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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 contains the following issues:
The claim recites that “a first refrigerant is flowable” through the refrigeration circuit (see line 2). The use of the term “flowable” raises ambiguities regarding the scope of the claim, since it can be interpreted as a mere capability of the system to flow the first refrigerant, rather than the system actively flowing said refrigerant. In other words, it is unclear whether anticipation or infringement would only occur when the system is not in use. For examination purposes, the recitation of “is flowable” will be construed as –flows—.
The claim recites that “a second refrigerant and an absorbent are flowable” (see lines 10-11). As outlined above, the use of the term “flowable” raises ambiguities regarding the scope of the claim. For examination purposes, the recitation of “are flowable” will be construed as –flow—.
Claim 4 contains the following issues:
The claim recites that “the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant are the same refrigerant”, which appears to render the scope of the claim unclear. As currently recited, the claim can be ambiguously construed as both refrigerants being mixed together (i.e., flowing simultaneously as one refrigerant), as well as simply being “made” out of the same compounds or having the same chemistry. A review of the specification and drawings appears to show two discrete refrigerant circuits that do not mix with each other, wherein the refrigerants may be an unspecified “green” refrigerant.1 However, the claim language does not necessarily make such distinction clear under a broadest reasonable interpretation. For examination purposes, the quoted recitation will be construed as –the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant comprise the same refrigerant compound(s)—, to clarify that they are made of the same material, within their own circuits, without being mixed together.
Claim 7 contains the following issues:
The claim recites that “a critical point”, in the last two lines, without specifying what exactly the critical point pertains to. A review of the specification appears to describe it as a critical point of the refrigerant.2 For examination purposes, the quoted recitation will be construed as –a critical point of the first refrigerant—, to avoid ambiguities.
Claim 19 contains the following issues:
The claim recites that “a first refrigerant is flowable” through the refrigeration circuit (see line 2). The use of the term “flowable” raises the same ambiguities outlined above. For examination purposes, the recitation of “is flowable” will be construed as –flows—.
The claim recites that “a second refrigerant and an absorbent are flowable” (see lines 10-11). As outlined above, the use of the term “flowable” raises ambiguities regarding the scope of the claim. For examination purposes, the recitation of “are flowable” will be construed as –flow—.
Any remaining claims are rejected at least by virtue of their dependency.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 10-12, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 102322705 A), herein Li, in view of Zhang et al. (CN 112880230 A), herein Zhang.
As per claim 1, Li discloses a thermal system (see fig. 1), comprising:
a vapor compression refrigeration circuit (1, 3, 4, 5, etc.) through which a first refrigerant flows (see arrows), the vapor compression refrigeration circuit including:
a first heat rejection heat exchanger (coil around 2; or 3);
a first heat absorption heat exchanger (5);
a compressor (1) disposed between the first heat absorption heat exchanger (5) and the first heat rejection heat exchanger (coil around 2; or 3); and
an expansion valve (4) disposed between and connected to the first heat rejection heat exchanger (coil around 2; or 3) and the first heat absorption heat exchanger (5);
an absorption refrigeration circuit (7-12, etc.) through which a second refrigerant and an absorbent flow (evident from at least fig. 1 and ¶ 22), the absorption refrigeration circuit including:
a generator (2);
an absorber (9);
a second heat rejection heat exchanger (11) connected to the generator (2); and
a second heat absorption heat exchanger (7) connected to the absorber (9), the second heat rejection heat exchanger (11) disposed between the generator (2) and the second heat absorption heat exchanger (7), the second heat absorption heat exchanger (7) disposed between (fluidically between, given the closed-circuit) the second heat rejection heat exchanger (11) and the absorber (9); and
a first heat exchanger unit including the generator (2) and the first heat rejection heat exchanger (coil around 2; see fig. 1);
wherein the generator (2) and the first heat rejection heat exchanger (coil around 2) are integrated with one another within the first heat exchanger unit (as shown in fig. 1) such that heat emitted by the first heat rejection heat exchanger (the coil) is transferred to the generator (2; see at least ¶ 25).
However, Li may not appear to explicitly disclose a pump disposed between and connected to the absorber and the generator; or a throttling valve disposed between and connected to the generator and the absorber.
On the other hand, Zhang, directed to a combined absorption cooling system, discloses a pump (7) disposed between and connected to the absorber (6) and the generator (1); and a throttling valve (15) disposed (indirectly) between and connected to the generator (1) and the absorber (6).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention 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 articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) 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.3
As per (1), Zhang teaches that the pump is used to drive the flow of the working fluid in the combined system (¶ 25). The throttling valve is used to depressurize the refrigerant flowing out of one of the heat exchangers to help complete the combine cycle (see at least the last two sentences of ¶ 41). As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Zhang has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the pump and the throttling valve, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Li. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both Li and Zhang are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. absorption systems). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Li may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Zhang, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Li by virtue of suggesting a complete heat exchange process that regulates the pressure of the refrigerant by pumping and throttling the refrigerant.
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 Li and to have modified them with the teachings of Zhang, by having a pump disposed between and connected to the absorber and the generator; and a throttling valve disposed between and connected to the generator and the absorber, in order to improve the heat exchange process through regulation of the pressure throughout the system, as similarly suggested by Zhang, without yielding unpredictable results.
As per claim 4, Li as modified discloses wherein the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant comprise the same refrigerant compound(s) (e.g., ammonia and R22; see ¶ 3 of Li).
As per claim 8, Li as modified discloses a thermo-compressor (see fig. 1 of Li and of Zhang) including the first heat exchanger unit (2 and coil around 2 of Li), the pump (7 of Zhang), the throttling valve (15 of Zhang), and the absorber (9 of Li).
As per claim 10, Li as modified discloses wherein the absorption refrigeration circuit further includes a receiver (10 of Li) connected to the second heat rejection heat exchanger (11 of Li), the receiver (10 of Li) disposed between the second heat rejection heat exchanger (11 of Li) and the second heat absorption heat exchanger (7 of Li).
As per claim 11, Li as modified discloses wherein the absorption refrigeration circuit further includes a second expansion valve (12 of Zhang) connected to the second heat absorption heat exchanger (represented by 13 of Zhang), the second expansion valve (12 of Zhang) disposed between the second heat rejection heat exchanger (represented by 11 of Zhang) and the second heat absorption heat exchanger (13 of Zhang).
As per claim 12, Li as modified discloses wherein the absorption refrigeration circuit further includes a receiver (10 of Zhang) disposed between and connected to the second expansion valve (12 of Zhang) and the second heat absorption heat exchanger (13 of Zhang).
As per claim 17, Li as modified discloses: an outdoor unit (e.g., location where 11 of Li is installed) including the second heat rejection heat exchanger (11 of Li); and an indoor unit (e.g., location where 7 of Li is installed) including the second heat absorption heat exchanger (7 of Li).
As per claim 19, Li discloses a thermal system (see fig. 1), comprising:
a vapor compression refrigeration circuit (1, 3, 4, 5, etc.) through which a first refrigerant flows (see arrows), the vapor compression refrigeration circuit including:
a heat rejection heat exchanger (coil around 2; or 3);
a heat absorption heat exchanger (5);
a compressor (1) disposed between the heat absorption heat exchanger (5) and the heat rejection heat exchanger (coil around 2; or 3); and
an expansion valve (4) disposed between and connected to the heat rejection heat exchanger (downstream 3) and the heat absorption heat exchanger (upstream 5);
an absorption refrigeration circuit (6-12, etc.) through which a second refrigerant and an absorbent flow (evident from at least fig. 1), the absorption refrigeration circuit including:
a generator (2);
an absorber (9); and
a heat exchanger unit (as shown in fig. 1) including the generator (2) and the heat rejection heat exchanger (coil around 2);
wherein the generator (2) and the heat rejection heat exchanger (coil around 2) are integrated with one another within the heat exchanger unit (as shown in fig. 1) such that heat emitted by the heat rejection heat exchanger (coil around 2) is transferred to the generator (2; see at least ¶ 25).
However, Li may not appear to explicitly disclose a pump disposed between and connected to the absorber and the generator; a throttling valve disposed between and connected to the generator and the absorber; or a turbine disposed between and connected to the generator and the absorber.
On the other hand, Zhang, directed to a combined generation and refrigeration system, discloses a pump (7) disposed between and connected to the absorber (6) and the generator (1);
a throttling valve (15) disposed (indirectly) between and connected to the generator (1) and the absorber (6); and
a turbine (3) disposed between and connected to the generator (1) and the absorber (6; see fig. 1).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention 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 articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) 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.4
As per (1), Zhang teaches that the pump is used to drive the flow of the working fluid in the combined system (¶ 25). The throttling valve is used to depressurize the refrigerant flowing out of one of the heat exchangers to help complete the combine cycle (see at least the last two sentences of ¶ 41). The turbine is connected to a power generator (4) that is used to provide electricity to a user (30; see ¶ 25). As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Zhang has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the pump, turbine and the throttling valve, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Li. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both Li and Zhang are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. absorption systems). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Li may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Zhang, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Li by virtue of suggesting a complete heat exchange process that regulates the pressure of the refrigerant by pumping and throttling the refrigerant as well as providing electricity to a user.
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 Li and to have modified them with the teachings of Zhang, by having a pump disposed between and connected to the absorber and the generator; a throttling valve disposed between and connected to the generator and the absorber; and a turbine disposed between and connected to the generator and the absorber, in order to improve the heat exchange process through regulation of the pressure throughout the system and produce electricity for a user, as similarly suggested by Zhang, without yielding unpredictable results.
As per claim 20, Li as modified discloses a power generator (4 of Zhang) and a drive shaft (shaft between 3 and 4 of Zhang) connecting the turbine and the power generator (as shown in fig. 1 of Zhang).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 102322705 A) in view of Zhang (CN 112880230 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vaisman (US 20160223234 A1).
As per claim 5, Li as currently modified may not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the vapor compression refrigeration circuit is a sub-critical vapor compression refrigeration circuit.
On the other hand, Vaisman, directed to a vapor-compression cycle, discloses wherein the vapor compression refrigeration circuit is a sub-critical vapor compression refrigeration circuit (evident from at least the last sentence of ¶ 27).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention 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 articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) 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.5
As per (1), Vaisman teaches that having a system that can span its operation to include sub-critical operation offers an opportunity to significantly reduce the overall size of the system by improving the efficiency (see first sentence of ¶ 8). As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Vaisman has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the sub-critical operation, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Li. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both Li and Vaisman are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. refrigerant systems). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Li may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Vaisman, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Li by virtue of suggesting the reduction of the overall size of the system while increasing its efficiency.
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 Li and to have modified them with the teachings of Vaisman, by having a sub-critical vapor compression refrigeration circuit, in order to improve the efficiency of the system, as similarly suggested by Vaisman, without yielding unpredictable results.
As per claim 6, Li as currently modified may not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the vapor compression refrigeration circuit is a trans-critical vapor compression refrigeration circuit and the first heat rejection heat exchanger is a gas cooler.
On the other hand, Vaisman discloses wherein the vapor compression refrigeration circuit is a trans-critical vapor compression refrigeration circuit (see ¶ 8) and the first heat rejection heat exchanger (210) is a gas cooler (see at least ¶ 35).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention 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 articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) 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.6
As per (1), Vaisman teaches that having a system that can span its operation to include trans-critical operation offers an opportunity to significantly reduce the overall size of the system by improving the efficiency (see first sentence of ¶ 8). As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Vaisman has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the trans-critical operation, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Li. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both Li and Vaisman are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. refrigerant systems). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Li may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Vaisman, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Li by virtue of suggesting the reduction of the overall size of the system while increasing its efficiency.
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 Li and to have modified them with the teachings of Vaisman, by having a trans-critical vapor compression refrigeration circuit and the first heat rejection heat exchanger being a gas cooler, in order to improve the efficiency of the system, as similarly suggested by Vaisman, without yielding unpredictable results.
As per claim 7, Li as currently modified may not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the vapor compression refrigeration circuit is a super-critical vapor compression refrigeration circuit, the first heat rejection heat exchanger is a gas cooler, and the first heat absorption heat exchanger is configured to operate above a critical point.
On the other hand, Vaisman discloses wherein the vapor compression refrigeration circuit is a super-critical vapor compression refrigeration circuit (¶ 8), the first heat rejection heat exchanger (210) is a gas cooler (¶ 35), and the first heat absorption heat exchanger is configured to operate above a critical point (¶¶ 89, 91, etc.).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention 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 articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) 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.7
As per (1), Vaisman teaches that having a system that can span its operation to include super-critical operation offers an opportunity to significantly reduce the overall size of the system by improving the efficiency (see first sentence of ¶ 8). As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Vaisman has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the super-critical operation, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Li. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both Li and Vaisman are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. refrigerant systems). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Li may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Vaisman, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Li by virtue of suggesting the reduction of the overall size of the system while increasing its efficiency.
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 Li and to have modified them with the teachings of Vaisman, by having a sub-critical vapor compression refrigeration circuit, in order to improve the efficiency of the system, as similarly suggested by Vaisman, without yielding unpredictable results.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 102322705 A) in view of Zhang (CN 112880230 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Unton et al. (US 20220357082 A1), herein Unton.
As per claim 13, Li as currently modified may not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the vapor compression refrigeration circuit further includes a check-valve disposed between and connected to the first heat rejection heat exchanger and the compressor.
On the other hand, Unton, directed to a cooling system, discloses wherein the vapor compression refrigeration circuit (100) further includes a check-valve (124) disposed between and connected to the first heat rejection heat exchanger (116) and the compressor (122).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention 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 articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) 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.8
As per (1), Unton teaches using a check valve (124) to prevent flow reversal and to only allow a flow of cooling fluid from the compressor to the heat exchanger (¶ 25). As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Unton has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the check valve, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Li. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both Li and Unton are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. cooling systems). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Li may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Unton, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Li by virtue of suggesting the prevention of flow reversal between the compressor and the heat exchanger.
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 Li and to have modified them with the teachings of Unton, by having a check-valve disposed between and connected to the first heat rejection heat exchanger and the compressor, in order to prevent flow reversal, as similarly suggested by Unton, without yielding unpredictable results.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 102322705 A) in view of Zhang (CN 112880230 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang et al. (US 20060112712 A1), herein Chang.
As per claim 14, Li as currently modified may not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the vapor compression refrigeration circuit further includes a suction accumulator disposed between and connected to the first heat absorption heat exchanger and the compressor.
On the other hand, Chang, directed to a cooling system, discloses wherein the vapor compression refrigeration circuit (see fig. 2) further includes a suction accumulator (59) disposed between and connected to the first heat absorption heat exchanger (54) and the compressor (51).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention 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 articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) 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.9
As per (1), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that placing an accumulator upstream the compressor helps prevent damage due to the introduction of liquid refrigerant, by only allowing gaseous refrigerant to flow towards the compressor. As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Chang has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the accumulator, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Li. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both Li and Chang are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. cooling systems). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Li may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Chang, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Li by virtue of suggesting the prevention of compressor damage.
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 Li and to have modified them with the teachings of Chang, by having the vapor compression refrigeration circuit further include a suction accumulator disposed between and connected to the first heat absorption heat exchanger and the compressor, in order to prevent compressor damage from liquid refrigerant, as similarly suggested by Chang, without yielding unpredictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 9, 15-16 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all10 of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art, when taken as a whole, neither anticipates nor renders prima facie obvious the claimed invention as recited in at least claims 2-3, 9, 15 and 18. There are no prior art teachings that would otherwise supplement or substitute the teachings of Li, Zhang, Chang, Unton or Vaisman to arrive at the claimed invention.
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 See at least ¶¶ 23 & 29 of the specification as filed on April 18, 2024.
2 See at least ¶ 56, id.
3 See MPEP § 2143.
4 See MPEP § 2143.
5 See MPEP § 2143.
6 See MPEP § 2143.
7 See MPEP § 2143.
8 See MPEP § 2143.
9 See MPEP § 2143.
10 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.