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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/23/2026 has been entered.
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed 04/23/2026. The objections to the specification have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. Claims 1-5, 7-8 and 10-20 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Heat pump module in at least claim 1
Thermal energy storage (TES) module in at least claim 1
End use module in at least claim 1
Air handling unit module in at least claim 3
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification show that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
A heat pump module appears to be described as a self-contained vapor compression system, and may comprise of a plurality of heat exchangers, an expansion valve, and a compressor in at least ¶ 0024 and 0027 of the specification.
A thermal energy storage (TES) module appears to be described as comprising of a phase change material in at least ¶ 0004 of the specification
An end use module appears to be described as a hot water tank, an air handling unit module or any other suitable module in at least ¶ 0018 of the specification
An air handling unit module appears to be described as comprising a coil and a blower in at least ¶ 0055 of the specification
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melink et al. (US 20210156601 A1, hereinafter “Melink”) and further in view of Alley (US 20220252357 A1) and Ashe (US 20090087355 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Melink teaches a modular cold climate heat pump system [Fig. 1] for a building, the system comprising:
a heat pump module [120] comprising a refrigerant stream [Fig. 1; ¶ 0024; pump package 140 pumps refrigerant through the facility loop 110 to at least sections 106, 130 and 180 for heat exchange via at least streams 168, 138 and 188 respectively], a valve manifold [Fig. 1; ¶ 0047; at least 192, 193, 196, 197, 198];
a thermal energy storage (TES) module [170] in thermal communication with the heat pump module via a first connection [178, 179] [¶ 0024, 0041; phase change material (PCM) tanks 170 communicate with the heat pump via lines 178, 179]; and
an end use module [at least 92 or 160] in thermal communication with the heat pump module via a second connection [92 connected via coil 125; 160 connected via 168, 169] [¶ 0026-0027; Figs. 2-3; indoor medium 92 exchanges heat with the heat pump 121 via heat exchanger 125]; wherein:
the first connection and the second connection comprise a heat transfer fluid [¶ 0024-0027; facility loop 110 comprises refrigerant for heat transfer; indoor medium 92 may be air, water, or refrigerant]; and
the valve manifold is configured to direct the first connection and the second connection to be in thermal contact with at least one of the de-superheated refrigerant stream, the condensed refrigerant stream, or the subcooled refrigerant stream [¶ 0047; each valve may selectively permit flow to and/or from each corresponding subsystem; see Fig. 1], and
While Melink generally teaches a plurality of heat exchangers [125, 127, 135, 137; Figs. 2-3] in thermal communication with the refrigerant [of loops 122, 123] [¶ 0026-0029], Melink does not explicitly teach a multi-segmented heat exchanger (MSHX) device comprising: a first heat exchanger configured to desuperheat the refrigerant stream resulting in a de-superheated refrigerant stream; a second heat exchanger configured to condense the de-superheated refrigerant stream resulting in a condensed refrigerant stream; and a third heat exchanger configured to sub-cool the condensed refrigerant stream resulting in a subcooled refrigerant stream; the first heat exchanger, the second heat exchanger, and the third heat exchanger flow through at least one brazed plate, and the first heat exchanger, the second heat exchanger, and the third heat exchanger are in thermal communication with the heat transfer fluid.
However, Alley teaches a multiple channel heat exchanger [Figs. 3-16] [at least 301, 401, 501, etc.] wherein the heat exchanger may comprise of multiple conduits, wherein each conduit provides heat exchange capabilities between a plurality of circuits [at least circuits A, B, C, D], wherein at least circuit A may comprise of a refrigerant or heating circuit [¶ 0140; Fig. 3]. Alley also discloses that the multi-channel heat exchanger may be formed so that the heat transfer tubes are formed into a singular plate of heat conducting material [¶ 0158]. Alley further teaches that such a multi-flow heat exchanger configuration provides variable benefits in tandem with intelligent software in order to provide a means to allow for simultaneous pump activation of separate circuits to provide sufficient heat transfer, thereby enabling a more dynamic use of cooling/heating sources as needed [¶ 0142]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the multi-segmented heat exchanger as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the multi-segmented heat exchanger would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing a means to allow for simultaneous pump activation of separate circuits to provide sufficient heat transfer, thereby enabling more dynamic control capabilities, thus improving the system [¶ 0142].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Melink to have a multi-segmented heat exchanger device comprising: a first heat exchanger; a second heat exchanger; and a third heat exchanger; wherein: the first heat exchanger, the second heat exchanger, and the third heat exchanger flow through at least one brazed plate, and the first heat exchanger, the second heat exchanger, and the third heat exchanger are in thermal communication with a refrigerant and a heat transfer fluid, in view of the teachings of Alley where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a means to allow for simultaneous pump activation of separate circuits to provide sufficient heat transfer, thereby enabling more dynamic control capabilities, thus improving the system.
Melink nor Alley explicitly discloses wherein the first heat exchanger is configured to de-superheat a refrigerant resulting in a de- superheated refrigerant, the second heat exchanger configured to condense the de-superheated refrigerant resulting in a condensed refrigerant, and the third heat exchanger configured to sub-cool the condensed refrigerant resulting in a subcooled refrigerant.
[The state of a refrigerant (i.e. super-heated, subcooled, condensed, etc.) is entirely reliant on the composition of refrigerant, including saturation temperatures, saturation pressures, etc., set forth by control of a specific heat exchanger (i.e. temperature of the other heat exchanging fluid). While the limitations specifying the stage/phase of the refrigerant may be considered a manner of operating the device [MPEPE 2114.II], the disclosed stages appear to imply the structural order of refrigerant flowing through said heat exchangers in series. Accordingly, the heat exchangers are considered capable reaching the specific refrigerant states, as the control of a heat exchanger does not modify the principles of how a heat exchanger operates [See ¶ 0077-0080; the heat exchanger may heat or cool a load, thereby cooling or heating the refrigerant to a desired state]. However, while the specific states of refrigerant may not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art, it is acknowledged that the naming convention of the amendments implies a series relationship among the plurality of heat exchangers, not taught by the previously applied prior art.]
However, Ashe teaches a variable plate heat exchanger [Figs. 1-13] comprising a process conduit [1] receiving heat liberating chemicals (i.e. hot fluid) wherein the process conduit passes through a plurality of stages, wherein said stages being multiple heat exchangers configured to receive another fluid via valves V1-V7, such that fluid in the process conduit passes through the multiple heat exchangers in series, wherein each heat exchanger provides either heating or cooling such that the fluid in the conduit reaches a predetermined T1-T6 [¶ 0028-0031]. Therefore, a superheated refrigerant entering tube 1 may be cooled to a de-superheated refrigerant at temperature T1, via fluid flow through V1, wherein refrigerant may continue to a second heat exchanger to be cooled and condensed to a liquid at temperature T2, via fluid through V2, wherein refrigerant may continue to a third heat exchanger to be cooled to a sub-cooled refrigerant at temperature T3, via fluid through V3, and so on. Ashe explicitly discloses that the structure may be useful in refrigerators and refrigeration systems [¶ 0245], as the structure aims to overcome undesirable hot spots and cold spots that may inhibit desirable process changes, thereby improving the system [¶ 0028-0030]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied a known technique to a known device (i.e. provide a refrigerant in series through a combined heat exchanger having multiple heat exchange phases) and that in combination, the technique would improve the known device in a similar manner, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. to overcome undesirable hot spots and cold spots that may inhibit desirable process changes, thereby improving the system [¶ 0028-0030].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Alley to have wherein the first heat exchanger is configured to de-superheat a refrigerant resulting in a de- superheated refrigerant, the second heat exchanger configured to condense the de-superheated refrigerant resulting in a condensed refrigerant, and the third heat exchanger configured to sub-cool the condensed refrigerant resulting in a subcooled refrigerant, in view of the teachings of Ashe, where applying a known technique to a known device with no change in their respective function would improve the known device in a similar manner and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. to overcome undesirable hot spots and cold spots that may inhibit desirable process changes, thereby improving the system.
Regarding Claim 2, Melink, as modified, teaches the modular cold climate heat pump system of claim 1 above and Melink teaches wherein:
the heat transfer fluid comprises at least one of ethylene glycol or propylene glycol [¶ 0025; refrigerant may comprise of an antifreeze, such as glycol].
Regarding Claim 3, Melink, as modified, teaches the modular cold climate heat pump system of claim 1 above and Melink teaches wherein:
the end use module comprises an air handling unit module [Figs. 2-3] configured to heat an airstream [¶ 0027; Figs. 2-3; indoor medium may be heated by being pumped over coil 125].
Regarding Claim 4, Melink, as modified, teaches the modular cold climate heat pump system of claim 1 above and Melink teaches wherein:
the end use module comprises a hot water tank [160], and the hot water tank is configured to heat a water stream [¶ 0027-0031, 0040; Fig. 1; water tank 160 may be configured to exchange heat with one or more heat exchangers disposed within the water tank, such that thermal energy is transferred; secondary heat pumps 131 may exchange heat with the building loop in the form of a water to water heat exchange].
Regarding Claim 5, Melink, as modified, teaches the modular cold climate heat pump system of claim 1 above and Melink teaches wherein:
the TES module comprises a phase change material [¶ 0024; tanks 170 comprise of phase change material (PCM)], and the phase change material comprises a salt hydrate [¶ 0041; PCM may be a salt hydrate].
Claim 6 canceled
Regarding Claim 7, Melink, as modified, teaches the modular cold climate heat pump system of claim 1 above and Melink teaches wherein:
the heat pump module comprises a coil [at least 125, 127, 135, 137; Figs. 2-3], and
the coil is configured to receive heat from the TES module via the first connection [¶ 0026-0031; Figs. 2-3; the coils are in communication with the building loop 110, which may receive heat from the TES].
Claim 9 canceled
Regarding Claim 10, Melink, as modified, teaches the modular cold climate heat pump system of claim 1 above and Melink teaches wherein:
the de-superheated refrigerant [refrigerant in heat pump 120] is configured to heat the heat transfer fluid resulting in a heated heat transfer fluid [¶ 0026-0028; Figs. 2-3; heat pump communicates with building loop refrigerant and indoor medium], and
the heated heat transfer fluid is configured to heat the end use module via the second connection [¶ 0024-0027; Figs. 2-3; at least indoor medium 92 exchanges heat with the heat pump 121 via heat exchanger 125 to be heated].
Regarding Claim 11, Melink, as modified, teaches the modular cold climate heat pump system of claim 10 above and Melink teaches wherein:
the heated heat transfer fluid is approximately 70 °C [¶ 0064; Melink discloses that at least tank 170’ is operable to serve as a heat source for domestic hot water (known to be approximately 70 °C)]
the end use module comprises a hot water tank [160] [¶ 0024].
Regarding Claim 12, Melink, as modified, teaches the modular cold climate heat pump system of claim 9 above and Melink teaches wherein:
the condensed refrigerant [refrigerant in heat pump 120] is configured to heat the heat transfer fluid resulting in a heated heat transfer fluid [¶ 0026-0028; Figs. 2-3; heat pump communicates with building loop refrigerant and indoor medium], and
the heated heat transfer fluid is configured to heat the end use module via the second connection [¶ 0024-0027; Figs. 2-3; at least indoor medium 92 exchanges heat with the heat pump 121 via heat exchanger 125 to be heated].
Regarding Claim 13, Melink, as modified, teaches the modular cold climate heat pump system of claim 9 above and Melink teaches wherein:
the subcooled refrigerant [refrigerant in heat pump 120] is configured to heat the heat transfer fluid resulting in a heated heat transfer fluid [¶ 0026-0028; Figs. 2-3; heat pump communicates with building loop refrigerant and indoor medium], and
the heated heat transfer fluid is configured to heat the TES module via the second connection [¶ 0042, 0130; the PCM may be charged by storing thermal when intended as a heat source, or may be charged by freezing a portion the PCM when intended as a heat sink].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melink, Alley and Ashe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Catano-Montoyta (US 20220373235 A1, hereinafter “Catano”).
Regarding Claim 8, Melink teaches the modular cold climate heat pump system of claim 1 above but Melink does not explicitly teach wherein: the refrigerant comprises at least one of R290 (propane), R134a, R410A, R454B, R448A/R449A, R452B, R1234yf, R32, R717 (ammonia), or R744 (carbon dioxide).
However, Catano teaches a refrigeration system [Fig. 1], comprising at least a compressor [26], a condenser [30], an expansion valve [34] and an evaporator [38] [¶ 0072, 0079], wherein Catano further discloses that the main fluid loop [14] may comprise of a refrigerant, including at least any one of the non-limiting examples described in ¶ 0075. Catano further discloses that different refrigerants provide separate advantages and disadvantages, such as risks posed from flammability, global warming potential or greater/lower heat transfer capabilities [¶ 0072-0078], thus demonstrating multiple refrigerants are known in the art and selecting from known materials may be considered obvious at the time of design based on the preferred metrics of operation. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the refrigerant as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the refrigerant would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. multiple refrigerants are well known in the art to provide different advantages and disadvantages such as flammability, global warming potential, and heat transfer capabilities [¶ 0072-0078], and thus selecting from a known list of materials may be considered obvious at the time of design based on the preferred metrics of operation.
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Melink to have wherein: the refrigerant comprises at least one of R290 (propane), R134a, R410A, R454B, R448A/R449A, R452B, R1234yf, R32, R717 (ammonia), or R744 (carbon dioxide), in view of the teachings of Catano where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. multiple refrigerants are well known in the art to provide different advantages and disadvantages such as flammability, global warming potential, and heat transfer capabilities, and thus selecting from a known list of materials may be considered obvious at the time of design based on the preferred metrics of operation.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alley and further in view of Ashe.
Regarding Claim 14, Alley teaches a multi-segmented heat exchanger (MSHX) device [Figs. 3-16] [at least 301, 401, 501, etc.] comprising:
a first heat exchanger [Fig. 3; at least Circuit B running through 301];
a second heat exchanger [Fig. 3; at least Circuit C running through 301]; and
a third heat exchanger [Fig. 3; at least Circuit D running through 301]; wherein:
the first heat exchanger, the second heat exchanger, and the third heat exchanger flow through at least one brazed plate [¶ 0158; the multi-channel heat exchanger may be formed so that the heat transfer tubes are formed into a singular plate of heat conducting material], and
the first heat exchanger, the second heat exchanger, and the third heat exchanger are in thermal communication with a heat transfer fluid [¶ 0073; Fig. 3; heat transfer fluid is configured to exchange heat with refrigerant in circuit A via the heat exchanger].
Alley does not explicitly disclose wherein the first heat exchanger is configured to de-superheat a refrigerant resulting in a de- superheated refrigerant, the second heat exchanger configured to condense the de-superheated refrigerant resulting in a condensed refrigerant, and the third heat exchanger configured to sub-cool the condensed refrigerant resulting in a subcooled refrigerant.
[The state of a refrigerant (i.e. super-heated, subcooled, condensed, etc.) is entirely reliant on the composition of refrigerant, including saturation temperatures, saturation pressures, etc., set forth by control of a specific heat exchanger (i.e. temperature of the other heat exchanging fluid). While the limitations specifying the stage/phase of the refrigerant may be considered a manner of operating the device [MPEPE 2114.II], the disclosed stages appear to imply the structural order of refrigerant flowing through said heat exchangers in series. Accordingly, the heat exchangers are considered capable reaching the specific refrigerant states, as the control of a heat exchanger does not modify the principles of how a heat exchanger operates [See ¶ 0077-0080; the heat exchanger may heat or cool a load, thereby cooling or heating the refrigerant to a desired state]. However, while the specific states of refrigerant may not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art, it is acknowledged that the naming convention of the amendments implies a series relationship among the plurality of heat exchangers, not taught by the previously applied prior art.]
