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 .
The claims received 3/5/2026 are entered. Claims 1-20 are cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claims 22-29, 31-33, 35-36, and 38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 22-29, 31-33, 35-36, and 38 refer to claim 1 which was previously cancelled. Said claims will be treated as depending from claim 21.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 21-23, 25-27, 29-32, 35, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trapani (FR2632391).
Regarding claims 21-22 and 26, Trapani discloses a medical contact shock freezer adapted for fast freezing a plurality of individual bags containing blood plasma ([0005]), the medical contact shock freezer comprising:
a first pair of freezing plates (1 and 3), at least one of the freezing plates (3) of the first pair of freezing plates being moveable between i) a loading position of the freezing plates in which sufficient separation is provided between the freezing plates to load or unload the individual bags between the freezing plates and ii) a freezing position in which the individual bags arranged between the freezing plates are clamped between the freezing plates ([0006]); and
a first refrigeration circuit (figure 3 shows a cascade refrigeration circuit) configured when in a refrigeration mode to remove heat from the first pair of freezing plates to freeze the individual bags clamped between the first pair of freezing plates;
in which
the first refrigeration circuit comprises a cascade refrigeration circuit comprising a first stage refrigeration circuit (R-502 circuit), a second stage refrigeration circuit (R-503 circuit) and an inter-stage heat exchanger (heat exchanger between the stages shown in figure 3);
the first stage refrigeration circuit (R-502 circuit) being configured when in the refrigeration mode to circulate a first stage refrigerant sequentially through a first stage compressor, a first stage condenser, a first stage capillary, the inter-stage heat exchanger and back to the first stage compressor so as to remove heat from the inter-stage heat exchanger and release heat to the environment via the first stage condenser; and
the second stage refrigeration circuit (R-503 circuit) being configured when in the refrigeration mode to circulate a second stage refrigerant sequentially through a second stage compressor, the inter-stage heat exchanger, a second stage capillary, the first pair of freezing plates and back to the second compressor so as to remove heat from the first pair of freezing plates of the contact shock freezer and release heat to the inter-stage heat exchanger;
in which
the medical contact shock freezer is configured to simultaneously freeze a plurality of individual bags (3 plate pairs are present in figure 1, figure 2 shows 4 bags 5) each containing a volume of blood plasma to a temperature of -30 °C ([0005], [0007]) in a freezing time, wherein:
the temperature of the second refrigerant in the second cooling circuit has a minimum working temperature in the range - 70 °C to - 50 °C or -65°C to -55°C ([0007]).
Trapani lacks or is silent concerning:
the medical contact shock freezer is configured to simultaneously freeze at least 24 individual bags each containing between 230 ml and 270 ml of blood plasma from a temperature of 32°C to a temperature of -30 °C in a freezing time of less than 60 minutes or 40 minutes (claim 22), wherein:
the first stage refrigerant is refrigerant grade propane and the first refrigerant circuit comprises between 100g and 400g of the first stage refrigerant;
the first stage compressor is a fully hermetic compressor;
the temperature of the first stage refrigerant in the first stage refrigeration circuit has a minimum working temperature in the range - 25 °C to - 5 °C and a maximum working temperature in the range 90 °C to 110 °C;
the second stage refrigerant is refrigerant grade ethane and the second refrigerant circuit comprises between 100g and 400g of the second stage refrigerant; -
the second stage compressor is a fully hermetic compressor; and
a maximum working temperature in the range 100 °C to 110 °C.
In the previous office action on the merits the Examiner took Official Notice that of the following:
The volume of a blood plasma bag is typically about 150-320 mL with 250mL being a standard volume.
Propane and ethane are old and well known refrigerants. (R290 and R170).
Fully hermetic compressors are old and well known.
In his subsequent reply to this office action, the applicant did not traverse Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice with regard to these elements. Therefore the Official Notice statements by the Examiner regarding these elements are now taken as admitted prior art by Applicant. See MPEP §2144.03(C).
It has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04. In this instance duplicating the freezing plates to accommodate at least 24 plasma bags of 230-270mL. Therefor it would have been obvious to have provided a plurality of freezing plates in order to predictably increase capacity.
It has been held that the optimization of a result-effective variable is obvious. In this instance freezing time and temperature corresponds to the requirement of good conservation. Therefor because time and temperature are recognized as effecting the result of good conservation; the value of freezing from a temperature of 32°C to a temperature of -30 °C in a freezing time of less than 60 minutes is not a product of innovation but of ordinary skill and is obvious.
It has been held that the optimization of a result-effective variable is obvious. In this instance refrigerant type, amount, and working temperature range correspond to cooling capacity. Therefor because refrigerant type, amount, and working temperature range is recognized as effecting the result of cooling capacity; the values recited in the claim are not a product of innovation but of ordinary skill and is obvious.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Trapani with fully hermetic compressors at the first and second stages in order to prevent refrigerant leakage and contaminant ingress.
Regarding claim 23, Trapani, as modified, discloses the medical contact shock freezer of claim 21, including the first and second stage compressors, but is silent concerning power ratings thereof. It has been held that the optimization of a result-effective variable is obvious. In this instance compressor power corresponds to cooling capacity and load. Therefor because compressor power is recognized as effecting the result of cooling capacity and load; the value of 1-3hp is not a product of innovation but of ordinary skill and is obvious. Moreover power draws with the claimed ranged are operable on standard 20 amp circuits (120V or 240V).
Regarding claim 25, Trapani, as modified, discloses the medical contact shock freezer of claim 21, in which the shock freezer further comprises:
a second pair of freezing plates (figure 1 shows 3 pairs of freezer plates, the second pair refers to another of the three pairs of figure 1; further claim 1 includes modification to accommodate at least 24 plasma bags), at least one of the freezing plates of the second pair of freezing plates being moveable between i) a loading position of the freezing plates in which sufficient separation is provided between the freezing plates to load or unload the individual bags between the freezing plates and ii) a freezing position in which the individual bags arranged between the freezing plates are clamped between the freezing plates ([0006]); and
a second refrigeration circuit (evaporator 2 of the second pair of plates having the refrigeration circuit of figure 3) configured to remove heat from the second pair of freezing plates to freeze the individual bags between the second pair of freezing plates;
in which
the second refrigeration circuit comprises a cascade refrigeration circuit comprising a first stage refrigeration circuit (circuit using R 502), a second stage refrigeration circuit (circuit using R 503) and an inter-stage heat exchanger (shown in figure 3);
the first stage refrigeration circuit (circuit using R 502) being configured when in the refrigeration mode to circulate a first stage refrigerant, sequentially through a first stage compressor, a first stage condenser, a first stage capillary, the inter-stage heat exchanger and back to the first stage compressor so as to remove heat from the inter-stage heat exchanger and release heat to the environment via the first stage condenser; and
the second stage refrigeration circuit (circuit using R 503) being configured when in the refrigeration mode to circulate a second stage refrigerant, sequentially through a second stage compressor, the inter-stage heat exchanger, a second stage capillary, the second pair of freezing plates and back to the second compressor so as to remove heat from the second pair of freezing plates of the contact shock freezer and release heat to the inter-stage heat exchanger; and in which the first refrigeration circuit and the second refrigeration circuit are independently operable.
Trapani lacks:
the individual bags are “clamped” between the freezer plates
the first stage refrigerant being refrigerant grade propane
the second stage refrigerant being refrigerant grade ethane.
In the previous office action on the merits the Examiner took Official Notice that clamping freezing plates is old and well known. In his subsequent reply to this office action, the applicant did not traverse Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice with regard to these elements. Therefore the Official Notice statements by the Examiner regarding these elements are now taken as admitted prior art by Applicant. See MPEP §2144.03(C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a clamping mechanism for the pair of freezing plates in order to secure the bags therein and provide good contact to enhance heat transfer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Trapani with propane and ethane refrigerants in order to observe their low temperature working ranges, wide availability, and heat transfer capabilities.
Further, Trapani discloses 3 pairs of freezing plates (shown in figure 1) and a cascade refrigeration cycle (figure 3). To the extent it is ambiguous whether each pair of plates has its own cascade refrigeration cycle or all pairs share the same cycle; it has been held that an “obvious to try” rationale when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be established: (1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem; (2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem; (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and (4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I) (E).
In the instant case, and as per (1), it should be noted that each pair of plates receives refrigerant. As per (2), based on the above, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are only two potential solutions to providing refrigerant: the plate pairs have their own cycle as shown in figure 3 or the plural plate pairs share the same cycle. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that each plate pair having its own refrigeration cycle would have not yielded unpredictable results, since doing so would not change the principles of operation of the prior art, nor would it render the prior art inoperable for its intended purpose. As per (4), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the each plate pair having its own cycle has the additional benefit of allowing partial operation, e.g. only one plate pair is in operation, thereby allowing for lower energy usage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided each plate pair with its own cascade refrigeration cycle, as a matter of trying a finite number of predictable solutions, in order to freeze blood/plasma bags, without yielding unpredictable results.
Regarding claim 27, Trapani, as modified, discloses the medical contact shock freezer of claim 21, but is silent concerning the specific type of the inter-stage heat exchanger.
In the previous office action on the merits the Examiner took Official Notice that thermally insulated multiple plate heat exchangers are old and well known. In his subsequent reply to this office action, the applicant did not traverse Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice with regard to these elements. Therefore the Official Notice statements by the Examiner regarding these elements are now taken as admitted prior art by Applicant. See MPEP §2144.03(C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Trapani with a thermally insulated multiple plate heat exchanger as the inter-stage heat exchanger in order to take advantage of the high heat exchange surface area and compactness of said heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 29, Trapani discloses the second stage refrigeration circuit comprises: i) a first freezing plate circuit portion through which the second stage refrigerant flows to remove heat from the first freezing plate of the first pair of freezing plates, the first freezing plate circuit portion passing through the first freezing plate of the first pair of freezing plates; and ii) a second freezing plate circuit portion through which the second stage refrigerant flows to remove heat from the second freezing plate of the first pair of freezing plates, the second freezing plate circuit portion passing through the second freezing plate of the first pair of freezing plates (figure 2 shows a circuit 2 through each of the first and second freezing plates).
Regarding claim 30, Trapani, as modified, discloses the medical contact shock freezer of claim 29, but lacks a split. Rather Trapani discloses a series arrangement through the plates.
In the previous office action on the merits the Examiner took Official Notice that splitting a flow to provide evaporators in parallel is old and well known. In his subsequent reply to this office action, the applicant did not traverse Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice with regard to these elements. Therefore the Official Notice statements by the Examiner regarding these elements are now taken as admitted prior art by Applicant. See MPEP §2144.03(C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Trapani with a flow split to provide the plates in parallel to enhance the cooling effect of the plates.
Regarding claim 31, Trapani discloses the second stage refrigeration circuit comprises: i) a first freezing plate circuit portion through which the second stage refrigerant flows in a first freezing plate flow direction to remove heat from the first freezing plate of the first pair of freezing plates (circuit in freezing plate 3 shown in figure 2); ii) a second freezing plate circuit portion through which the second stage refrigerant flows in a second freezing plate flow direction to remove heat from the second freezing plate of the first pair of freezing plates (circuit in freezing plate 1 shown in figure 2); and in which the first freezing plate flow direction and the second freezing plate flow direction are opposed to each other (figure 2 shows the circuits arranged in a serpentine arrangement thus two legs of the serpentine may be selected that are in opposed direction).
Regarding claim 32, Trapani discloses the medical contact shock freezer of claim 21, but lacks electrical defrost heaters. It is noted that figure 3 appears to show a hot gas defrost line, but the specification offers no discussion.
In the previous office action on the merits the Examiner took Official Notice that electric defrost heaters are old and well known. In his subsequent reply to this office action, the applicant did not traverse Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice with regard to these elements. Therefore the Official Notice statements by the Examiner regarding these elements are now taken as admitted prior art by Applicant. See MPEP §2144.03(C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Trapani with electric defrost heaters at each freezer plate in order to remove frost which has a deleterious effect on heat transfer rates. Additionally to the extent that Trapani does include hot gas defrost: It has been held that a "simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” is obvious. In this instance the prior art (by way of official notice) provides for the element of electric defrost heaters. It is known in the art to substitute hot gas defrost for electrical defrost. The result of the substitution would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 B.
Regarding claim 35, Trapani discloses each pair of freezing plates is arranged at an angle of between 2° and 10° to horizontal (the refrigerator may be arranged such that the plates are with said range relative to the horizontal).
Regarding claim 38, as best understood, Trapani discloses a method of fast freezing a plurality of individual bags containing blood plasma, the method comprising:
a) providing a medical contact shock freezer in accordance with claim 1 (as presented in claim 1 above);
b) closing the plurality of individual bags containing the blood plasma between the first pair of freezing plates; and
c) operating the first refrigeration circuit in the refrigeration mode to remove heat from the first pair of freezing plates to freeze the medical liquid contained in the individual bags arranged between the first pair of freezing plates.
Trapani lacks clamping.
The examiner takes official notice that clamping freezing plates is old and well known.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a clamping mechanism for the pair of freezing plates in order to secure the bags therein and provide good contact to enhance heat transfer.
Claim(s) 24, 28, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trapani (FR2632391) in view of Toyooka et al (US 2016/0178246).
Regarding claims 24 and 28, Trapani, as modified, discloses the medical contact shock freezer of claim 21 but lacks an anti-frost heat exchanger as claimed.
Toyooka discloses an ultra-low temperature freezer having a first stage refrigeration circuit (4) and second stage refrigeration circuit (6); wherein the second stage refrigeration circuit comprises an anti-frost heat exchanger (27) configured to transfer heat to the second stage refrigerant upstream of the second stage compressor (2) from another portion of the second stage refrigeration circuit so that the working temperature of the second stage refrigerant. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Trapani with the anti-frost heat exchanger as taught by Toyooka in order to ensure that all refrigerant is in the vapor phase prior to compressor suction, thereby preventing compressor damage. Additionally, regarding limitations drawn to the range -20°C to 0 °C, the "manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus from the prior art" And “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” MPEP 2114. Absent distinguishing structure, a mere functional limitation is not sufficient to define over the prior art. In other words the refrigerant circuit is capable of said temperature ranges depending on system conditions.
Regarding claim 37, Trapani and Toyooka as presented in regard to claims 21, 23, and 24 is applied to claim 37. It is noted that the low pressure side of 27 corresponds to the anti-frost heat exchanger and the high pressure side of 27 corresponds to the desuperheater.
Claim(s) 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trapani (FR2632391) in view of Nussbaum (US 3,392,541).
Regarding claims 33-34, Trapani discloses the medical contact shock freezer of claim 21, but lacks reversing four-way valves for defrosting. It is noted that figure 3 appears to show a hot gas defrost line, but the specification offers no discussion.
Nussbaum discloses (references made to figure 5 unless otherwise noted) a first stage refrigeration circuit (111) comprises a circuit reverser (13a) configured, when activated, to cause the first stage refrigeration circuit to switch from the refrigeration mode to a de-frosting mode in which the first stage refrigerant circuit is configured to provide heat to the inter-stage heat exchanger; and a second stage refrigeration circuit (110) comprises a circuit reverser (13) configured, when activated, to cause the second stage refrigeration circuit to switch from the refrigeration mode to the de-frosting mode in which the second stage refrigerant circuit is configured to provide heat to the first pair of freezing plates of the contact shock freezer.
Nussbaum further discloses the circuit reverser of the first stage refrigeration circuit comprises a four way valve (13a) switchable between i) the refrigeration mode in which an outlet side of the first stage compressor is connected through the valve to the first stage condenser and ii) an inlet side of the first stage compressor is connected through the valve to the inter-stage heat exchanger and ii) the de-frosting mode in which the outlet side of the first stage compressor is connected through the valve to the inter-stage heat exchanger and the inlet side of the first stage compressor is connected through the valve to the first stage condenser; and the circuit reverser of the second stage refrigeration circuit comprises a four way valve (13) switchable between i) the refrigeration mode in which an outlet side of the second stage compressor is connected through the valve to the inter-stage heat exchanger, and an inlet side of the second stage compressor is connected through the valve to the first pair of freezing plates and ii) the de- frosting mode in which the outlet side of the second stage compressor is connected through the valve to the first pair of freezing plates and the inlet side of the second stage compressor is connected through the valve to the inter-stage heat exchanger.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Trapani with four way reversing valves as taught by Nussbaum in order to remove frost which has a deleterious effect on heat transfer rates. Additionally to the extent that Trapani does include hot gas defrost: It has been held that a "simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” is obvious. In this instance the prior art provides for the element of reversing valves. It is known in the art to substitute bypass hot gas defrost for reversing hot gas defrost. The result of the substitution would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 B.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trapani (FR2632391) in view of Heschel (US 6,393,860).
Regarding claim 36, Trapani, as modified, discloses the medical contact shock freezer of claim 21, in which each pair of freezing plates comprises a fixed freezing plate (1) and a movable freezing plate (3), but lacks linear vertical displacement.
Heschel discloses a pair of freezing plates comprises a fixed freezing plate (4) and a movable freezing plate (3) and in which movement between the loading and freezing position of each pair of freezing plates consists of a linear, vertical displacement of the moveable freezing plates.
It has been held that a "simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” is obvious. In this instance the prior art provides for the element of linear vertical movement of freezer plates. It is known in the art to substitute rotational movement for linear movement. The result of the substitution would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 B. Moreover the pressure clamping arrangement of Heschel enhances a cooling effect.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At pages 11-12, applicant purports the use of impermissible hindsight in the rejection and further asserts that the performance of the system is not a result of optimizing a single variable but rather is an emergent property that only manifests when all interdependent variables are balanced within the specific, narrow ranges claimed by the applicant.
In response, the examiner notes that “("A difference of degree is not as persuasive as a difference in kind – i.e., if the range produces ‘a new property dissimilar to the known property,’ rather than producing a predictable result but to an unexpected extent.")” MPEP 2144.05. Here, applicant is asserting that the differences between the prior art device of Trapani allows for quick cooling. However Trapani is already concerning with “Rapid Freezing” thus there is not a difference in kind.
Further, although applicant asserts that the ranges are “narrow”, the claims include relatively broad ranges. For example, in the affidavit received 3/5/2026 it is stated that “the precise charge ratio between the propane and ethane circuits was critical. An error of even a few grams could prevent the system from reaching the target plate temperature or cause it to stall.” (page 3, V. 11. (b).). However the claim includes a range of 100-400g, far greater than “a few grams”.
At page 13, applicant discusses the use of CFC and HCFC refrigerants in Trapani. However the use of no illegal refrigerants leads a PHOSITA to replace them with modern compliant refrigerants. Propane and ethane are known refrigerants.
Further at page 13, applicant discusses optimization of result-effective variables. In this instance the optimization of the instant invention is to increase a speed of freezing. Trapani is concerned with rapid freezing. Moreover as refrigerant is present, some quantity must necessarily be selected. As the system is a refrigeration cycle performing cooling, some operating temperature must necessarily be selected.
At page 14, applicant discusses the combining of features. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, per MPEP 2141.03, a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton, thus would be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.
At page 14-15, applicant discusses claim 22. Claim 22 further limits the freezing time to 40 minutes. However this is viewed in the same manner as optimizing to 60 minutes as in claim 21. A further optimization.
At page 15, applicant discusses claim 23. A compressor necessarily has some power rating. Selecting 1-3 hp is further desirable as such a power rating is operable on common 120V or 240V single phase circuits which are ubiquitous.
At page 15, applicant discusses claim 25. As shown in figure 1 of Trapani a plurality of plate pairs are shown within the refrigerator body. Applicant asserts that duplicating a refrigerator is non-obvious. This is not persuasive. Duplicating the arrangement predictably allows for increased capacity as well as partial capacity operation.
At pages 15-16, applicant discusses claim 26. For the same reasons as discussed at claim 21 the claimed range is broad and is mere difference in degree rather than difference in kind.
At page 16, applicant discusses claim 27. As discussed above the heat exchanger of Trapani is substituted for another known type of heat exchanger. It has been held that a "simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” is obvious. It is known in the art to substitute one heat exchanger for another. The result of the substitution would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 B.
Further at page 16, applicant discusses claims 29 and 30. It should be noted that there are only two possible arrangements of the heat exchanger, i.e. series or parallel. It has been held that an “obvious to try” rationale when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be established: (1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem; (2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem; (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and (4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I) (E). In the instant case, and as per (1), it should be noted that there must be a relative flow arrangement of the refrigerant. As per (2), based on the above, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are only two potential solutions to the flow of refrigerant: series and parallel. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that parallel flow would have not yielded unpredictable results, since it would not change the principles of operation of the prior art, nor would it render the prior art inoperable for its intended purpose. As per (4), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the that the flow of refrigerant can be used to adjust a total amount of heat transfer as well as an achieved temperature of the refrigerant.
At page 16, applicant discusses claim 31. Trapani does disclose opposed flow as discussed in the rejection above.
At page 17, applicant discusses claim 32. Applicant purports that it would not have been obvious to provide electric defrost heaters. It has been held that a "simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” is obvious. It is known in the art to substitute one heat exchanger for another. The result of the substitution would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 B.
At page 17, applicant discusses claim 35. The refrigerator may be arranged 2-10 degrees relative to horizontal.
At page 17, applicant discusses claim 38, but does not provide any additional substantive arguments beyond those of claim 21. The examiner’s response is repeated.
At pages 17-18, applicant discusses claims 24, 28, and 37. Regarding limitations drawn to the range -20°C to 0 °C, the "manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus from the prior art" And “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” MPEP 2114. Absent distinguishing structure, a mere functional limitation is not sufficient to define over the prior art. In other words the refrigerant circuit is capable of said temperature ranges depending on system conditions. Further applicant does not assert a particular differentiating structure in their argument.
At pages 18-19, applicant discusses claims 33-34. Applicant asserts that the specific logic is not taught but does not offer any particular claimed feature that is omitted.
At page 19, applicant discusses claim 36 and asserts “a synergistic effect” however the prior art provides for the linear vertical displacement feature as claimed.
The affidavit has been fully considered. It has been responded to by response to applicant’s remarks/arguments. It is further noted that opinion as to a legal conclusion is not entitled to any weight. MPEP 716.01(c).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Heskett (US 12,410,960) flat plate freezers
Yamaguchi et al (US 12,320,568) cascade refrigeration cycle.
Fischbach et al (US 11,612,679) plate freezer including freezing to -30C in 40 minutes and plates disposed at 2-10 degree angles.
Asari et al (US 9,593,869) cascade refrigeration cycle with reversing.
Voute et al (US 6,698,213) angled plate freezer.
Vukovic et al (US 6,393,853) plate cooler with clamping mechanism.
Batistella (US 4,907,421) plate freezer
Birdseye et al (US 1,905,131) plate freezer
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799