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 1-3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Takayama et al. (CN 206626853 U), herein Takayama.
As per claim 1, Takayama discloses a cascade refrigeration system (1; see at least fig. 1) for a transport unit1, the cascade refrigeration system comprising:
a first refrigeration cycle (10) comprising a first compressor (12) and a first expansion valve (15);
a second refrigeration cycle (20 and/or 30) comprising a second compressor (22) and a second expansion valve (24);
a cascade heat exchanger (14) comprising a condenser side (lower side) fluidically coupled downstream of the first compressor (12) and upstream of the first expansion valve (15), and an evaporator side (upper side) fluidically coupled downstream of the second expansion valve (24) and upstream of the second compressor (22); and
a pre-cooler (13) comprising a first side (lower side) and a second side (upper side), the first side (lower side) being fluidically coupled downstream of the first compressor (12) and upstream of the condenser side (lower side) of the cascade heat exchanger (14), whereby the pre-cooler (13) is configured to transfer heat between refrigerant in the first side (lower side) and refrigerant in the second side (upper side).
As per claim 2, Takayama discloses wherein the second side (upper side) of the pre-cooler (13) is fluidically coupled in the second refrigeration cycle (via 30), whereby the pre-cooler (13) is configured to transfer heat between refrigerant in the first refrigeration cycle (10) and refrigerant in the second refrigeration cycle (via 30).
As per claim 3, Takayama discloses wherein the refrigeration system (1) comprises two parallel paths (32a, 32b) leading from a junction (35), and the second side (upper side) of the pre-cooler (13) is in a different one (32a) of the two parallel paths (32a, 32b) to the evaporator side (upper side) of the cascade heat exchanger (14).
As per claim 12, Takayama discloses wherein the first refrigeration cycle (10) comprises:
an evaporator (16) fluidically coupled downstream of the first expansion valve (15) and upstream of the first compressor (12); and
a suction gas heat exchanger (17) comprising a liquid line side (upper side) and a suction line side (lower side), wherein the liquid line side is fluidically coupled downstream of the condenser side (lower side) of the cascade heat exchanger (14) and upstream of the first expansion valve (15), and the suction line side is fluidically coupled downstream of the evaporator (16) and upstream of the first compressor (12), whereby the suction gas heat exchanger (17) is configured to transfer heat between refrigerant in the liquid line side and refrigerant in the suction line side (evident from at least fig. 1).
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 6, 8-9, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama (CN 206626853 U) in view of Taras et al. (US 20100043475 A1), herein Taras.
As per claim 6, Takayama may not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the second compressor is a two-stage compressor comprising a second compressor high stage and a second compressor low stage.
On the other hand, Taras, directed to a cooling system, discloses wherein the second compressor (92, 94) is a two-stage compressor (see at least ¶ 24) comprising a second compressor high stage (94, per se) and a second compressor low stage (92, per se).
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.2
As per (1), Taras implements multiple compression stages in the transcritical booster cycle (¶ 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using a multi-stage compressor arrangement allows the system to achieve a wider range of temperatures for a given application. As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Taras has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the multi-stage compressor, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Takayama. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both prior art references 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 Takayama may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Taras, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Takayama by virtue of suggesting an improved refrigerant system with enhanced operational performance.
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 Takayama and to have modified them with the teachings of Taras, by having the second compressor be a two-stage compressor comprising a second compressor high stage and a second compressor low stage, in order to provide a system with enhanced operational performance, as similarly suggested by Taras, without yielding unpredictable results.
As per claim 8, Takayama may not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first refrigeration cycle comprises a gas cooler fluidically connected downstream of the first compressor and upstream of the first side of the pre-cooler.
On the other hand, Taras discloses wherein the first refrigeration cycle (represented by 90 in fig. 4) comprises a gas cooler (96) fluidically connected downstream of the first compressor (94) and upstream of the first side of the pre-cooler (98).
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), Taras the gas cooler () to remove excess heat from the refrigerant exiting the second stage of the compressor (¶ 5). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using a gas-cooler arrangement allows the system to operate at a wider range of temperatures for a given application. As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Taras has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the gas cooler, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Takayama. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both prior art references 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 Takayama may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Taras, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Takayama by virtue of suggesting an improved refrigerant system with enhanced operational performance.
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 Takayama and to have modified them with the teachings of Taras, by having the first refrigeration cycle comprise a gas cooler fluidically connected downstream of the first compressor and upstream of the first side of the pre-cooler, in order to provide a system with enhanced operational performance, as similarly suggested by Taras, without yielding unpredictable results.
As per claim 9, Takayama as modified discloses wherein the gas cooler (96 of Taras) is configured to transfer heat between refrigerant in the first refrigeration cycle (90 of Taras) flowing through the gas cooler (96 of Taras) and an external fluid (via the fan of 96 in Taras).
As per claim 15, Takayama may not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first compressor is a multi-stage compressor comprising more than one compression stage.
On the other hand, Taras discloses wherein the first compressor (92, 94) is a multi-stage compressor comprising more than one compression stage (see at least fig. 4 and ¶ 24).
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), Taras implements multiple compression stages in the transcritical booster cycle (¶ 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using a multi-stage compressor arrangement allows the system to achieve a wider range of temperatures for a given application. As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Taras has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the multi-stage compressor, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Takayama. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both prior art references 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 Takayama may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Taras, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Takayama by virtue of suggesting an improved refrigerant system with enhanced operational performance.
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 Takayama and to have modified them with the teachings of Taras, by having the first compressor be a multi-stage compressor comprising more than one compression stage, in order to provide a system with enhanced operational performance, as similarly suggested by Taras, without yielding unpredictable results.
As per claim 17, Takayama discloses the refrigeration system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
However, Takayama may not appear to explicitly disclose a transport unit comprising a cargo space for storing cargo.
On the other hand, Taras discloses a transport unit (refrigeration truck) comprising a cargo space (i.e., the trailer) for storing cargo (evident from at least ¶ 31).
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), Taras discloses using the cooling system inside marine container units as well as refrigeration trucks. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such implementations allow for the system to be used in a diverse set of applications As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Taras has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the multi-stage compressor, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Takayama. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both prior art references 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 Takayama may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Taras, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Takayama by virtue of suggesting an improved refrigerant system with enhanced operational performance in different applications.
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 Takayama and to have modified them with the teachings of Taras, by having a transport unit comprising a cargo space for storing cargo, in order to provide a system with enhanced operational performance in different applications, as similarly suggested by Taras, without yielding unpredictable results.
As per claim 18, Takayama as modified discloses the system comprising an atmosphere control system configured to control an atmosphere in the cargo space, wherein the atmosphere control system comprises the refrigeration system (evident from at least ¶ 31 of Taras).
As per claim 19, Takayama discloses the system comprising a parts storage space for storing replacement parts for the refrigeration system (e.g., any remaining space in the cabin or trailer), wherein the parts storage space is located outside the cargo space (e.g., in the cabin of the vehicle).
As per claim 20, Takayama may not appear to explicitly disclose a marine vessel comprising the refrigeration system of claim 1, or the transport unit of claim 17.
On the other hand, Taras discloses a marine vessel container unit and transport units (see at least ¶ 31)
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), Taras discloses using the cooling system inside marine container units as well as refrigeration trucks. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such implementations allow for the system to be used in a diverse set of applications As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Taras has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the multi-stage compressor, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Takayama. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both prior art references 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 Takayama may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Taras, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Takayama by virtue of suggesting an improved refrigerant system with enhanced operational performance in different applications.
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 Takayama and to have modified them with the teachings of Taras, by having a marine vessel, in order to provide a system with enhanced operational performance in different applications, as similarly suggested by Taras, without yielding unpredictable results.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama (CN 206626853 U) in view of Takasugi (JP 2011133224 A).
As per claim 14, Takayama may not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first refrigeration cycle and/or the second refrigeration cycle comprises a non-azeotropic refrigerant.
On the other hand, Takasugi, directed to a refrigerating device, discloses the use of a non-azeotropic refrigerant (see at least ¶¶ 28 & 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.7
As per (1), Takasugi uses a plurality of non-azeotropic refrigerants with different boiling points (¶ 28). It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose supports a prima facie determination of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.07. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the selection of a non-azeotropic refrigerant with different boiling points can be done to enhance the temperature ranges operated by the system. As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Takasugi has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the refrigerant, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Takayama. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both references 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 Takayama may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Takasugi, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Takayama by virtue of suggesting a wide range of operating temperatures for the 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 Takayama and to have modified them with the teachings of Takasugi, by having the first refrigeration cycle and/or the second refrigeration cycle comprise a non-azeotropic refrigerant, in order to provide a wide range of operating temperatures, as similarly suggested by Takasugi, without yielding unpredictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 7, 10-11, 13 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all8 of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 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).
The prior art, when taken as a whole, neither anticipates nor renders prima facie obvious the claimed invention as recited in at least claims 4, 7, 10, 13 and 16. There are no prior art teachings of record that would otherwise supplement or substitute the teachings of Takayama to arrive at the claimed invention.
It should also be noted that the intended purpose and operating principles of Takayama require the specific arrangement of valves, heat exchangers, lines and other components as disclosed and described therein. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any modifications to Takayama to arrive at the claimed invention would be based on improper hindsight, and would render it inoperable for its intended purpose. Assuming arguendo, rearranging the fluid lines and adding components such as valves, heat exchangers and ports as claimed would change the principles of operation and intended purpose of the prior art, most likely resulting in unexpected and/or unintended results, which is evidence against a prima facie case of obviousness. Thus, a preponderance of evidence supports the allowability of the aforementioned claims.
Conclusion
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 The preamble is being construed as a statement of intended use rather than imparting structural limitations. See MPEP § 2111.02 (II).
2 See MPEP § 2143.
3 See MPEP § 2143.
4 See MPEP § 2143.
5 See MPEP § 2143.
6 See MPEP § 2143.
7 See MPEP § 2143.
8 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