However, Ashe teaches a variable plate heat exchanger [Figs. 1-13] comprising a process conduit [1] receiving heat liberating chemicals (i.e. hot fluid) wherein the process conduit passes through a plurality of stages, wherein said stages being multiple heat exchangers configured receive another fluid via valves V1-V7, such that fluid in the process conduit passes through the multiple heat exchangers in series, wherein each heat exchanger provides either heating or cooling such that the fluid in the conduit reaches a predetermined T1-T6 [¶ 0028-0031]. Therefore, a superheated refrigerant entering tube 1 may be cooled to a de-superheated refrigerant at temperature T1, via fluid flow through V1, wherein refrigerant may continue to a second heat exchanger to be cooled and condensed to a liquid at temperature T2, via fluid through V2, wherein refrigerant may continue to a third heat exchanger to be cooled to a sub-cooled refrigerant at temperature T3, via fluid through V3, and so on. Ashe explicitly discloses that the structure may be useful in refrigerators and refrigeration systems [¶ 0245], as the structure aims to overcome undesirable hot spots and cold spots that may inhibit desirable process changes, thereby improving the system [¶ 0028-0030]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied a known technique to a known device (i.e. provide a refrigerant in series through a combined heat exchanger having multiple heat exchange phases) and that in combination, the technique would improve the known device in a similar manner, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. to overcome undesirable hot spots and cold spots that may inhibit desirable process changes, thereby improving the system [¶ 0028-0030].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Alley to have wherein the first heat exchanger is configured to de-superheat a refrigerant resulting in a de- superheated refrigerant, the second heat exchanger configured to condense the de-superheated refrigerant resulting in a condensed refrigerant, and the third heat exchanger configured to sub-cool the condensed refrigerant resulting in a subcooled refrigerant, in view of the teachings of Ashe, where applying a known technique to a known device with no change in their respective function would improve the known device in a similar manner and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. to overcome undesirable hot spots and cold spots that may inhibit desirable process changes, thereby improving the system.
Regarding Claim 15, Alley, as modified, teaches the MSHX device of claim 14 above and Alley teaches wherein:
the de-superheated refrigerant is configured to heat the heat transfer fluid resulting in a heated heat transfer fluid [¶ 0140, 0158; heat transfers at least between circuit A and other circuits via the multi-flow heat exchanger], and
the heated heat transfer fluid is configured to heat an end use module [¶ 0102; the system may be configured to provide heat to thermal energy storage systems].
Regarding Claim 16, Alley, as modified, teaches the MSHX device of claim 15 above and Alley teaches wherein:
the heated heat transfer fluid is approximately 70 °C [¶ 0064; Melink discloses that at least tank 170’ is operable to serve as a heat source for domestic hot water (known to be approximately 70 °C)]
the end use module comprises a hot water tank [¶ 0161; a water tank may be the means to store energy].
Regarding Claim 17, Alley, as modified, teaches the MSHX device of claim 14 above and Alley teaches wherein:
the condensed refrigerant is configured to heat the heat transfer fluid resulting in a heated heat transfer fluid [¶ 0140, 0158; heat transfers at least between circuit A and other circuits via the multi-flow heat exchanger], and
the heated heat transfer fluid is configured to heat an end use module [¶ 0102; the system may be configured to provide heat to thermal energy storage systems].
Regarding Claim 18, Alley, as modified, teaches the MSHX device of claim 17 above and Alley teaches wherein:
the end use module comprises an air handing unit (AHU) module [¶ 0163; the system may exchange heat with a conventional indoor air stream heat pump and handler].
Regarding Claim 19, Alley, as modified, teaches the MSHX device of claim 14 above and Alley teaches wherein:
the subcooled refrigerant is configured to heat the heat transfer fluid resulting in a heated heat transfer fluid [¶ 0140, 0158; heat transfers at least between circuit A and other circuits via the multi-flow heat exchanger], and
the heated heat transfer fluid is configured to heat a thermal energy storage module [¶ 0102; the system may be configured to provide heat to thermal energy storage systems].
Regarding Claim 20, Alley, as modified, teaches the MSHX device of claim 14 above and Alley teaches wherein:
the refrigerant comprises at least one of R290 (propane), R134a, R410A, R454B, R448A/R449A, R452B, R1234yf, R32, R717 (ammonia), or R744 (carbon dioxide) [¶ 0073; Alley discloses a plurality of known refrigerants, including at least ammonia].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically further prior art Ashe has been incorporated.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH S MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5102. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571) 270-5054. 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.
/KEITH STANLEY MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights