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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The limitation of “the food simulating material is preferably a solid wax” renders the scope of the claim indefinite since a broad range or limitation followed by linking terms (e.g., preferably, maybe) and a narrow range or limitation within the broad range or limitation is considered indefinite since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.
Claims 20 is further treated on the merit with the interpretation that the food simulant material is a solid wax in which are distributed a plurality of gas-filled polymeric particles.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Siemens-Electrogerate A. G (GB 917055A), hereinafter Siemens. Regarding claims 1 and 19, Siemens discloses (figures 1-3) an evaporator system comprising at least one plate evaporator, each plate evaporator comprising first and second sheets (1,2) that are joined together and that define an internal conduit (4) between the sheets, the internal conduit aligned parallel to the sheets and configured to carry refrigerant through the plate evaporator, each plate evaporator further comprising a first electrically insulative layer (7) applied on the first sheet, and electrically resistive layer (8) applied on the first electrically insulative layer, and a second electrically insulative layer (9) applied on the electrically resistive layer, wherein the electrically resistive layer is an elongated track that follows a meandering path (3) traversing along the first sheet. Regarding claim 2, Siemens discloses that the first electrically insulative layer (7) is also an elongated track that follows the meandering path, between the first sheet and the electrically insulative layer. Regarding claim 3, Siemens discloses (figure 2 and page 2, lines 65-66) that the second electrical insulative layer extend over the first sheet (1). Siemens further discloses (page 2, lines 65-66) that it is also possible that the insulative layers also covers the entire underside of the evaporator, which is the second sheet (2) located. Therefore, Siemens discloses (figure 2 and page 2, lines 65-66) that the second electrical insulative layer extend over and encapsulate the first and second sheets. Regarding claim 4, Siemens further discloses (figures 1 and 2) that the internal conduit (4) follows at least a portion of the meandering path (3). Regarding claim 5, Siemens further discloses (figure 2) that the first electrically insulative layer (7) adheres to the first sheet (1) , and wherein the electrically resistive layer (8) adheres to the first electrically insulative layer (7). Regarding claim 6, Siemens discloses (lines 87-88, page 1) that the first electrically insulative layer is a paint layer that is painted on the first sheet (spraying). Regarding claim 7, Siemens discloses (lines 87-88, page 1) that the electrically resistive layer is a paint layer that is painted on the first electrically insulative layer. Regarding claim 9, Siemens discloses (figure 2) that the second electrically insulative layer (9) forms an exterior surface of the plate evaporator. Regarding claim 11, Siemens discloses (page 1, lines 62-65) that the first and second sheets (1,2) are metal sheets. Regarding claim 12, Siemens discloses (figure 3, and page 2, lines 1-27) a heater control unit (14-16) that is electrically connected to opposing ends (11,12, 13) of the elongated track of the electrically resistive layer, and configured to drive an electric current along the elongated track of the electrically resistive layer to heat the plate evaporator in a defrost mode.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siemens in view of S. Bartlowe (US 2,685,634). Siemens substantially discloses all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above except for the limitation that the electrically resistive layer comprises a nickel-chromium powder. Bartlowe discloses (column 2, lines 30-34) that the electrically resistive layer (17) comprises a Nickel-chromium powder for a purpose of enhancing the electrical conductivity of the heating layer.. It would have been obvious to one having obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Bartlowe’s teaching Siemens’ device for a purpose of enhancing the electrical conductivity of the heating layer.
Claims 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siemens in view of Jing et al. (CN 204830646U). Regarding claim 13, Siemens substantially discloses all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above for the limitation that the heater control unit is configured to receive a signal indicating when the flow of refrigerant through the plate evaporator has ceased, and to only enter the defrost mode of the plate evaporator when the signal indicates the flow of refrigerant flow through the plate has ceased. Jing et al. discloses (figure 3 and paragraph 26) an evaporator system that has a control unit (6) connect with shut-off valve (7) and shut-off valve (8) for a purpose of closing the shut-off valve (7) to stop refrigerant flowing into the evaporator (15) and to start defrost mode for the evaporator. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to start defrost mode of the evaporator when there is no refrigerant flowing inside the evaporator so that the defrost mode can be conducted effectively.
Regarding claim 14, Siemens substantially discloses all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above except for the limitation that the evaporators arranged parallel to one another and an inlet manifold for connecting to a compressor, an outlet manifold for connecting to a condenser, and the pipes connecting the internal conduits of the plate evaporators to the inlet and outlet manifold.
Jing et a further discloses (figure A, as shown below) that the evaporator system comprises a plurality of evaporators arranged parallel to one another, and further comprises an inlet manifold for connecting to a compressor (10 comprises condenser and compressor, paragraphs 25 and 26), and outlet manifold for connecting to a condenser (10 comprises condenser and compressor), and pipes connecting the refrigerant flowing inside the evaporator to the inlet and outlet manifolds. The purpose of employing Jing’s teaching in Siemens’s device is to increase the number of evaporators so that cooling capacity of the refrigerator is enhanced. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Jing’s teaching in Siemens’s device for a purpose of increasing the number of evaporators so that cooling capacity of the refrigerator is enhanced.
Regarding claim 15, Siemens substantially discloses all of applicant’s claimed inventio as discussed above except for the limitation that the heater control unit is configured to drive an electric current through the elongated tracks of the plate evaporators in sequence such that the plate evaporator are not all in the defrost mode at a same time as one another. Jing discloses (figure a system that has a plurality of evaporators (15,16) , where a controller unit (6) is configured to control the defrost mode of each evaporators (15,16) at different time in sequence for a purpose of maintaining cooling function of the evaporator at all time when only one of the evaporator (15 or 16) is to be in defrost mode only. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Jing’s teaching in Siemens’ device for a purpose of maintaining cooling function of the evaporator at all time when only one of the evaporator (15 or 16) is to be in defrost mode only.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Siemens substantially discloses all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above except for the limitation that the evaporator is operated in a defrost mode when flow of refrigerant flow the plate evaporator has ceased and only one evaporate is in defrost mode at a time. Jing et a further discloses (paragraphs 25 and 26) that the evaporator system comprises a plurality of evaporators arranged parallel to one another, and a controller (6) is to control the defrost mode of each evaporator, wherein the evaporator (15 or 16) is in defrost mode only when the flow of refrigerant through the evaporator has been ceased (shut-off valve 7 is closed to start defrost mode in evaporator 15) and either evaporator (15) or 16 is in defrost mode at a time. (only one shut-off valve is closed at a time). The purpose of employing Jing’s teaching in Siemens’s device is to increase the number of evaporators so that cooling capacity of the refrigerator is enhanced and It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Jing’s teaching in Siemens’s device for a purpose of increasing the number of evaporators so that cooling capacity of the refrigerator is enhanced and for maintaining cooling function of the evaporator at all time when only one of the evaporator (15 or 16) is to be in defrost mode only.
PNG
media_image1.png
626
858
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: the modified figure corresponds to figure 3 of Jing with limitation as shown.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 18 and 20 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: the prior art of record either taken singularly or in combination fails to disclose that the second electrically insulative layer is applied directly to the second sheet without any first insulative layer or electrically resistive layer between the second electrically insulative layer and the second sheet (claim 10) and the plate evaporators are arranged with the first sheet and the second sheet of immediately adjacent plate evaporator facing towards one another, in combination with other limitation in the dependent claims (claim 18); and the subject matter of food simulant material a solid wax in which are distributed a plurality of gas-filled polymeric particles.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
G. Janos (US 2,920,377) discloses an evaporator structure and method of manufacture.
J. S. Palmer (US 2,777,300) discloses a sheet metal evaporator.
SI William (US 2,773,363) discloses a refrigerator evaporator with defrosting means.
H.P. Peterson (US 2,492,397) discloses a defroster for evaporator.
R. H. Swart (US 2,478,791) discloses a refrigeration plate cooling unit.
SU 1083041A1 discloses a plurality of evaporators with manifold.
Thomas Jesse (US 3,226,808) discloses a plate evaporator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THO V DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4793. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 10-6PM.
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, Atkisson Jianying can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/THO V DUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763