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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Takayuki (JP 3601122 B2).
As per claim 1, Takayuki discloses a vapor compression system that circulates a working fluid (see fig. 1), the system comprising:
a compressor (3) including a compression stage for compressing the working fluid (evident from at least fig. 1 and ¶ 10);
a first heat exchanger (condenser 5) downstream from the compressor (3) that receives and cools the working fluid (¶ 10);
a second heat exchanger downstream (evaporator 7) from the first heat exchanger (5) and upstream from the compressor (3) that receives and heats the working fluid (¶ 10); and
an accumulator (2) positioned between the second heat exchanger (7) and the compression stage (of 3), wherein the accumulator (2) defines an interior volume for containing a vapor phase and a liquid phase of the working fluid (see hatched fluid inside 2 in figs. 1-2), wherein the accumulator (2) includes an inlet (top left; see fig. 2) to receive the working fluid from the second heat exchanger (7) and an outlet (top right; see fig. 2) to allow the vapor phase of the working fluid to exit the accumulator (2) and flow towards the compression stage (of 3), and wherein the accumulator (2) is operable to atomize (via 9 and related components) the liquid phase of the working fluid into droplets and introduce the droplets into the vapor phase of the working fluid exiting the accumulator (¶ 9).
As per claim 4, Takayuki discloses wherein the inlet (see arrow going into 2 in fig. 2) is positioned proximate1 (i.e., with nothing in between) a bottom of the accumulator (2) and the outlet (see arrow going out of 2) is positioned proximate a top of the accumulator (2), such that the vapor phase of the working fluid flows generally upwards within the interior volume towards the outlet (as indicated by the arrow) and carries relatively smaller droplets of the liquid phase (i.e., the atomized refrigerant), and relatively larger droplets of the liquid phase separate from the vapor phase and pool within the interior volume (see hatched fluid in fig. 2).
As per claim 5, Takayuki discloses wherein the droplets of the liquid phase of the working fluid (e.g., the atomized refrigerant; ¶ 9) introduced into the vapor phase transfer heat2 via a heat of evaporation of the droplets during compression (e.g., through physical contact).
As per claim 6, Takayuki discloses a controller (10) connected to the accumulator (2) for controlling an amount of the droplets introduced into the vapor phase of the working fluid (see at least ¶ 9).
As per claim 11, Takayuki discloses a method of operating a vapor compression system (fig. 1) that includes a compressor (3), a first heat exchanger (5), a second heat exchanger (7), and an accumulator (2), the method comprising:
compressing a working fluid at a compression stage of the compressor (evident from fig. 1 and ¶ 10);
cooling (¶ 10) the working fluid at the first heat exchanger (5) downstream from the compressor (3);
heating (¶ 10) the working fluid at the second heat exchanger (2) downstream from the first heat exchanger (5);
channeling the working fluid into an interior volume of the accumulator (2) downstream from the second heat exchanger (7) and upstream from the compression stage (3), wherein the working fluid in the interior volume includes a liquid phase and a vapor phase (see at least fig. 2);
channeling the vapor phase of the working fluid from the accumulator (2) towards the compression stage (3); and
using the accumulator (2), atomizing the liquid phase of the working fluid into droplets (via 9) and introducing the droplets into the vapor phase being channeled towards the compression stage (evident from at least figs. 1-2).
As per claim 13, Takayuki discloses flowing the vapor phase of the working fluid generally upwards (e.g., from 9) within the interior volume (of 2) from an inlet towards an outlet (see arrows in fig. 2) of the accumulator (2) such that the vapor phase carries relatively smaller droplets of the liquid phase (i.e., atomized refrigerant) and relatively larger droplets of the liquid phase separate from the vapor phase and pool within the interior volume (see hatched fluid in at least fig. 2).
As per claim 14, Takayuki discloses transferring heat during compression (at 3) via a heat of evaporation of the droplets of the liquid phase introduced into the vapor phase (i.e., through physical contact).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayuki (JP 3601122 B2) in view of Lee et al. (KR 20050028146 A), herein Lee.
As per claim 2, Takayuki discloses wherein the accumulator (2) includes an ultrasonic transducer (¶ 9) operable to atomize the liquid phase of the working fluid (¶ 9).
However, Takayuki may not appear to explicitly disclose that it is positioned in the interior volume to contact the liquid phase of the working fluid.
On the other hand, Lee, directed to an accumulator, discloses an atomizer (represented by 53, etc.) positioned in the interior volume (see fig. 5) to contact the liquid phase of the working fluid and operable to atomize the liquid phase of the working fluid (e.g., through heating).
Furthermore, 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).
As per (1), Lee discloses a mixing apparatus to suppress oil shortage caused by layer separation inside the accumulator (see first three lines of the paragraph in page 2 of the translation). As per (2), Lee recognizes two configurations for the atomizer, namely: A) an external configuration (33 in fig. 3) and an interior configuration (53 in fig. 5). As per (3), the fact that Lee contemplates both the external or internal volume placement of the atomizer structure provides evidence that either configuration may be implemented without yielding unpredictable results. As per (4), one of ordinary skill in the art may iterate between the aforementioned solutions as a matter of optimizing the spatial configuration of the accumulator. For instance, one may choose to have the internal volume configuration in order to reduce the footprint of the accumulator system.
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 taken the teachings of Takayuki and to have modified them with the teachings of Le, by having the atomizer positioned in the interior volume to contact the liquid phase of the working fluid, as a matter of selecting from a finite number of predictable solutions, in order to optimize the physical configuration of the accumulator, without yielding unpredictable results.
As per claim 12, Takayuki discloses wherein atomizing the liquid phase of the working fluid into droplets comprises contacting the liquid phase with an ultrasonic transducer (9) in the interior volume.
However, Takayuki may not appear to explicitly disclose the location of the transducer being in the interior volume.
On the other hand, Lee, directed to an accumulator, discloses an atomizer (53, etc.) positioned in the interior volume (see fig. 5).
Furthermore, 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).
As per (1), Lee discloses a mixing apparatus to suppress oil shortage caused by layer separation inside the accumulator (see first three lines of the paragraph in page 2 of the translation). As per (2), Lee recognizes two configurations for the atomizer, namely: A) an external configuration (33 in fig. 3) and an interior configuration (53 in fig. 5). As per (3), the fact that Lee contemplates both the external or internal volume placement of the atomizer structure provides evidence that either configuration may be implemented without yielding unpredictable results. As per (4), one of ordinary skill in the art may iterate between the aforementioned solutions as a matter of optimizing the spatial configuration of the accumulator. For instance, one may choose to have the internal volume configuration in order to reduce the footprint of the accumulator system.
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 taken the teachings of Takayuki and to have modified them with the teachings of Le, by having the location of the transducer being in the interior volume, as a matter of selecting from a finite number of predictable solutions, in order to optimize the physical configuration of the accumulator, without yielding unpredictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7-10 and 15-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all3of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 18-21 are allowed.
The prior art, when taken as a whole, does not appear to reasonably anticipate nor render prima facie obvious the claimed invention as currently recited in at least the aforementioned claims. There are no prior art teachings of record that would otherwise supplement or substitute the teachings of Takayuki or Lee to arrive at the claimed invention. The prior art fails to teach the arrangement of components as claimed in at least claims 3, 7, 15 and 18. Absent impermissible hindsight, one of ordinary skill in the art would have not modified the prior art to include additional ultrasonic vibrators (claim 3), the controller algorithms (claims 7 and 15) or the scroll compressor and volume ratio determinations for the atomizer (claim 18).
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIGUEL A DIAZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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 C. Atkisson can be reached at (571) 270-7740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MIGUEL A DIAZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 This term is defined as “immediately preceding or following (as in a chain of events, causes, or effects)” according to the Online Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
2 The manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, since apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. MPEP § 2114 (II).
3 Disclaimer: failure to include all the intervening limitations will result in a different claim scope, which may require a new grounds of rejection prior to a final determination of allowability.
Prosecution Insights