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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0041526 to Okuda et al., hereinafter referred to as Okuda, in view of WO2007135948 to Kitano et al., hereinafter referred to as Kitano, (see English language translation provided herewith).
In reference to claim 1, Okuda and Kitano disclose the claimed invention.
Okuda discloses a reefer container (1, see [0063] where Okuda discloses use in a vehicle), comprising:
a container body (22);
an air refrigerant line (26→28→ 3→13→21) having a suction port (at outlet of 22) and a blowout port (at inlet of 22) each of the suction part and the blow port being disposed inside the container body (see inlet and outlet lines from 22 in figure 1);
a compressor (2) disposed in the air refrigerant line and configured to compress air suctioned from inside the container body (22) to the air refrigerant line through the suction port;
at least one heat exchanger (14) disposed in the air refrigerant line and configured to cool the air compressed by the compressor [0036]; and
a turbine (16) disposed in the air refrigerant line and configured to expand the air cooled by the at least one heat exchanger (14),
wherein the air refrigerant line includes: a suctioned air line (26) for directing the air suctioned from the suction port to the compressor (2); a compressed air line (3/13) for directing the air compressed by the compressor (2) to the turbine (16); and an expanded air line (21) for directing the air expanded by the turbine (16) to the blowout port (at 22), and
wherein the compressor (2), the at least one heat exchanger (14), and the turbine (16) are disposed in an exterior to the container body (22), see figure 1.
Okuda fails to disclose the compressor, the at least one heat exchanger, and the turbine are disposed, along a partition wall that separates an interior space of the container body and the exterior space, and wherein the turbine and at least one of the at least one heat exchanger are arranged in an up-down direction
Kitano teaches that in the art of refrigerated transportation devices (20) that it is a known method to provide all of the refrigeration equipment (30) exterior to the container body (see figure 3) along a partition wall (33) that separates an interior space (left side of 33 as seen in figure 3) of the container body (21) and the exterior space (right side of 33 as seen in figure 3). This is strong evidence that modifying Okuda as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., using the front frame of the trailer as the frame of the refrigeration unit reducing costs [0070]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Okuda by Kitano such that all of the refrigerating equipment of Okuda was disposed along a partition wall that separates an interior space of the container body and the exterior space, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of using the front frame of the trailer as the frame of the refrigeration unit reducing costs. Note that when all of the refrigerating equipment of Okuda is arranged as modified by the techniques of Kitano, the compressor, the at least one heat exchanger, and the turbine would be disposed along the partition wall.
With respect to the arrangement of the turbine and at least one heat exchanger in an up-down direction, the only differences between the prior art of record and the claimed invention is a rearrangement of components of the refrigeration system. However, Kitano does disclose that the particular arrangement of the refrigeration components within a refrigeration installation space can affect the storage space [0003-0004] and make it either large or small and that reducing the thickness of the refrigeration apparatus is desirable. Thus, one skilled in the art would understand that rearranging the components would produce predictable results, i.e. reducing the size of the refrigeration apparatus. Accordingly, the arrangement of the components within the apparatus is a design choice to the ordinary artisan. Further, there is no evidence that rearranging the parts of the refrigeration apparatus would result in a modified operation of the refrigeration system. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to rearrange the turbine and at least one of the at least one heat exchanger of Okuda in an up-down direction since it has been held that where a rearrangement of parts would not modify the operation of the device, shifting the positions of the components is not a patentable difference, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
In reference to claims 3 and 4, Okuda and Kitano disclose the claimed invention.
Okuda discloses the at least one heat exchanger includes:
a first heat exchanger (14) for exchanging heat between the air flowing through the suctioned airline (26) and the air flowing through the compressed air line (3/13); and
a second heat exchanger (8) for exchanging heat between the air flowing through the compressed air line (3/13) toward the first heat exchanger (14) and a cooling fluid other than the air flowing through the air refrigerant line (at 10).
Okuda as disclosed fails to disclose and wherein the first heat exchanger (14) and the second heat exchanger (8) are arranged such that the first heat exchanger is disposed above the second heat exchanger in an up-down direction. However, Kitano does disclose that the particular arrangement of the refrigeration components within a refrigeration installation space can affect the storage space [0003-0004] and make it either large or small and that reducing the thickness of the refrigeration apparatus is desirable. Thus, one skilled in the art would understand that rearranging the components would produce predictable results, i.e. reducing the size of the refrigeration apparatus. Accordingly, the arrangement of the components within the apparatus is a design choice to the ordinary artisan. Further, there is no evidence that rearranging the parts of the refrigeration apparatus would result in a modified operation of the refrigeration system. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to Okuda such that the first heat exchanger (14) and the second heat exchanger (8) are arranged such that the first heat exchanger is disposed above the second heat exchanger in an up-down direction since it has been held that where a rearrangement of parts would not modify the operation of the device, shifting the positions of the components is not a patentable difference, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
In reference to claim 5, Okuda and Kitano disclose the claimed invention.
Okuda as modified fails to disclose the compressor and the turbine are disposed between the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger in the up-down direction. However, Kitano does disclose that the particular arrangement of the refrigeration components within a refrigeration installation space can affect the storage space [0003-0004] and make it either large or small and that reducing the thickness of the refrigeration apparatus is desirable. Thus, one skilled in the art would understand that rearranging the components would produce predictable results, i.e. reducing the size of the refrigeration apparatus. Accordingly, the arrangement of the components within the apparatus is a design choice to the ordinary artisan. Further, there is no evidence that rearranging the parts of the refrigeration apparatus would result in a modified operation of the refrigeration system. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to Okuda such that the compressor and the turbine are disposed between the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger in the up-down direction since it has been held that where a rearrangement of parts would not modify the operation of the device, shifting the positions of the components is not a patentable difference, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
In reference to claim 6, Okuda and Kitano disclose the claimed invention.
Okuda as modified supra fails to disclose wherein a length of a pipe forming a portion of the compressed air line between the compressor and the second heat exchanger is shorter than a length of a pipe forming a portion of the suctioned air line between the first heat exchanger and the compressor. It is noted that the only difference between the prior art and Applicant’s claimed invention is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the compressed air line and suctioned air line. There is no evidence of record that a change in these relative dimensions would perform differently than the prior art, as it appears that the apparatus of Okuda would equally well if the dimension of the air lines were any dimension as long as air was able to flow from one component to the next. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Okuda such that a length of a pipe forming a portion of the compressed air line between the compressor and the second heat exchanger is shorter than a length of a pipe forming a portion of the suctioned air line between the first heat exchanger and the compressor since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A).
In reference to claim 7, Okuda and Kitano disclose the claimed invention.
Kitano teaches the partition wall (33) has a first end (left side as viewed in figure 4) and a second end in a horizontal direction (right side as seen in figure 4),
Okuda teaches wherein the at least one heat exchanger includes a first heat exchanger (14) for exchanging heat between the air flowing through the suctioned air line (26) and the air flowing through the compressed air line (13),
wherein the compressor (2) and the turbine (16) are coupled to each other via a rotational shaft (shaft of motor 4 as seen in figure 2) extending along the horizontal direction,
Okuda as modified by Kitano fails to disclose the first heat exchanger and a combination of the compressor and the turbine are arranged in the up-down direction, an inlet of the first heat exchanger in the compressed air line is disposed closer to the second end than an outlet of the first heat exchanger in the compressed air line in the horizontal direction, and wherein the turbine is disposed closer to the first end than the compressor in the horizontal direction.
However, Kitano does disclose that the particular arrangement of the refrigeration components within a refrigeration installation space can affect the storage space [0003-0004] and make it either large or small and that reducing the thickness of the refrigeration apparatus is desirable. Thus, one skilled in the art would understand that rearranging the components would produce predictable results, i.e. reducing the size of the refrigeration apparatus. Accordingly, the arrangement of the components within the apparatus is a design choice to the ordinary artisan. Further, there is no evidence that rearranging the parts of the refrigeration apparatus would result in a modified operation of the refrigeration system. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to Okuda such that the first heat exchanger and a combination of the compressor and the turbine are arranged in the up-down direction, an inlet of the first heat exchanger in the compressed air line is disposed closer to the second end than an outlet of the first heat exchanger in the compressed air line in the horizontal direction, and wherein the turbine is disposed closer to the first end than the compressor in the horizontal direction, since it has been held that where a rearrangement of parts would not modify the operation of the device, shifting the positions of the components is not a patentable difference, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
In reference to claim 8, Okuda and Kitano disclose the claimed invention.
Okuda discloses the at least one heat exchanger (14) includes:
the first heat exchanger (14); and a second heat exchanger (8) for exchanging heat between the air flowing through the compressed air line (3/13) toward the first heat exchanger (14) and a cooling fluid (at 10) other than the air flowing through the air refrigerant line.
Okuda as modified supra fails to disclose the compressor and the turbine are disposed between the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger in the up-down direction, and wherein, of both end portions of the second heat exchanger in the horizontal direction, an end portion closer to the second end of the partition wall is connected to a pipe forming a portion of the compressed air line between the compressor and the second heat exchanger.
However, Kitano does disclose that the particular arrangement of the refrigeration components within a refrigeration installation space can affect the storage space [0003-0004] and make it either large or small and that reducing the thickness of the refrigeration apparatus is desirable. Thus, one skilled in the art would understand that rearranging the components would produce predictable results, i.e. reducing the size of the refrigeration apparatus. Accordingly, the arrangement of the components within the apparatus is a design choice to the ordinary artisan. Further, there is no evidence that rearranging the parts of the refrigeration apparatus would result in a modified operation of the refrigeration system. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to Okuda such that the compressor and the turbine are disposed between the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger in the up-down direction, and wherein, of both end portions of the second heat exchanger in the horizontal direction, an end portion closer to the second end of the partition wall is connected to a pipe forming a portion of the compressed air line between the compressor and the second heat exchanger, since it has been held that where a rearrangement of parts would not modify the operation of the device, shifting the positions of the components is not a patentable difference, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
In reference to claim 9, Okuda and Kitano disclose the claimed invention.
Okuda as modified supra fails to disclose a portion of a pipe forming the expanded air line between an outlet of the turbine and the blowout port is exposed to the interior space of the container body.
Kitano teaches a portion of a pipe (72) to a blowout port is exposed to the interior space of the container body (20). This is strong evidence that modifying Okuda as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., blow out the cooled air to specific areas of the interior of the container). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Okuda by Kitano such that, a portion of a pipe forming the expanded air line between an outlet of the turbine and the blowout port is exposed to the interior space of the container body. since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of blowing out the cooled air to specific areas of the interior of the container.
In reference to claim 10, Okuda and Kitano disclose the claimed invention.
Okuda discloses a circulation line (30) for circulating part of the air flowing through the compressed air line (13) to an inlet of the compressor (at 28).
In reference to claim 11, Okuda and Kitano disclose the claimed invention.
Okuda discloses a motor (4) for driving the compressor, but fails to disclose the motor is usable at a rotation speed of 50,000 rpm or higher. However, when one skilled in the art would be designing the system of Okuda, selecting a motor with an appropriate rpm to accomplish the cooling required of the system would be a part of the ordinary practices of designing such a system. One would need to consider the temperatures the air was desired to achieve and an air flow that would reasonably cover the entire interior of the container. It appears that using a motor with a rotation speed of 50,000 rpm or higher would not produce any new or unpredictable results and would be an obvious mechanical expedient for moving the air within the system. There is no evidence of record that using such a motor with the claimed rpms does anything more than what is predictable in the art. Further, it appears that the apparatus of Okuda would work equally well with any motor as long as it was capable of providing the desired temperatures and appropriate flow to the container (22). Accordingly, it would have been a mere matter of obvious design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Okuda and select a motor usable at a rotation speed of 50,000 rpm or higher in order to produce desired temperatures and flow rate to the container.
In reference to claim 13, Okuda and Kitano disclose the claimed invention.
Kitano disclose the partition wall (33) extends along a plane perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the container body (left-right direction as seen in figure 3). Kitano further suggests that the refrigerating equipment is disposed in the exterior space within a range such that a length from the partition wall in the longitudinal direction is 1/10 or less of a length of the container body, see figure 1. Kitano also teaches that it is strongly desired to reduce the thickness of the refrigeration apparatus [0003-0004]. Accordingly, when modifying Okuda by Kitano as applied in claim 1 supra, the limitations of claim 13 would be met by the combination.
In reference to claim 14, Okuda and Kitano disclose the claimed invention.
Okuda as modified fails to disclose the blowout port has an opening that is larger in size than an inner diameter of a pipe forming the expanded air line. It is noted that the only difference between the prior art and Applicant’s claimed invention is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the blowout port opening and an inner diameter of a pipe forming the expanded air line. There is no evidence of record that a change in these relative dimensions would perform differently than the prior art, as it appears that the apparatus of Okuda would equally well if the dimension of the air lines were any dimension as long as air was able to flow from one component to the next. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Okuda such that the blowout port has an opening that is larger in size than an inner diameter of a pipe forming the expanded air line since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Okuda and Kitano as applied supra and in further view of US 5,644,928 to Uda et al., hereinafter referred to as Uda.
In reference to claim 12, Okuda, Kitano and Uda disclose the claimed invention.
Okuda as modified supra fails to disclose the at least one heat exchanger (14) includes a plate heat exchanger or a microchannel heat exchanger.
Uda teaches that in the art compressed air refrigeration, that it is a known method to provide a heat recovery heat exchanger (5) as a plate heat exchanger, see column 3 lines 32-36 and figure 2. This is strong evidence that modifying Okuda as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., form vertically alternately passages for the air passages). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Okuda by Uda such that, the at least one heat exchanger (14) includes a plate heat exchanger or a microchannel heat exchanger since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of providing alternatingly arranged passages for heat exchange between the two flows.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Okuda and Kitano as applied supra and in further view of US2010/0139306 to Krenik, hereinafter referred to as Krenik.
In reference to claim 15, Okuda, Kitano and Krenik disclose the claimed invention.
Okuda as modified fails to disclose a filter part disposed at the suction port and having a plurality of openings that are smaller in size than an inner diameter of a pipe forming the expanded air line.
Krenik teaches that in the art of air cycle heat pumps, that it is a known method to provide a filter part (114) disposed at a suction port (104). Krenik also teaches sizing the filter such that larger particulate are filtered out before reaching the compressor [0049]. Thus one skilled in the art would understand that sizing a filter such that it filtered out particulate that could damage internal components would be desirable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Okuda by Krenik such that a filter part disposed at the suction port and having a plurality of openings that are smaller in size than an inner diameter of a pipe forming the expanded air line, in order to filter out larger particles and ensure that they do not reach sensitive components.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In so much as the rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Okuda and Kitano, Applicant argues that neither Okuda nor Kitano teach a turbine and the at least one heat exchanger arranged in an up-down direction. Although it is true that neither Okuda nor Kitano teach a turbine and the at least one heat exchanger arranged in an up-down direction, the present rejection is based on a rearrangement of parts motivation for modifying Okuda as claimed. Specifically, Kitano discloses that the particular arrangement of the refrigeration components within a refrigeration installation space can affect the storage space [0003-0004] and make it either large or small and that reducing the thickness of the refrigeration apparatus is desirable. This is strong evidence that rearranging the relative positions of any of the refrigeration components of Okuda is nothing more than routine and ordinary and well within the level or ordinary skill in the art. Further, it appears that the apparatus of Okuda would work equally well if the refrigeration components were arranged in any particular relative positions. The courts have held that when rearranging components of an apparatus does not modify the operation of the device, that such a configuration was an obvious matter of design choice. See specifically MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C), citing In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) and In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Since there is no evidence of record that arranging the components as claimed does anything more than what is taught by the prior art (i.e. forming a compact arrangement), nor is there any evidence of record that arranging the components of Okuda as claimed would result in a different operation, it is proper to consider the differences between the claimed invention and the teachings of the prior art as an obvious rearrangement of parts.
Accordingly, the rejection of the claims as being unpatentable over Okuda Kitano and a rearrangement of parts is considered proper and remains.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSEY D BAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 10AM-8PM (ET).
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/CASSEY D BAUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights