Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/630,826

MECHANICAL-COOLING, FREE-COOLING, AND HYBRID-COOLING OPERATION OF A CHILLER

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Apr 09, 2024
Examiner
VAZQUEZ, ANA M
Art Unit
3763
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Tyco Fire & Security GmbH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
686 granted / 857 resolved
+10.0% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
897
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
46.5%
+6.5% vs TC avg
§102
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
§112
25.2%
-14.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 857 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Election/Restrictions Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/14/2026. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/09/2024 was filed on the filing date of the instant 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. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/10/2025 and 05/14/2025 were filed after the filing date of the instant application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 4-5 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. The recitation of “…enable a powering of a compressor…” (claim 4, line 4) is unclear. The recitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the compressor from the recitation above is the same compressor compressing and delivering the refrigerant to the first condenser coil previously disclosed in line 1 of the same claim. After reviewing Applicant’s disclosure, more specifically, figure 4, and par. 44, a compressor (110) within the chiller system is powered or unpowered. For examination purposes, the recitation has been considered as --…enable a powering of the compressor…--. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 1-5 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopko (US 2019/0186801) in view of Ueda (US 2011/0120162). Regarding claim 1, Kopko discloses a chiller system, comprising: a first condenser coil (72); a second condenser coil (92); a first subcooler coil (56); a second subcooler coil (97); and a control system (comprising controller 78) configured to: cause, in response to a mechanical-cooling operation of the chiller system (refer to par. 25, wherein chiller system 12 includes the control system configured to determine whether (and how) to operate a mechanical cooling system and/or a free cooling system based on a temperature of ambient air and/or a cooling load demand), a refrigerant to flow through the first condenser coil and the second condenser coil in parallel (refer to fig. 4, and par. 40, wherein the refrigerant 76 flowing through the first condenser coil and refrigerant 94 flowing through the second condenser coil may be the same fluid and both have the capability of flowing through both condensers in parallel by means of the operation of compressors 70 and 91 directing the fluid in parallel to each other based on readings from sensors 85, 87, 99, 100); and cause, in response to a free-cooling operation of the chiller system (refer to par. 25, wherein chiller system 12 includes the control system configured to determine whether (and how) to operate a mechanical cooling system and/or a free cooling system based on a temperature of ambient air and/or a cooling load demand), a refrigerant (refrigerant 58) to flow through the first subcooler coil and the second subcooler coil in parallel (when adjusting three-way valve to flow refrigerant through free cooling system 52). While Kopko discloses the chiller system including a refrigerant flowing through the first condenser coil and the second condenser coil in parallel, Kopko fails to explicitly disclose the same refrigerant flowing through each of the condensers and subcoolers in response to the mechanical-cooling operation and the free-cooling operation such that in the mechanical-cooling operation the refrigerant flows through the first subcooler coil and the second subcooler coil in series. However, Ueda teaches that it is known in the art of refrigeration, to provide a chiller system, wherein in response to a mechanical-cooling operation, a refrigerant flows through the systems condenser (62), and then through a first subcooler coil (63) and a second condenser coil (67) in series, in order to enhance the performance of the chiller system (refer to par. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kopko such that the same refrigerant flows through each of the condensers and subcoolers in response to the mechanical-cooling operation and the free-cooling operation such that in the mechanical-cooling operation the refrigerant flows through the first subcooler coil and the second subcooler coil in series, in order to simplify and enhance the performance of the chiller system in view of the teachings by Ueda along with the knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill in the art of refrigeration. Regarding claim 2, Kopko as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Kopko as modified discloses a first fan (60) associated with the first condenser coil (72) and the first subcooler coil (56); and a second fan (98) associated with the second condenser coil (92) and the second subcooler coil (97). Regarding claim 3, Kopko as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Kopko as modified discloses wherein the control system is configured to cause, in response to a hybrid-cooling operation of the chiller system (refer to par. 36, wherein when a cooling load demand exceeds an amount that the free cooling system 52 may provide alone, the free cooling system 52 and the mechanical cooling system 54 may operate simultaneously (e.g., a hybrid cooling mode)), the refrigerant to flow through the first subcooler coil and the second subcooler coil in series (63 and 67 as taught by Ueda). Regarding claim 4, Kopko as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 3. Further, Kopko as modified discloses a compressor (70) configured to compress the refrigerant and deliver the refrigerant to the first condenser coil (72), wherein the control system is configured to: enable a powering of the compressor in response to the mechanical-cooling operation and the hybrid-cooling operation (since the compressor operates in both modes); and block a powering of the compressor in response to the free-cooling operation (refer to par. 20, wherein the free-cooling operation operates with a maximum fan speed before supplying power to the compressor of the mechanical cooling system because it is believed that the fans of the free cooling system consume less power than the compressor of the mechanical cooling system). Regarding claim 5, Kopko as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 4. Further, Kopko as modified discloses wherein the compressor (70) is positioned between the first condenser coil (72) and an evaporator (66) relative to a flow of the refrigerant. Regarding claim 11, Kopko as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Kopko as modified discloses a sensor configured to detect a parameter of the chiller system (refer to par. 38, wherein the chiller system 12 includes one or more sensors that may monitor the operating conditions of the refrigeration system 12, such as a return cooling fluid temperature sensor 81, a supply cooling fluid temperature sensor 83, a suction pressure sensor 85, a discharge pressure sensor 87, and/or an ambient temperature sensor 89), wherein the control system (78) is configured to select the mechanical-cooling operation or the free-cooling operation based at least in part on the parameter (refer to par. 25, wherein chiller system 12 includes the control system configured to determine whether (and how) to operate a mechanical cooling system and/or a free cooling system based on a temperature of ambient air and/or a cooling load demand). Regarding claim 12, Kopko as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 11. Further, Kopko as modified discloses wherein the sensor comprises a pressure sensor (refer to pressure sensors 85 and 99). Regarding claim 13, Kopko as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 11. Further, Kopko as modified discloses wherein the sensor comprises a temperature sensor (refer to temperature sensor 83). Regarding claim 14, Kopko as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Kopko as modified discloses an evaporator (66) configured to establish a heat exchange relationship between the refrigerant and a conditioning fluid (conditioning fluid from load 62). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANA M VAZQUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4. 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. /ANA M VAZQUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 09, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601529
METHOD TO CHARGE MULTIPLE REFRIGERANTS WITH DESIRED CONCENTRATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595946
THERMAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND CONTROL METHOD FOR THERMAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595978
DRAIN SYSTEM FOR ECS WATER COLLECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590759
REMOVING HEAVY HYDROCARBONS TO PREVENT DEFROST SHUTDOWNS IN LNG PLANTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590738
HEAT PUMP SYSTEMS WITH PRESSURE EXCHANGERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+17.3%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 857 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month