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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 10/10/2025.
Claims 1-15 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
Further recognition:
The objections to the drawings are withdrawn in light of the remarks.
The rejections pursuant to 112(b) are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/10/2025was filed on or after the mailing date of the application.
The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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:
Regarding claim 4 and 8, the recitation of claim limitation “… a third heat exchange portion including a third condensing surface" in at least claims 4 and 8.
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 shows 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 exchange portion and a condensing surface appears to be described as at least “condenser 108 includes at least three condenser segments 124. Each condensing surface 126 is a surface of a heat exchanger allowing the working fluid in the respective condenser segment 124 to exchange heat with the ambient environment” in at least para. 0026 of the specifications.
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 § 112(b)
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.
Claims 7, 12 and 15 are 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.
Regarding Claims 7 and 12, the term “a minimum pressure differential” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.
The term “minimum” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Therefore “a desired outlet temperature” is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
for examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted - - a pressure differential - -, for clarity.
Regarding Claim 15, the term “a desired outlet temperature” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.
The term “desired” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Therefore “a desired outlet temperature” is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph,
for examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted - - an outlet temperature - -, for clarity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jovet et al. (US2023/0384006A1) in view of Kopko et al. (US2019/0186801A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Jovet teaches a condensing and free cooling system for a heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and refrigeration (HVACR) system [500], comprising:
a working fluid inlet [114e];
a condenser [see drawing I below] having a condensing surface [see drawing I below] comprising a first heat exchange portion [see drawing I below] including a first condensing surface [see drawing I below] and a second heat exchange portion [see drawing I below] including a second condensing surface [see drawing I below],
wherein the first condensing surface [drawing I below] and the second condensing surface [drawing I below] are configured to allow working fluid to exchange heat [0053 “116a-e used for refrigerant-based cooling”];
a working fluid outlet [Fig. 5 working fluid outlet with valves (126a-d) are on];
a valve [124a] configured to receive the working fluid [coolant/refrigerant] from the first heat exchange portion [see drawing I] and selectively control flow of the working fluid [0054 “close valves 124a”] to either the second heat exchange portion [0054 where 124a is open allowing refrigerant to the second heat exchange portion] or the working fluid outlet [0054 when 124a-b are closed the valve on the outlet is also closed] to adjustably control utilization of the condensing surface of the condenser at which the working fluid is able to exchange heat [0057 where the controller controls the utilization of the condensing surface ].
Jovet does not explicitly teach one or more free cooling heat exchangers; and a fan configured to direct an airflow over the at least one free cooling heat exchanger and at least one of the first condensing surface and the second condensing surface.
However, Kopko teaches one or more free cooling heat exchangers [56]; and
a fan [60] configured to direct an airflow over the at least one free cooling heat exchanger [56] and at least one of the first condensing surface [fig. 4 clearly showing 56 having a first and second condensing surface given the cooling lines which corresponds to drawing I below of Jovet] and the second condensing surface [fig. 4 clearly showing 56 having a first and second condensing surface given the cooling lines corresponding to drawing I below of Jovet].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jovet to have one or more free cooling heat exchangers; and a fan configured to direct an airflow over the at least one free cooling heat exchanger and at least one of the first condensing surface and the second condensing surface in view of the teachings of Kopko where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures an HVACR system a free cooling heat exchanger and air flow over the condensing surfaces and free cooling heat exchangers which enhances efficiency [Kopko; 0039].
PNG
media_image1.png
517
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(drawing I recreation of Jovet fig. 5)
Regarding Claim 3, modified Jovet teaches the condensing and free cooling system of claim 1 and Kopko teaches further comprising a second fan [98; fig. 4] configured to direct a second airflow [0042 “air flow path 96”] over the second condensing surface [Jovet; 0036 “a fan 118a-e for each or several coils 116a-e. The fans 118a-e may be any type of fan or air moving device operable to provide a flow of outdoor air over the coils 116a-e” see also drawing I] and at least one of the one or more free cooling heat exchangers [Kopko; fig. 4].
Regarding Claim 4, Jovet teaches the condensing and free cooling system of claim 1 and Jovet teaches further comprising a third heat exchange portion [drawing I] including a third condensing surface [drawing I], and a second valve [124c], wherein the second valve [124c] is configured to receive working fluid [coolant/refrigerant] from the second heat exchange portion [drawing I] and selectively direct said received working fluid to at least one of the third heat exchange portion [drawing I] and the working fluid outlet [0054 when 124a-b are closed the valve on the outlet is also closed].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jovet et al. (US2023/0384006A1) and Kopko et al. (US2019/0186801A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Taras et al. (US2024/0247845A1).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Jovet teaches the condensing and free cooling system of claim 1 and Jovet teaches further comprising a controller [140; 0029], the valve [124a] and the HVACR system [500].
Modified Jovet does not explicitly teach comprising a controller configured to receive a pressure differential of the HVACR system and to control the valve based on the pressure differential.
However, Taras teaches comprising a controller [0049 not explicitly shown “allows for variable control” which is indicative of a controller which corresponds to 140 of Jovet] configured to receive a pressure differential of the HVACR system [0042 “depending on the operating conditions (e.g., pressure differential)”] and to control the valve [526 corresponding to 124a of Jovet] based on the pressure differential [0049 “pressure differential”].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Jovet to have comprising a controller configured to receive a pressure differential of the HVACR system and to control the valve based on the pressure differential in view of the teachings of Taras where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a condensing and free cooling system where a controller is configured to receive a pressure differential of the HVACR system and control the valve based on the pressure differential which improves thermal performance at low temperatures [Taras; 0004].
Claim(s) 5 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopko et al. (US2019/0186801A1) in view of Jovet et al. (US2023/0384006A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Kopko teaches a heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and refrigeration (HVACR) system [12], comprising:
a mechanical cooling circuit [54] comprising:
a compressor [70];
a condenser [72 ];
an expander [74]; and
an evaporator [66]; and
a process fluid circuit [0022 “free cooling system”] comprising one or more free cooling heat exchangers [56]; and
one or more fans [60] each configured to direct air over at least one of the first condensing surface [72] and the second condensing surface [72 where there are at least two 72’s ] and at least one of the one or more free cooling heat exchangers [figs. 3 and 4 air flow path is 59].
Kopko does not explicitly teach the condenser includes: a working fluid inlet; a condensing surface comprising a first heat exchange portion including a first condensing surface and a second heat exchange portion including a second condensing surface, wherein the first condensing surface and the second condensing surface are configured to allow working fluid to exchange heat; a working fluid outlet; and a valve configured to receive the working fluid from the first heat exchange portion and selectively control flow of the direct said received working fluid to at least one of either the second heat exchange portion the working fluid outlet to adjustably control utilization of the condensing surface of the condenser at which the working fluid is able to exchange heat.
However, Jovet teaches the condenser [drawing I above corresponding to 72 of Kopko] includes:
a working fluid inlet [114e];
a condensing surface [see drawing I below] comprising a first heat exchange portion [see drawing I below] including a first condensing surface [see drawing I below] and a second heat exchange portion [see drawing I below] including a second condensing surface [see drawing I below],
wherein the first condensing surface [drawing I below] and the second condensing surface [drawing I below] are configured to allow working fluid to exchange heat [0053 “116a-e used for refrigerant-based cooling”];
a working fluid outlet [Fig. 5 working fluid outlet with valves (126a-d) are on];
a valve [124a] configured to receive the working fluid [coolant/refrigerant] from the first heat exchange portion [see drawing I] and selectively control flow of the working fluid [0054 “close valves 124a”] to either the second heat exchange portion [0054 where 124a is open allowing refrigerant to the second heat exchange portion] or the working fluid outlet [0054 when 124a-b are closed the valve on the outlet is also closed] to adjustably control utilization of the condensing surface of the condenser at which the working fluid is able to exchange heat [0057 where the controller controls the utilization of the condensing surface ]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the modified Kopko teaching with Jovet by combining the condenser includes: a working fluid inlet; a condensing surface comprising a first heat exchange portion including a first condensing surface and a second heat exchange portion including a second condensing surface, wherein the first condensing surface and the second condensing surface are configured to allow working fluid to exchange heat; a working fluid outlet; and a valve configured to receive the working fluid from the first heat exchange portion and selectively control flow of the direct said received working fluid to at least one of either the second heat exchange portion the working fluid outlet to adjustably control utilization of the condensing surface of the condenser at which the working fluid is able to exchange heat where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures an HVACR system with multiple condensing surface configured to exchange heat with working fluid inlets and outlets with valves controlling flow to the heat exchange portions of the condensing surfaces which improves the operating efficiency of the system [Jovet; 0061].
Regarding Claim 8, modified Kopko teaches the HVACR system of claim 5 and Jovet teaches wherein the condenser [drawing I] further comprises a third heat exchange portion [drawing I] including a third condensing surface [drawing I], and a second valve [124c], wherein the second valve [124c] is configured to receive working fluid [coolant/refrigerant] from the second heat exchange portion [drawing I] and selectively direct said received working fluid to at least one of the third heat exchange portion [drawing I] and the working fluid outlet [0054 when 124a-b are closed the valve on the outlet is also closed].
Regarding Claim 9, modified Kopko teaches the HVACR system of claim 5 and Kopko teaches wherein the one or more free cooling heat exchangers [56] includes at least a first free cooling heat exchanger [56; fig. 4] and a second free cooling heat exchanger [97; fig. 4], and the one or more fans [60] includes at least a first fan [60; fig. 4] configured to direct a first airflow [0042 “flow configuration”] over the first condensing surface [Jovet; drawing I] and the first free cooling heat exchanger [fig. 4], and a second fan [98; fig. 4] configured to direct a second airflow [0042 “air flow path”] over the second condensing surface [Jovet; drawing 1] and the second free cooling heat exchanger [97].
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopko et al. (US2019/0186801A1) and Jovet et al. (US2023/0384006A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Chase (US2020/0149780A1).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Kopko teaches the HVACR system of claim 5 and Jovet teaches further comprising a controller [140] configured to operate one or more of the valve [0038 “various valves 124, 126, 128, 130, and 132 are generally operated (e.g., opened and/or closed) by the controller”] and the mechanical cooling circuit [Kopko; 0022; mechanical cooling circuit ].
Modified Kopko does not explicitly teach a controller configured to operate the one or more fans based on a pressure differential in the mechanical cooling circuit .
However, Chase teaches a controller [170 corresponding to 140 of Jovet] configured to operate the one or more fans [168 corresponding to 60 of Kopko] based on a pressure differential [0049 “a signal to operate the motor 168 at an operating speed based on an operating parameter detected by the sensors”] in the mechanical cooling circuit [where the furnace system corresponds to the mechanical cooling circuit of Kopko].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the modified Kopko teaching with Chase by combining a controller configured to operate the one or more fans based on a pressure differential in the process fluid circuit where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures an HVACR system where a fan speed is based on a pressure differential limiting complexity and cost [Chase; 0022].
Regarding Claim 7, modified Kopko teaches the HVACR system of claim 6 and Kopko teaches wherein the controller [78] is configured to operate one or more of the valve and the one or more fans [0038 “a position of the three-way valve 64, a position of the bypass valve 67, a speed of the one or more fans 60, a speed of the one or more fans 77, a speed of the compressor 70”] such that the pressure differential is maintained above an operational threshold of the mechanical cooling circuit [Chase; 0049 “detect an operating parameter, such as a pressure differential” where it is further explained that a changes in the fan motors speed to maintain the pressure differential due to sensors and a controller which corresponds to the controller of Kopko],
wherein the operational threshold is a pressure differential for operation of the compressor [Kopko; 0057-0058 “to maintain a compressor oil pressure, a compressor suction pressure, a compressor discharge pressure, and/or other operating conditions within acceptable control limits” in other words a pressure differential for operation of the compressor].
Claim(s) 10 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopko et al. (US2019/0186801A1), Jovet et al. (US2023/0384006A1) and further in view of Taras et al. (US2024/0247845A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Kopko teaches a method of controlling a heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and refrigeration (HVACR) system [12], comprising:
circulating a process fluid [cooling fluid] in a process fluid circuit [52], wherein the process fluid circuit [52] includes one or more free cooling heat exchangers [fig. 4; 56 and 97];
circulating a working fluid [0003 “liquid refrigerant”] in a mechanical cooling circuit [54], wherein the mechanical cooling circuit includes a compressor [70] and a condenser [72];
operating at least one fan [60] so as to direct an airflow over at least one of the one or more free cooling heat exchangers [0027 “direct air over coils ”] and at least a portion of the condenser [fig. 4].
Kopko does not explicitly teach controlling at least one valve of the condenser so as to allow or prevent flow of the working fluid from a first portion of the condenser to a second portion of the condenser to adjustably control utilization of a condensing surface of the condenser at which the working fluid is able to exchange heat, based on a pressure differential in the mechanical cooling circuit.
However, Jovet teaches controlling at least one valve [124] of the condenser [see drawing I corresponding to 72 of Kopko] so as to allow or prevent flow of the working fluid [0054 “close valves 124a” also opens] from a first portion of the condenser [see drawing I described as first heat exchange portion] to a second portion of the condenser [see drawing I described as second heat exchange portion] to adjustably control utilization [0054] of a condensing surface of the condenser [see drawing I] at which the working fluid is able to exchange heat [0054].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kopko to have controlling at least one valve of the condenser so as to allow or prevent flow of the working fluid from a first portion of the condenser to a second portion of the condenser to adjustably control utilization of a condensing surface of the condenser at which the working fluid is able to exchange heat in view of the teachings of Jovet where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a method of controlling a heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and refrigeration (HVACR) system that is able to control through valves a flow to portions of the condenser and condensing surfaces which improves efficiency of providing cooling to a space [Jovet; 0008]
Further, Taras teaches controlling at least one valve [1276 corresponding to 124a of Jovet] of the condenser [702 corresponding to drawing I of Jovet] so as to allow or prevent flow of the working fluid based on a pressure differential in the mechanical cooling circuit [0080 “low-pressure differential” and “positive shutoff”].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of the modified Kopko teaching with Taras by combining controlling at least one valve of the condenser so as to allow or prevent flow of the working fluid based on a pressure differential in the mechanical cooling circuit where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a method of controlling a heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and refrigeration (HVACR) system controlling a valve to allow or prevent a flow based on a pressure differential which improves thermal performance at low temperatures [Taras; 0004].
Regarding Claim 13, modified Kopko teaches the method of claim 10 and Kopko teaches wherein operating the at least one fan [60] includes operating a first fan [60] at a first speed [0057 “second speed“] and a second fan [98] at a second speed [0053 “threshold speed”], wherein the first fan [60] directs a first airflow over at least one of the one or more free cooling heat exchangers [fig. 4] and;
the first portion of the condenser [Jovet; drawing I] when the first portion of the condenser [Jovet; drawing I] has working fluid flowing therethrough [Jovet; 0054 “close valves 124a and 126a, such that coils 116b-e are used for free cooling”], the second fan [Kopko; 98] directs a second airflow [Kopko; 96] over at least one of the one or more free cooling heat exchangers [Kopko; fig. 4 ] and the second portion of the condenser [Jovet; drawing I] when flow of the working fluid [Kopko; 0003 “liquid refrigerant”] to the second portion of the condenser [Jovet; drawing I] is prevented by the valve [Jovet; 0054 “close valves 124a and 126a, such that coils 116b-e are used for free cooling”], and wherein the second speed [Kopko; threshold speed] is greater than the first speed [Kopko; 0053 “99% of the maximum speed” indicating the threshold speed is the new top speed of the fans].
Regarding Claim 14, Modified Kopko teaches the method of claim 13 and Kopko teaches wherein the first speed [second speed] is determined based on the pressure differential in the mechanical cooling circuit [0058 “maintain a compressor oil pressure”].
Regarding Claim 15, modified Kopko teaches the method of claim 13 and Kopko teaches further comprising determining the second speed [threshold speed] based on am outlet temperature of the one or more free cooling heat exchangers [0053-0056 “ fan speed to maintain leaving chilled liquid temperature near a predetermined setpoint”].
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopko et al. (US2019/0186801A1), Jovet et al. (US2023/0384006A1), Taras et al. (US2024/0247845A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Blanton et al. (US2021/0102738A1).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Jovet teaches the method of claim 10 and Jovet teaches wherein controlling the at least one valve [124a] reduces the condensing surface [drawing I] of the condenser [Kopko; 72], the pressure differential [0023 “control valves that regulate the flow of water and pressure”] and the mechanical cooling circuit [Kopko; 54].
Modified Kopko does not explicitly teach controlling the at least one valve when the pressure differential in the mechanical cooling circuit is at or below a threshold pressure differential value.
However, Blanton teaches controlling the at least one valve [176 corresponding to 124a of Jovet] when the pressure differential in the mechanical cooling circuit [162 corresponding to 54 of Kopko] is at or below a threshold pressure differential value [0085 “ pressure deviates from a desirable pressure threshold”].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of the modified Kopko teaching with Blanton by combining controlling the at least one valve when the pressure differential in the mechanical cooling circuit is at or below a threshold pressure differential value where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a method that controls a valve when the pressure differential in the mechanical cooling circuit is at or below a threshold which improves the total performance of the HVAC system [Blanton; 0022].
Regarding Claim 12, modified Kopko teaches the method of claim 11 and Blanton teaches wherein the threshold pressure differential value [0087-0088 “values of parameters”] is a pressure differential for operation of the compressor [ 0087“reduce the pressure of the refrigerant below a desirable level” in other words a pressure differential for operation of the compressor].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 on pgs. 7-11 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Adam D Moore whose telephone number is (703)756-1932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 09:00AM-07:00PM (Eastern).
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.
/ADAM DORREL MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763