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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 12-20 are new. Claims 2-3 and 7 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument on pages 7-10 of the remarks, 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). Applicant’s arguments regarding the Agostini reference imply that the entirety of the disclosed structure is incorporated into the Connell reference structure. Agostini was used to teach specific elements and those teaches alone were relied upon. Agostini is a closed system, therefore all of the structure is connected to one another and all of the refrigerant within it flows to each element in some manner or use/operation (see Figure 1 of Agostini).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “direct fluid communication” or “directly connected” or “direct circulation loop”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). None of the pending claims require direct piping connections or direct element to element connections.
Lastly, the wherein clauses of the pending claims recite what the device can do in operation (i.e. functional limitations). The wherein clauses fail to add or require specific structural elements to differentiate over the prior art. (See MPEP 2114 I. and II).
For the aforementioned reasons, all pending claims remain rejected.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connell et al. (US 2018/0093550 A1), hereafter referred to as “Connell,” in view of Agostini et al. (US 2014/0230485 A1), hereafter referred to as “Agostini.”
Regarding Claim 1: Connell teaches a refrigeration system (see Figure 1), comprising a compressor (102), a condenser (104), a reservoir (128 and 114), a throttling device (132), and an evaporator (106) connected in sequence through pipes (see Figure 1).
Connell fails to teach wherein the refrigeration system further comprises a cooling device for cooling high-temperature components, the cooling device having a heat exchange container and a flow pipe, where the heat exchange container maintains fluid communication with the reservoir through the flow pipe, and the heat exchange container is used to absorb heat of the high-temperature components, wherein, the heat exchange container receives liquid refrigerant from the reservoir through the flow pipe, the liquid refrigerant in the heat exchange container generates vapor after heat exchange with heat absorbed from the high-temperature components, and the vapor enters the reservoir through the flow pipe, thus forming a circulation loop.
Agostini teaches a refrigeration system (title) further comprises a cooling device (see Figure) for cooling high-temperature components (6), the cooling device having a heat exchange container (2) and a flow pipe (see piping in Figure), where the heat exchange container (2) maintains fluid communication with a reservoir (1, see Figure) through the flow pipe (see piping in Figure), and the heat exchange container (2) is used to absorb heat of the high-temperature components (6), wherein, the heat exchange container (2) receives liquid refrigerant from the reservoir (1, see Figure) through the flow pipe, the liquid refrigerant in the heat exchange container (2) generates vapor after heat exchange with heat absorbed from the high-temperature components (6), and the vapor enters the reservoir (1, see Figure) through the flow pipe (piping in Figure), thus forming a circulation loop (see Figure).
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 wherein the refrigeration system further comprises a cooling device for cooling high-temperature components, the cooling device having a heat exchange container and a flow pipe, where the heat exchange container maintains fluid communication with the reservoir through the flow pipe, and the heat exchange container is used to absorb heat of the high-temperature components, wherein, the heat exchange container receives liquid refrigerant from the reservoir through the flow pipe, the liquid refrigerant in the heat exchange container generates vapor after heat exchange with heat absorbed from the high-temperature components, and the vapor enters the reservoir through the flow pipe, thus forming a circulation loop to the structure of Connell as taught by Agostini in order to advantageously provide efficient and reliable cooling (see Agostini, abstract).
Regarding Claim 2: Connell modified supra wherein the flow pipe (piping of Agostini) has a first end and a second end (see Figure of Agostini), where the first end of the flow pipe is communicated with the heat exchange container (2 of Agostini), the second end of the flow pipe is communicated with the reservoir (114 of Connell as to use with electronic components as taught by 1 of Agostini), and the heat exchange container is located below the reservoir (see Figure of Agostini).
Connell modified supra fails to teach first end of the flow pipe is located at a top of the heat exchange container, the second end of the flow pipe is located at a bottom of the reservoir. However, absent evidence of criticality such limitations are mere design choice, rearrangement/reversal of parts, and/or change in sequence of elements (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.-C.; 2144.04 VI. A.-C.). Connell modified supra teaches all of the claimed structure and thus the change in positioning, rearrangement and/or connection sequence of the flow pipe is not inventive.
Regarding Claim 3: Connell modified supra teaches wherein the flow pipe comprises a first flow pipe and a second flow pipe (see piping in Agostini, Figure), wherein, the first flow pipe has a first end and a second end (see piping in Agostini, Figure) and wherein, the second flow pipe is located below the first flow pipe and has a first end and a second end (see piping in Agostini, Figure).
Connell modified supra fails to teach the where the first end of the first flow pipe is communicated with the heat exchange container and located above a liquid level of the heat exchange container, and the second end of the first flow pipe is communicated with the reservoir and located above a liquid level of the reservoir; where the first end of the second flow pipe is communicated with the heat exchange container and located below the liquid level of the heat exchange container, and the second end of the second flow pipe is communicated with the reservoir and located below the liquid level of the reservoir, wherein, the heat exchange container receives the liquid refrigerant from the reservoir through the second flow pipe, the liquid refrigerant in the heat exchange container generates vapor after heat exchange with the heat absorbed from the high- temperature components, and the vapor enters the reservoir through the first flow pipe, thus forming the circulation loop. However, absent evidence of criticality such limitations are mere design choice, rearrangement/reversal of parts, and/or change in sequence of elements (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.-C.; 2144.04 VI. A.-C.). Connell modified supra teaches all of the claimed structure and thus the change in positioning, rearrangement and/or connection sequence of the flow pipe is not inventive.
Regarding Claim 5: Connell modified supra teaches wherein the high-temperature components (6 of Agostini) have a housing (outer portions of 6 of Agostini), and the heat exchange container (2 of Agostini) is fixed to the housing of the high-temperature components in a detachable manner, or is integrally formed with the housing of the high-temperature components (see Figure of Agostini).
Regarding Claim 7: Connell teaches wherein the first flow pipe and the second flow pipe are arranged horizontally (see Figure of Agostini, pipes into and out of 1), where the high-temperature components (6 of Agostini, see Figure) are at or near the same height as a bottom of the reservoir (1 of Agostini, see Figure); or a bottom of the high-temperature components (6 of Agostini) is lower than the bottom of the reservoir (1 of Agostini, see Figure).
Regarding Claim 8: Connell teaches wherein the reservoir (114) is a gas-liquid separator (see Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 12: Connell modified supra fails to teach wherein a discharge port of the reservoir is located at a bottom of the reservoir. However, absent evidence of criticality such limitations are mere design choice, rearrangement/reversal of parts, and/or change in sequence of elements (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.-C.; 2144.04 VI. A.-C.). Connell modified supra teaches all of the claimed structure and thus the change in positioning, rearrangement and/or connection sequence of the flow pipe is not inventive.
Regarding Claim 13: Connell modified supra fails to teach wherein a liquid level in the reservoir is higher than a liquid level in the heat exchange container. However, absent evidence of criticality such limitations are mere design choice, rearrangement/reversal of parts, and/or change in sequence of elements (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.-C.; 2144.04 VI. A.-C.). Connell modified supra teaches all of the claimed structure and thus the change in positioning, rearrangement and/or connection sequence of the flow pipe is not inventive.
Regarding Claim 14: Connell modified supra fails to teach wherein the reservoir is arranged downstream of the condenser to receive medium-temperature and high-pressure refrigerant fluid that is condensed from the condenser. However, absent evidence of criticality such limitations are mere design choice, rearrangement/reversal of parts, and/or change in sequence of elements (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.-C.; 2144.04 VI. A.-C.). Connell modified supra teaches all of the claimed structure and thus the change in positioning, rearrangement and/or connection sequence of the flow pipe is not inventive.
Regarding Claim 15: Connell modified supra fails to teach wherein the reservoir and the heat exchange container are configured as a communicating vessel structure. However, absent evidence of criticality such limitations are mere design choice, rearrangement/reversal of parts, and/or change in sequence of elements (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.-C.; 2144.04 VI. A.-C.). Connell modified supra teaches all of the claimed structure and thus the change in positioning, rearrangement and/or connection sequence of the flow pipe is not inventive.
Regarding Claim 16: Connell modified supra teaches wherein the reservoir (114 of Connell) and the heat exchange container (2 of Agostini) maintain liquid communication (via piping of Connell and Agostini) with each other through the second flow pipe such that the liquid level of the reservoir is same as the liquid level of the heat exchange container under action of gravity (functional limitation, intended use of the apparatus).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connell et al. (US 2018/0093550 A1), hereafter referred to as “Connell,” in view of Agostini et al. (US 2014/0230485 A1), hereafter referred to as “Agostini,” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bradley et al. (US 2007/0079622 A1), hereafter referred to as “Bradley.”
Regarding Claim 4: Connell modified supra fails to teach wherein the high-temperature components have a housing, the heat exchange container is fixed inside the housing of the high-temperature components, and the housing of the high-temperature components is provided with a through-hole for the flow pipe to pass through.
Bradley teaches wherein a high-temperature components (12) have a housing (14), a heat exchange container (16) is fixed inside the housing (14) of the high-temperature components (12), and the housing (14) of the high-temperature components (12) is provided with a through-hole for a flow pipe to pass through (see pipe 20).
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 wherein the high-temperature components have a housing, the heat exchange container is fixed inside the housing of the high-temperature components, and the housing of the high-temperature components is provided with a through-hole for the flow pipe to pass through to the structure of Connell modified supra as taught by Bradley in order to advantageously provide fluid flow into the housing to promote removal of heat from the thermofluid (see Bradley, paragraphs [0017] and [0019]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connell et al. (US 2018/0093550 A1), hereafter referred to as “Connell,” in view of Agostini et al. (US 2014/0230485 A1), hereafter referred to as “Agostini,” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barron (4,683,726).
Regarding Claim 6: Connell modified supra fails to teach wherein the refrigeration system further comprises a subcooler located between the reservoir and the throttling device.
Barron teaches wherein a refrigeration system (1) further comprises a subcooler (2) located between a reservoir (13) and a throttling device (3).
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 wherein the refrigeration system further comprises a subcooler located between the reservoir and the throttling device to the structure of Connell modified supra as taught by Barron in order to advantageously provide improved refrigeration (see Barron, Column 2, lines 1-49).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connell et al. (US 2018/0093550 A1), hereafter referred to as “Connell,” in view of Agostini et al. (US 2014/0230485 A1), hereafter referred to as “Agostini,” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fitzpatrick et al. (4,339,929), hereafter referred to as “Fitzpatrick.”
Regarding Claim 9: Connell modified supra fails to teach wherein the flow pipe and the heat exchange container are both made of metal, rubber, or plastic.
Fitzpatrick teaches a flow pipe and heat exchange container are both made of metal, rubber, or plastic (Claims 11-13 and 14-17).
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 wherein the flow pipe and the heat exchange container are both made of metal, rubber, or plastic to the structure of Connell modified supra as taught by Fitzpatrick in order to advantageously use materials with thermal conductivity to increase heat transfer efficiency (see Fitzpatrick, Column 2, lines 5-28).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connell et al. (US 2018/0093550 A1), hereafter referred to as “Connell,” in view of Agostini et al. (US 2014/0230485 A1), hereafter referred to as “Agostini,” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wenger et al. (US 2020/0207326 A1), hereafter referred to as “Wenger.”
Regarding Claim 10: Connell modified supra fails to teach a refrigeration van, wherein the refrigerator van is configured with the refrigeration system according to claim 1.
Wenger teaches a refrigeration van (paragraph [0004]), wherein the refrigerator van is configured with a refrigeration system (paragraphs [0004] and [0040]).
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 a refrigeration van, wherein the refrigerator van is configured with the refrigeration system according to claim 1 to the structure of Connell modified supra as taught by Wenger in order to advantageously provide the cooling system of claim 1 to a delivery vehicle to transport refrigerated items (paragraph [0004]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connell et al. (US 2018/0093550 A1), hereafter referred to as “Connell,” in view of Agostini et al. (US 2014/0230485 A1), hereafter referred to as “Agostini,” and Wenger et al. (US 2020/0207326 A1), hereafter referred to as “Wenger,” as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2021/0370799 A1), hereafter referred to as “Li.”
Regarding Claim 11: Connell modified supra fails to teach wherein the high-temperature components are at least one of an engine, a frequency converter, an inverter, or a transformer.
Li teaches wherein high-temperature components are at least one of an engine, a frequency converter, an inverter, or a transformer (paragraph [0070]).
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 wherein the high-temperature components are at least one of an engine, a frequency converter, an inverter, or a transformer to the structure of Connell modified supra as taught by Li in order to advantageously use the heat dissipation system to cool vehicle components that generate heat (see Li, paragraph [0070]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connell et al. (US 2018/0093550 A1), hereafter referred to as “Connell,” in view of Agostini et al. (US 2014/0230485 A1), hereafter referred to as “Agostini,” as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Tokorozawa (US 2020/0055369 A1).
Regarding Claim 17: Connell modified supra fails to teach wherein the high-temperature components have a housing, and wherein the housing of the high-temperature components is provided with through holes for the first flow pipe and the second flow pipe to pass through.
Tokorozawa teaches components have a housing, and wherein the housing of the components is provided with through holes for piping to pass through (paragraph[0011]).
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 wherein the high-temperature components have a housing, and wherein the housing of the high-temperature components is provided with through holes for the first flow pipe and the second flow pipe to pass through to the structure of Connell modified supra as taught by Tokorozawa in order to advantageously attach the piping to the housing components in the refrigeration system (see Tokorozawa, paragraph [0011]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connell et al. (US 2018/0093550 A1), hereafter referred to as “Connell,” in view of Agostini et al. (US 2014/0230485 A1), hereafter referred to as “Agostini,” as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Baker (US 2018/0073363 A1).
Regarding Claim 18: Connell modified supra fails to teach wherein the heat exchange container is fixed to the housing of the high-temperature components through a bolt connection.
Baker teaches a heat exchange container (engine casing) is fixed to a housing of components through a bolt connection (paragraph [0107]).
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 wherein the heat exchange container is fixed to the housing of the high-temperature components through a bolt connection to the structure of Connell modified supra as taught by Baker in order to advantageously attach the housing components in the system (see Baker, paragraph [0107]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connell et al. (US 2018/0093550 A1), hereafter referred to as “Connell,” in view of Agostini et al. (US 2014/0230485 A1), hereafter referred to as “Agostini,” as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Baker (US 2018/0073363 A1).
Regarding Claim 19: Connell modified supra fails to teach wherein the first flow pipe and the second flow pipe are fixedly connected to the heat exchange container and the reservoir respectively by welding or bolt fastening.
Baker teaches connecting components using a bolt fastening (paragraph [0107]).
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 wherein the first flow pipe and the second flow pipe are fixedly connected to the heat exchange container and the reservoir respectively by welding or bolt fastening to the structure of Connell modified supra as taught by Baker in order to advantageously attach the housing components in the refrigeration system (see Baker, paragraph [0107]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connell et al. (US 2018/0093550 A1), hereafter referred to as “Connell,” in view of Agostini et al. (US 2014/0230485 A1), hereafter referred to as “Agostini,” and Fitzpatrick et al. (4,339,929), hereafter referred to as “Fitzpatrick,” as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kroliczek et al. (US 2005/0061487 A1), hereafter referred to as “Kroliczek.”
Regarding Claim 20: Connell modified supra fails to teach wherein the flow pipe and the heat exchange container are made of stainless steel.
Kroliczek teaches a pipe and a heat exchange container are made of stainless steel (paragraph [0073]).
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 wherein the flow pipe and the heat exchange container are made of stainless steel to the structure of Connell modified supra as taught by Kroliczek in order to advantageously use known materials for the structural components (see Kroliczek, paragraph [0073]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Agostini et al. (US 2014/0230478 A1).
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 KIRSTIN U OSWALD whose telephone number is (571)270-3557. The examiner can normally be reached 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIRSTIN U OSWALD/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights