lines 29-37) and an opposing second opening (upstream or downstream face of coil unit shown in figure 2 to permit airflow therethrough; col. 2, lines 29-37). The coil unit of JOHNSON is taught to include a first plate (tube sheet, 15 or 16) having a plurality of perforations extending therethrough (figures 1-2, at the position of the tubes, 11) and a last plate having a plurality of perforations extending therethrough (figures 1-2, at the position of the tubes, 11), wherein the last plate is spaced apart from the first plate (figures 1-2). More so, JOHNSON includes a plurality of tubes within the coil plate that have first and second ends (ends attached to the respective first and last plates; figures 1-2) and a fluid path therebetween (col.2, lines 29-37). Thereby, it is known within the ordinary skill within the art to provide a coil unit formed, as claimed. This is strong evidence that modifying DOWNHAM, as claimed, was well within the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art and would produce predictable results to one skilled in the art, (i.e., producing a coil unit which provides heat transfer between a first and second fluid with increased thermal effectiveness, known within the ordinary skill in the art as stated at col.1, lines 24-31 of JOHNSON). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify DOWNHAM by JOHNSON, such that the coil unit includes the structural requirements as claimed, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of producing a coil unit which provides heat transfer between a first and second fluid with increased thermal effectiveness, known within the ordinary skill in the art as stated at col.1, lines 24-31 of JOHNSON.
Similarly, ALAHYARI is within the field of endeavor provided a heat transfer cube (abstract). ALAHYARI teaches a coil unit (10) formed with a first plate (first plate of 16 at end 12B for the inlet of the working fluid, F1; figure 1B) having a plurality of perforations extending therethrough (par. 14; figure 1A-1B), a last plate (last plate of 16 at end, 12A for the outlet of the working fluid, F1, in light of the flow of fluid in figure 1B) having a plurality of perforations extending therethrough (par. 14; figure 1A-1B), a plurality of tubes (12) each having a first end (12B) and an opposing second end (12A) with a fluid path (path along which F1 flows), each of the plurality of tubes extending from a selected on of the plurality of perforations of the first plate to a selected one of plurality of perforations of the second plate (figure 1A and 1B), and an inlet at one end (12B coupled to header, 14, as disclosed in par. 14-16 and figure 1A-1B) and an outlet at a second end (12A coupled to header, 14, as disclosed in par. 14-16 and shown in figure 1A-1B) in communication with each of the plurality of tubes. Thereby, it is known within the ordinary skill within the art to provide a coil unit formed, as claimed. This is strong evidence that modifying DOWNHAM, as claimed, was well within the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art and would produce predictable results to one skilled in the art, (i.e., producing a coil unit which provides heat transfer between a first and second fluid with increased surface area to provide increased heat exchange, known within the ordinary skill in the art as stated at par. 3 of ALAHYARI). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify DOWNHAM by ALAHYARI, such that the coil unit includes the structural requirements as claimed, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of producing a coil unit which provides heat transfer between a first and second fluid with increased surface area to provide increased heat exchange, known within the ordinary skill in the art as stated at par. 3 of ALAHYARI.
Lastly, in view of DOWNHAM including the teachings of JOHNSON and ALAHYARI to include the inlet and outlet of the coil unit at first and second ends in communication each of the plurality of tubes and DOWNHAM disclosing the housing including within it the coil unit and having an inlet and outlet communicating with each of the plurality of tubes, the combination necessarily yields “wherein the housing further comprises an inlet communicating with the first end of each of the plurality of tubes and an outlet communicating with the second end of each of the plurality of tubes” by the combination.
As to claim 2, DOWNHAM, as modified, further discloses the housing further comprising a front panel(such as panel 21; figure 2) at least partially disposed over the coil unit (figure 2, in view of positioning of the coil unit in figure 4) so that a first gap space is formed between the front panel and the coil unit (figure 2, in view of figure 4, wherein there is clearly a space between the panel, 21, and the coil unit, 16, disposed within the housing).
Second, ALAHYARI previously taught including the first plate and the first end of each of the plurality of panels with regards to the structure of the coil unit, wherein the combination suggests providing the coil unit structure taught by ALAHYARI to be positioned within the housing of DOWNHAM, so as to necessarily yield “a front panel at least partially disposed over the first plate so that a first gap space is formed between the front panel and the first end of each of the plurality of tubes”.
As to claim 3, DOWNHAM, as modified, does not further disclose wherein each of the plurality of tubes are formed of a non-metal.
JOHNSON, further, teaches wherein the tubes are formed of a non-metal (col.2, lines 18-28), wherein the material is known to be selected based on the service of the coil unit and fluids to be handled (col. 2, lines 18-28). As such, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify, DOWNHAM, in view of the teachings of JOHNSON, to include tubes comprising non-metal based on the intended suitability of the material for the service of the coil and the fluids to be handled (col. 2, lines 18-28).
As to claim 4, DOWNHAM, as modified, does not further disclose wherein the plurality of tubes comprise at least 40 separate tubes.
However, ALAHYARI, further, teaches wherein it is known to provide any number of tubes within the coil unit (par. 14), such that providing specifically 40 tubes is merely a duplication of the tube that has not patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04 – VI (B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify DOWNHAM to include the coil unit having at least 40 separate tube, in view of the teachings of ALAHYARI to include any number of tubes and in view of the courts holding the duplication of parts having no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Furthermore, it will be noted, the Applicant places no criticality on the number of tubes employed by the coil unit, as understood by the recitations within paragraph 73 of the originally-filed specification of the instant application.
As to claim 6, DOWNHAM, as modified, does not further disclose a liquid tight seal is formed between the first plate and the first end of each of the plurality of tubes.
However, ALAHYARI, further, teaches wherein a liquid tight seal is formed between the first plate and the first end of each of the plurality of tubes (par. 14, in view of par. 15). This provides attachment of the tubes to the header to enable fluid communication with the interior of the header and formation of the refrigerant flow path (par. 27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify DOWNHAM, in view of the teachings of ALAHYARI to achieve this formation.
As to claim 7, DOWNHAM, as modified, further discloses comprising an injection port (29) disposed between the housing and the coil unit (figures 2 and 4).
As to claim 8, DOWNHAM, as modified, further discloses comprising wherein the injection port is fluid coupled with a reservoir of a cleaning solution (31, 32, and/or 39; pr. 12, lines 4-17 and pg. 14, lines 1-5).
As to claim 9, DOWNHAM, as modified, further discloses comprising:
the compartment of the housing comprising a recess disposed between the first opening and the coil unit (figure 1); and
a tubular transfer line coupled with the housing and communicating with the recess (figures 1-2; abstract).
As to claim 10, DOWNHAM, as modified, does not further disclose wherein a plurality of further plates disposed between the first plate and the last plate so that the plurality of tubes each pas through the plurality of further plates, the plurality of further plates comprise at least 10 further plates that are each spaced apart.
However, ALAHYARI, further, teaches wherein there are a plurality of further plates (16) disposed between the first plate and the last plate so that the plurality of tubes each pass through the plurality of further plates (figure 1A; par. 14-15), the plurality of further plates comprising at least 10 further plates each spaced apart (figure 1A; par. 14). More specifically, ALAHYARI teaches wherein the purpose of the further plates provide increased surface area in thermal contact with the first and second plates (par. 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify DOWNHAM, in view of the teachings of ALAHYARI to include the further plates, as structurally defined, for these reasons.
As to claim 11, DOWNHAM, as modified, further discloses comprising an air mover (19) disposed within the compartment of the housing in alignment with the coil unit (figure 1; pg. 1, line 24- pg. 2, line 5; pg. 9, line 24- pg. 10, line 18).
As to claim 13, DOWNHAM, as modified, discloses a first heat transfer cube, as recited in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), and further discloses wherein it is understood there a multiple heat transfer cubes associated with chilled retail cabinets (pg. 4, lines 1-4) to be positioned indoors.
The structure associated with a second heat transfer cube, as defined within claim 13 is identical to that of the first heat transfer cube.
Looking at MPEP § 2144.04 – VI(B), it has been held that the inclusion of a plurality of structures previously known by the prior art, or combination thereof, is merely a duplication of parts that has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. As such, the combination of DOWNHAM, as modified, previously taught the structure of the heat transfer cube, such that providing a plurality of heat transfer cubes, i.e., a first and second heat transfer cube, with the same structure is nothing more than a mere matter of duplication of parts known to those having ordinary skill within the art.
Lastly, DOWNHAM, as indicated previously, discloses a plurality of heat transfer cubes to be positioned indoors, such that the outlet of the first heat transfer cube (18) is fluidly coupled to the inlet of the second heat transfer cube (17), as each of the heat transfer cubes would be understood to be in communication with the indoor environment of which each are housed.
As to claim 16, DOWNHAM, as modified, teaches the heat transfer cube as recited in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
DOWNHAM, further, discloses a method for operating the heat transfer cube, comprising:
passing a heat transfer liquid through each of the plurality of tubes (pg. 23, lines 1-3, in light of the teachings set forth in the rejection of claim 1 to include a plurality of tubes); and
concurrently with passing the heat transfer liquid through each of the plurality of tubes(in light of the teachings set forth in the rejection of claim 1 to include a plurality of tubes), passing an air stream through the compartment of the housing so that the air stream passes over each of the plurality of tubes (pg. 10, lines 13-18, in view of known conventional operation of pg. 1, line 24 – pg. 2, line 2).
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOWNHAM (GB 2462109 A – published 27 January, 2010), in view of ALAHYARI (US 2018/0356169 A1 – published 13 December, 2018), JOHNSON (US 3724537 A – published 3 April, 1973), and IWASAWA (US 9,127,868 B2 – published 8 September, 2015).
As to claim 5, DOWNHAM, as modified, previously disclosed the inclusion of a plurality of tubes which are spaced apart from one another (see teachings of ALAHYARI and JOHNSON).
However, the present combination does not further disclose the spacing of the tubes being within a range of .5cm and 1.5cm.
IWASAWA, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a heat transfer cube (abstract) inclusive of a coil unit having a plurality of tubes (figure 7). IWASAWA teaches wherein it is known within the art to include a tube spacing between adjacent pairs of tubes (V2) is selected based on the optimization to achieve a compact and lightweight heat exchanger that provides the best heat exchanger performance per unit weight (par. 11, 13, and 14). As such, the spacing between adjacent pairs of tubes is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. More so, one having ordinary skill within the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success of formulating the claimed range, as it is involved based off known formulas and relationships of heat exchanger design. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05-II. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify DOWNHAM to have the plurality of tubes spaced within the range claimed through routine optimization.
More so, it will be noted, the Applicant places no criticality on the spacing range of the plurality of tubes, as understood by the recitations within paragraph 63 of the originally-filed specification of the instant application.
As to claim 12, DOWNHAM, as modified, further discloses the inclusion a heat transfer cube having a height, a width, a length.
However, the present combination does not further disclose the height, width, length each being within a range of 10cm and 60cm.
IWASAWA, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a heat transfer cube (abstract) inclusive of a coil unit (figure 7). IWASAWA teaches wherein it is known within the art to include height, a width, and a length selected based on the optimization to achieve a compact and lightweight heat exchanger that provides the best heat exchanger performance per unit weight (par. 11, 13, and 14). As such, the height, width, and length is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. More so, one having ordinary skill within the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success of formulating the claimed range, as it is involved based off known formulas and relationships of heat exchanger design. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05-II. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify DOWNHAM to have the plurality of tubes spaced within the range claimed through routine optimization.
More so, it will be noted, the Applicant places no criticality on the spacing range of the plurality of tubes, as understood by the recitations within paragraph 60 of the originally-filed specification of the instant application.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOWNHAM (GB 2462109 A – published 27 January, 2010), in view of ALAHYARI (US 2018/0356169 A1 – published 13 December, 2018), JOHNSON (US 3724537 A – published 3 April, 1973), and CROCKER (US 5,924,478 – published 20 July, 1999).
As to claim 17, DOWNHAM, as modified, further discloses the method including injecting a cleaning solution, such that the cleaning solution passes over at least a portion of the plurality of tubes (pg. 4, lines 6-15, in light of the teachings set forth in the rejection of claim 1 to include a plurality of tubes).
However, DOWNHAM, as modified, does not expressly disclose wherein the spraying of the cleaning solution occurs with the air stream so that the air stream carries the cleaning solution over the plurality of tubes.
CROCKER, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a heat transfer cube (abstract; figures 1-2 and 4-5). CROCKER teaches wherein it is known to include a fan (30; col.2, lines 59-67) used to push injected cleaning fluid through the plurality of tubes (col. 2, lines 40-62) for the purpose of removing debris therefrom (col.2, lines 59-67). The purpose of the simultaneous injection of the cleaning fluid and airstream is to enable the fan to aid the cleaning fluid through the plurality of tubes at an increased velocity (col.3, lines 1-18 and col.5, lines 8-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify DOWNHAM, in view of CROCKER, for the purpose of increasing the velocity of the cleaning fluid to remove the debris from the plurality of tubes to effectively clean the plurality of tubes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20 are allowable.
Claims 14-15 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 14, 18, and 19 include “a power cube comprising: a thermal loop comprising a compressor, a first heat exchanger in fluid communication with the compressor, a second heat exchanger in fluid communication with the compressor, and an expansion valve in fluid communication with the first and second heat exchangers; a first circulation loop comprising…a fluid line extending from the first heat exchanger to the inlet of the heat transfer cube” (claim 14), “circulating a refrigerant through a thermal loop, the thermal loop comprising a compressor, an expansion valve, a first heat exchanger, a second heat exchanger, circulating a heat transfer fluid through the first heat exchanger of the thermal loop and through the plurality of tubes of the heat transfer cube” (claim 18), and “a thermal lop comprising a compressor, a first heat exchanger in fluid communication with the compressor, a second heat exchanger in fluid communication with the compressor, and an expansion valve in fluid communication with the first and second heat exchangers… a first circulation loop housing a first heat transfer fluid and communicating with the first heat exchanger of the thermal lop so as to enable thermal energy transfer between the refrigerant and the first heat transfer fluid; a reservoir housing a cleaning solution, the reservoir being in fluid communication with the first heat transfer cube” (claim 19). The closest prior art of record appears to be DOWNHAM. However, DOWNHAM expressly discloses only one loop, such that the system of DOWNHAM does not include a separate loop inclusive of a compressor, a first heat exchanger, a second heat exchanger, and an expansion valve, in addition to the loop which includes the heat transfer cube. The prior art does not provide reasonable teachings, motivation, and/or suggestions to modify the known systems, such as taught by DOWNHAM, to support a conclusion of obviousness. For this, the preponderance of evidence supports the conclusion that the prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious, absent impermissible hindsight reasoning, the claimed invention set forth within claims 14, 18, and 19, and the dependents thereof.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA M MARONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM to 4PM, EST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/JENNA M MARONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 12/12/2025
JENNA M. MARONEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763