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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sienel (US 2005/0132742) in view of Taras (US 2021/0364208) and Wiggs (US 7,832,220).
As to claim 1, Sienel teaches a refrigeration system comprising a circuit around which a refrigerant is circulatable, the circuit comprising:
a compressor 22;
a first heat exchanger 28 for exchanging heat between the refrigerant and a medium; and
an accumulator 56 for accommodating liquid refrigerant, the accumulator 56 coupled in a suction line between the first heat exchanger 28 and the compressor 22 (Fig. 2);
wherein the refrigeration system is operable in a cooling mode such that the medium is cooled at the first heat exchanger 28 (paragraph 19).
Sienel does not explicitly teach a second heat exchanger for exchanging heat between the refrigerant and a thermal store, wherein the system is operable in the cooling mode to heat the thermal store at the second exchanger and is operable in a regeneration mode in which the thermal store is cooled at the second heat exchanger and the medium is heated at the first heat exchanger 28.
However, Taras teaches that it is known to configure a refrigeration system for use with an additional heat exchanger 240 having a thermal store (paragraph 31). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Sienel to be configured in the manner claimed and taught by Taras to include a second heat exchanger for exchanging heat between refrigerant and a thermal store in order to increase the flexibility of the operation of the system to improve performance and lower operating costs (Taras, paragraph 9).
Furthermore, Taras teaches a system configured with bypasses 214, 216, 218, and 220 capable of use for bypassing expansion valves 209-210, exchanger 240/thermal store, and evaporator 222 (Fig. 2). The regeneration mode of the instant application is performed by bypassing a metering device to cool the thermal store and heat the medium (see Fig. 4 and associated discussion in specification). Thus the thermal store system of Taras is capable of being operated in the same manner as disclosed in the instant application to perform the regeneration mode.
Sienel teaches sizing accumulator 56 to prevent excess refrigerant from flowing to the compressor 22 in both an active and inactive mode (the inactive mode requiring a larger accumulator volume than the active mode, see paragraphs 6-7, 20, and 23), and thus the accumulator 56 is necessarily oversized at a maximum cooling capacity in the cooling mode. The modified apparatus is silent in regards to accommodation of liquid refrigerant in the system when operated in the regeneration mode. However, Wiggs teaches that it is a known matter of routine refrigerant circuit construction to oversize an accumulator to store excess liquid refrigerant when operating in different system modes (col. 11, line 64 – col. 12, line 1). In light of this it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to size the accumulator 56 such that it is large enough to accommodate liquid refrigerant when operated in any mode, including a regeneration mode.
As to claim 5, the modified apparatus includes a thermal store which comprises a phase change material (Taras, paragraph 31).
As to claim 7, the modified apparatus includes metering devices 209/210 with bypasses 214/220 (Taras, Fig. 2) and is therefore operable in a regeneration mode such that the devices 209/210 are bypassed.
As to claim 10, the modified system is configured so that the refrigerant circulates in the same direction in all modes (Taras, Fig. 2).
As to claim 11, the modified system is capable of fully opening restrictions and/or bypassing them (Taras, paragraph 34) and thus is capable of operating so that the refrigerant undergoes a phase transition in the cooling mode only.
As to claim 12, Taras teaches variable expansion valves 209/210 as well as bypass valves 202/208,
As to claim 13, Taras teaches a controller 212 for switching between modes.
As to claim 14, Sienel teaches an HVAC system comprising the refrigeration system (Fig. 2).
As to claims 15-16, Sienel teaches a fan assembly 34/54 comprising the HVAC and refrigeration system (paragraphs 18-19).
Claims 2-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sienel, Taras, and Wiggs as applied above, and further in view of Kutruff (US 3,837,173).
As to claims 2-3, Sienel is silent regarding any specific structure for the accumulator 56 and thus does not explicitly teach a standpipe as claimed. However, Kutruff teaches that it is known to utilize an accumulator 9 with a storage chamber and a standpipe 19 configured to open into the chamber, wherein the accumulator is configured so that standpipe 19 is always open to the chamber above a free surface level of stored liquid refrigerant to ensure that only vaporized refrigerant can enter the compressor (Fig. 1; col. 3, lines 46-63). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the accumulator of Sienel to be configured with a standpipe as claimed and taught by Kutruff in order to prevent compressor malfunction due to liquid slugging.
As to claim 9, Sienel, as modified with Kutruff and Taras and discussed in the rejections above, includes the accumulator being configured such that the standpipe 19 is above a surface level of refrigerant during all operations (Kutruff, Fig. 1; col. 3, lines 46-63).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 4/6/2026, with respect to the objections to the specification and rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Said objections/rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wiggs (7,832,220) as discussed above.
It is also noted that while the applicant argues the system of Taras is not disclosed as being operated with a regeneration mode as claimed, this argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The claims merely require a refrigeration system that is “operable in” a claimed cooling mode and regeneration mode. These modes are performed in the instant application by use of a bypass of a metering device (see Fig. 4 of the instant application). The metering devices 209-210 of Taras can also be bypassed. Thus the system of Taras is “operable in” the claimed modes, even if it is not disclosed to actually be operated in such a manner.
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 JONATHAN BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-5199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:00 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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)270-5054. 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.
/JONATHAN BRADFORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights