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 .
This action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on 07/19/2024. Claims 64-74 are pending in this application. Claims 1-63 have been cancelled. Claims 64-74 are new claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 64-69, 71 and 73-74 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 64 recites the limitation “one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers” in lines 13-15 which should be recited to “said one or more of supplemental heat exchangers” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 64 recites the limitation “one or more of supplemental heat exchangers” in lines 21-22, 24-28 and 30 which should be recited to “said one or more of supplemental heat exchangers” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 65 recites the limitation “one or more of supplemental heat exchangers” in line 3 which should be recited to “said one or more of supplemental heat exchangers” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 66 recites the limitation “one or more of supplemental heat exchangers” in line 2 which should be recited to “said one or more of supplemental heat exchangers” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 67 recites the limitation “said supplemental heat exchanger” which should be recited to “said one or more of supplemental heat exchangers” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 67 recites the limitation “the supplemental heat exchanger” which should be recited to “said one or more of supplemental heat exchangers” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 68 recites the limitation “one or more of supplemental heat exchangers” in lines 10-11, 15-16 and 18-24 which should be recited to “said one or more of supplemental heat exchangers” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 69 recites the limitation “said supplemental heat exchanger” which should be recited to “said one or more of supplemental heat exchangers” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 69 recites the limitation “the supplemental heat exchanger” which should be recited to “said one or more of supplemental heat exchangers” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 71 recites the limitation “one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers” in line 2 which should be recited to “said one or more of supplemental heat exchangers” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 73 recites the limitation “said supplemental heat exchanger” which should be recited to “said one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 74 recites the limitation “one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers” in line 2 which should be recited to “said one or more of supplemental heat exchangers” for proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
the limitation “a means for moving air cooled by the mechanical refrigeration circuit” in claim 64 includes a generic/nonce term “means” coupled with function “moving” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “a means for moving air cooled by the mechanical refrigeration circuit” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a fan” [0064] of PG-Pub and figures 1A-1C. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof;
the limitation “a control mechanism” in claim 64 includes a generic/nonce term “mechanism” coupled with function “control” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “a control mechanism” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a valve” and/or “circuitry” [0066] of PG-Pub. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof;
the limitation “a mechanism configured to melt ice” in claim 65 includes a generic/nonce term “mechanism” coupled with function “configured to melt” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “a mechanism configured to melt ice” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a heater” [0126] and [0128] of PG-Pub. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof;
the limitation “means for isolating one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers” in claim 66 includes a generic/nonce term “means” coupled with function “isolating” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “means for isolating one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers” can be implemented in various ways, such as “isolation louvers” [0086] and/or “baffles” [0131] of PG-Pub. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof;
the limitation “a control mechanism” in claim 67 includes a generic/nonce term “mechanism” coupled with function “control” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “a control mechanism” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a valve” and/or “circuitry” [0066] of PG-Pub. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof;
the limitation “a control mechanism” in claim 68 includes a generic/nonce term “mechanism” coupled with function “control” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “a control mechanism” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a valve” and/or “circuitry” [0066] of PG-Pub. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof;
the limitation “a return subunit” in claim 71 includes a generic/nonce term “subunit” coupled with function “return” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Applicant’s specification fails to provide any corresponding structure to the limitation. Thus, it is unclear what structure is encompassed by the limitation. For examination purposes, any manner of returning will read on the limitation;
the limitation “a control subunit” in claim 71 includes a generic/nonce term “subunit” coupled with function “control” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Applicant’s specification fails to provide any corresponding structure to the limitation. Thus, it is unclear what structure is encompassed by the limitation. For examination purposes, any manner of control will read on the limitation; and
the limitation “a mechanical refrigeration unit” in claim 72 includes a generic/nonce term “unit” coupled with function “refrigeration” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “a mechanical refrigeration unit” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a mechanical refrigeration circuit” [0063] of PG-Pub. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 71 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “a control subunit” of claim 71 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of control is performed. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the “control” function. The use of the term "subunit" is not adequate structure for performing the “control” function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For examination purposes, any manner of control will read on the limitation.
Claim limitation “a return subunit” of claim 71 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of control is performed. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the “returning” function. The use of the term "subunit" is not adequate structure for performing the “returning” function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For examination purposes, any manner of control will read on the limitation.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 64-74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 64 recites the limitation “enables and controls the flow of liquid nitrogen into one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers when the temperature of the air in the enclosure that is being cooled by the mechanical refrigeration circuit is warmer than a set point temperature set by the operator” in lines 17-20 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Claim 64 is a method claim. However, this limitation is a contingent limitation. A method claim having contingent limitations only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met; see MPEP 2111.04 II. In the current case, it is unclear whether temperature comparison is required to perform. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “enables and controls the flow of liquid nitrogen into one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers in response to the temperature of the air in the enclosure that is being cooled by the mechanical refrigeration circuit is warmer than a set point temperature set by the operator”.
Claim 64 recites the limitation “when the cooling of the air in the mechanically cooled space by mechanical refrigeration is at the maximum that can be provided by said mechanical refrigeration circuit or is within a preset 90% of that maximum” in the last three lines which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Claim 64 is a method claim. However, this limitation is a contingent limitation. A method claim having contingent limitations only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met; see MPEP 2111.04 II. In the current case, it is unclear whether maximum or a preset 90% of that maximum of the mechanical refrigeration is required to perform. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “in response to the cooling of the air in the mechanically cooled space by mechanical refrigeration is at the maximum that can be provided by said mechanical refrigeration circuit or is within a preset 90% of that maximum”.
Claim 64 recites the limitation “when the cooling of the air in the mechanically cooled space by mechanical refrigeration is at the maximum that can be provided by said mechanical refrigeration circuit or is within a preset 90% of that maximum” in the last three lines which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. The limitation is only a conditional recitation. There are no outcomes associated with the conditional recitation. Therefore, it is unclear what operations are required to perform in response to this conditional recitation.
Claim 67 recites the limitation “an impeller that can impel flow of nitrogen” in line 5 which is unclear renders the claim indefinite. Claim 67 is a method claim. However, the limitation “can impel” is a conditional recitation. It is unclear whether the limitation is required to perform. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “an impeller that impels flow of nitrogen”.
Claim 67 recites the limitation “a heater that can heat nitrogen” in line 6 which is unclear renders the claim indefinite. Claim 67 is a method claim. However, the limitation “can heat” is a conditional recitation. It is unclear whether the limitation is required to perform. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “a heater that heats nitrogen”.
Claim 67 recites the limitation “a control mechanism” in line 7 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “a control mechanism” in claim 64 or a new control mechanism. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “an additional control mechanism”.
Claim 67 recites the limitation “nitrogen can flow from the outlet of the supplemental heat exchanger” in line 8 which is unclear renders the claim indefinite. Claim 67 is a method claim. However, the limitation “can flow” is a conditional recitation. It is unclear whether the limitation is required to perform. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “nitrogen flows from the outlet of the supplemental heat exchanger”.
Claim 67 recites the limitation “nitrogen from said recycle line… thereof can flow into the inlet of said supplemental heat exchanger” in lines 9-11 which is unclear renders the claim indefinite. Claim 67 is a method claim. However, the limitation “can flow” is a conditional recitation. It is unclear whether the limitation is required to perform. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “nitrogen from said recycle line… thereof can flow into the inlet of said supplemental heat exchanger”.
Claim 67 recites the limitation “nitrogen from said recycle line can be recycled into said supplemental heat exchanger” in lines 11-12 which is unclear renders the claim indefinite. Claim 67 is a method claim. However, the limitation “can be recycled” is a conditional recitation. It is unclear whether the limitation is required to perform. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “nitrogen from said recycle line is recycled into said supplemental heat exchanger”.
Claim 67 recites the limitation “a second mode in which nitrogen can flow from the outlet of said supplemental heat exchanger” in lines 12-13 which is unclear renders the claim indefinite. Claim 67 is a method claim. However, the limitation “can flow” is a conditional recitation. It is unclear whether the limitation is required to perform. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “a second mode in which nitrogen flows from the outlet of said supplemental heat exchanger”.
Claim 68 recites the limitation “it” in line 25 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the limitation “it” refers to. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “said control mechanism”.
Claim 69 recites the limitation “an impeller that can impel flow of nitrogen” in line 5 which is unclear renders the claim indefinite. The limitation “can impel” is a conditional recitation. It is unclear whether the limitation is required to perform by the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “an impeller that impels flow of nitrogen”.
Claim 69 recites the limitation “a heater that can heat nitrogen” in lines 5-6 which is unclear renders the claim indefinite. The limitation “can heat” is a conditional recitation. It is unclear whether the limitation is required to perform by the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “a heater that heats nitrogen”.
Claim 72 recites the limitation “operating a mechanical refrigeration unit up to a maximum refrigeration capacity that can be provided by said mechanical refrigeration unit” in lines 3-4 which is unclear renders the claim indefinite. Claim 72 is a method claim. However, the limitation “can be provided” is a conditional recitation. It is unclear whether the limitation is required to perform. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “operating a mechanical refrigeration unit up to a maximum refrigeration capacity that is provided by said mechanical refrigeration unit”.
Claim 72 recites the limitation “wherein said additional refrigeration capacity is provided by controllably flowing liquid nitrogen from a source of liquid nitrogen into one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers: when the temperature of the air cooled by the mechanical refrigeration unit is warmer than a set point temperature set by the operator, or ii. when the cooling of the air by the mechanical refrigeration unit is at the maximum refrigeration capacity that can be provided by said mechanical refrigeration unit or is within a preset 90% of that maximum refrigeration capacity” in lines 9-16 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Claim 72 is a method claim. However, this limitation is a contingent limitation. A method claim having contingent limitations only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met; see MPEP 2111.04 II. In the current case, it is unclear whether temperature comparison or the maximum or a preset 90% of that maximum refrigeration capacity are required to perform. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “wherein said additional refrigeration capacity is provided by controllably flowing liquid nitrogen from a source of liquid nitrogen into one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers: in response to the temperature of the air cooled by the mechanical refrigeration unit is warmer than a set point temperature set by the operator, or ii. in response to the cooling of the air by the mechanical refrigeration unit is at the maximum refrigeration capacity that can be provided by said mechanical refrigeration unit or is within a preset 90% of that maximum refrigeration capacity”.
Claims 65-66, 70 and 73-74 are rejected by their virtual dependencies of claims 64, 68 and 72.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 64, 68 and 70-71 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luerken et al. (DE102011014746A1).
Regarding claim 64, Luerken discloses a method of modifying a refrigeration apparatus (the refrigeration apparatus which associated with the compressors 4 and 5, heat exchangers 21 and 22 and cooling chambers 1-2; see figures 1-2),
wherein said refrigeration apparatus comprises an enclosure (the cooling chambers 1 and 2) comprising air cooled by a mechanical refrigeration circuit (the mechanical refrigeration circuit which associated with the compressors 4 and 5 and heat exchangers 21 and 22), said method comprising:
adding a supplemental refrigeration system (the supplemental refrigeration system which associated with the nitrogen tank 34, nitrogen heat exchangers 23 and nitrogen purges 33) comprising one or more supplemental heat exchangers (the heat exchangers 23) each having an inlet coupled to a source of liquid nitrogen (the nitrogen tank 34) and an outlet coupled to a vent (the nitrogen purge 33) that is open to an external atmosphere (see figures 1-2), further comprising a means (the fans 24) of moving air cooled by the mechanical refrigeration circuit (the mechanical refrigeration circuit which associated with the compressors 4 and 5 and heat exchangers 21 and 22) from said enclosure (1 and 2) to contact the exterior surfaces of said one or more supplemental heat exchangers (23) and to establish fluid communication with the enclosure (1 and 2; see figures 1-2),
wherein the supplemental refrigeration system (the supplemental refrigeration system which associated with the nitrogen tank 34, nitrogen heat exchangers 23 and nitrogen purges 33) is either physically attached to the outside of the enclosure and/or uses associated ducts (the heat exchanger columns 25; noted that alternative limitation; the ducts limitation has been addressed) to route air cooled by the mechanical refrigeration circuit from the enclosure (1 and 2) over to the said one or more supplemental heat exchangers (23; see figures 1-2), wherein the added supplemental refrigeration system further comprises a control mechanism (the control unit 15 and the nitrogen valves 31) that controls the flow of liquid nitrogen from said nitrogen source (34) into one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers (23) to cool air in contact with the exterior surfaces of said one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers (23; see figures 1-2);
wherein the control mechanism (the control unit 15 and the nitrogen valves 31):
enables and controls the flow of liquid nitrogen into one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers (23) when the temperature of the air in the enclosure (1 and 2) that is being cooled by the mechanical refrigeration circuit is warmer than a set point temperature set by the operator (abstract and paragraph 2 of page 10; see figures 1-2; noted that alternative limitation; this limitation has been addressed), or
enables and controls the flow of liquid nitrogen into one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers by monitoring the pressure of liquid nitrogen flowing from said nitrogen source, or
enables and controls the flow of liquid nitrogen into one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers by monitoring the pressure of gaseous nitrogen leaving one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers, or
enables and controls the flow of liquid nitrogen into one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers by monitoring the pressure of liquid nitrogen flowing from said nitrogen source and monitoring the pressure of gaseous nitrogen leaving one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers, or
when the cooling of the air in the mechanically cooled space by mechanical refrigeration is at the maximum that can be provided by said mechanical refrigeration circuit or is within a preset 90% of that maximum.
Regarding claim 68, Luerken discloses an apparatus for refrigerating a product, said apparatus comprising:
a mechanical refrigeration circuit (the mechanical refrigeration circuit which associated with the compressors 4 and 5 and heat exchangers 21 and 22) that cools air in an enclosure (the cooling chambers 1 and 2) comprising air (see figures 1-2),
one or more supplemental heat exchangers (23) which have an inlet coupled to a source of liquid nitrogen (34) and an outlet coupled to a vent (the nitrogen purge 33) that is open to an external atmosphere outside the apparatus (see figures 1-2), wherein the air cooled by the mechanical refrigeration circuit (the circuit which associated with the compressors 4 and 5 and heat exchangers 21 and 22) and flowing from the enclosure (1 and 2) is further cooled by heat exchange contact with the one or more supplemental heat exchangers (23; see figures 1-2), and
a control mechanism (the control unit 15 and valves 13) for controlling the flow of liquid nitrogen into said one or more supplemental heat exchangers (23) to cool said air, wherein said control mechanism:
i. enables and controls the flow of liquid nitrogen into one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers (23) when the temperature of the atmosphere in the mechanically cooled space that is being cooled by the mechanical refrigeration circuit (the circuit which associated with the compressors 4 and 5 and heat exchangers 21 and 22) is warmer than a set point temperature set by the operator (abstract and paragraph 2 of page 10; see figures 1-2; noted that alternative limitation; this limitation has been addressed), or
ii. enables and controls the flow of liquid nitrogen into one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers by monitoring the pressure of liquid nitrogen flowing from said nitrogen source, or
iii. enables and controls the flow of liquid nitrogen into one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers by monitoring the pressure of gaseous nitrogen leaving one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers, or
iv. enables and controls the flow of liquid nitrogen into one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers by monitoring the pressure of liquid nitrogen flowing from said nitrogen source and monitoring the pressure of gaseous nitrogen leaving one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers, or
v. enables said flow when it senses that the temperature of the atmosphere in the enclosure is higher than a temperature that corresponds to the cooling provided by said mechanical refrigeration circuit being within 90% of said maximum.
Regarding claim 70, Luerken discloses the apparatus further comprises a supplemental impeller (a fan 24) for said one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers (23) for circulating air from and to the enclosure (1 and 2; see figure 1-2).
Regarding claim 71, Luerken discloses the apparatus containing at least one modular cooling unit containing one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers (23), an air-supply subunit having one or more supplemental impellers (the fans 24), an air return subunit (the columns 25), and a control subunit (sensors 26; see figure 2).
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.
Claim(s) 65 and 72-74 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luerken in view of Jurewicz et al. (5,921,090).
Regarding claim 65, Luerken fails to disclose the added supplemental refrigeration system further comprises a mechanism configured to melt ice that has formed on the surface of one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers.
Jurewicz teaches a control method for a cryogenic refrigeration system comprising a supplemental refrigeration system (the system which associated with cryogenic tank 5, heat exchangers 23, a valve 10 and a vaporizer and superheater device 48) further comprises a mechanism (48) configured to melt ice (defrost the coils 23 implies of melting ice) that has formed on the surface of one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers (23; Col. 6, lines 47-61; see figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate a vaporizer and a superheater device as taught by Jurewicz in order to perform defrost operation on the nitrogen heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 72, Luerken discloses a method of refrigerating a product, the method comprises:
providing the product in an enclosure (the cooling chamber 1 and 2) that contains air (see figures 1-2),
operating a mechanical refrigeration unit (the circuit which associated with the compressors 4 and 5 and heat exchangers 21 and 22) up to a maximum refrigeration capacity that can be provided by said mechanical refrigeration unit (it is understood to one having ordinary skill in the art that the refrigeration unit of Luerken is capable of operating up to a maximum refrigeration capacity) or is within a preset percentage below said maximum refrigeration capacity (noted that alternative limitation; the maximum capacity limitation has been addressed) to cool said air (see figures 1-2), and
operating a supplemental refrigeration system (the supplemental refrigeration system which associated with the nitrogen tank 34, the nitrogen heat exchanger 23, the nitrogen valves 13 and nitrogen purge 33) comprising one or more supplemental heat exchangers (23), in concert with, but separately from, said mechanical refrigeration unit (the circuit which associated with the compressors 4 and 5 and heat exchangers 21 and 22) to provide additional refrigeration capacity to further cool said air (see figures 1-2),
wherein said additional refrigeration capacity (the capacity of the additional refrigeration system) is provided by controllably flowing liquid nitrogen from a source of liquid nitrogen (34) into one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers (23; see figures 1-2):
when the temperature of the air cooled by the mechanical refrigeration unit (the circuit which associated with the compressors 4 and 5 and heat exchangers 21 and 22) is warmer than a set point temperature set by the operator (abstract and paragraph 2 of page 10; see figures 1-2; noted that alternative limitation; this limitation has been addressed), or
ii. when the cooling of the air by the mechanical refrigeration unit is at the maximum refrigeration capacity that can be provided by said mechanical refrigeration unit or is within a preset 90% of that maximum refrigeration capacity, and
adjusting the additional refrigeration capacity (the control unit 15 and nitrogen valves 13 adjusting the additional refrigeration capacity of the additional refrigeration system) by:
controlling the flow of liquid nitrogen into one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers by monitoring the pressure of liquid nitrogen flowing from said nitrogen source, or
controlling the flow of liquid nitrogen into one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers (23) and leaving one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers (23; see figures 1-2; noted that alternative limitation; the pressure of nitrogen leaving the supplemental heat exchanger has been addressed), or
controlling the flow of liquid nitrogen into one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers by monitoring the pressure of liquid nitrogen flowing from said nitrogen source and monitoring the pressure of gaseous nitrogen leaving one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers.
However, Luerken fails to disclose adjusting the additional refrigeration capacity by controlling the flow of liquid nitrogen into one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers by monitoring the pressure of gaseous nitrogen leaving one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers.
Jurewicz teaches a control method for a cryogenic refrigeration system comprising adjusting the additional refrigeration capacity (the CPU 80, the valve 10 and the pressure sensor 88 of the refrigeration system adjusting the additional refrigeration capacity) by controlling the flow of liquid nitrogen into one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers (23) by monitoring the pressure of gaseous nitrogen (the coil outlet pressure sensor 88 monitoring pressure of the cryogen) leaving one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers (23; Col. 5, lines 51-61; see figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Luerken to incorporate a pressure sensor as taught by Jurewicz such that the nitrogen valves 13 of Luerken is controlled based on the monitored the pressure of the gaseous nitrogen leaving the one or more supplemental heat exchanger thus, improve the regulation or adjustment accuracy of the nitrogen flow in the supplemental refrigeration system.
Regarding claim 73, Luerken discloses the method further comprises: routing the nitrogen leaving said supplemental heat exchanger (23) to a vent (33) that is open to an external atmosphere (see figures 1-2), and flowing the liquid nitrogen from said source of liquid nitrogen (34) into the inlet of said supplemental heat exchanger (23; see figures 1-2), or
routing the nitrogen leaving said supplemental heat exchanger to a recycle line which is in fluid communication with the inlet of said supplemental heat exchanger, and not to the vent, and flowing said nitrogen in the recycle line after heating and not the liquid nitrogen from said source thereof into the inlet of said supplemental heat exchanger, wherein said heated nitrogen flows repeatedly through said recycle line into said supplemental heat exchanger and melts ice formed on a surface of said supplemental heat exchanger (noted that alternative limitation; the first limitation has been addressed).
However, Luerken fails to disclose a recycle line.
Jurewicz teaches a control method for a cryogenic refrigeration system comprising a recycling line (the recirculation line which associated with the recirculation valve 40 and the recirculation line 17; see figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Luerken to incorporate a recycling line as taught by Jurewicz in order to recirculate the nitrogen after the supplemental heat exchanger for reheating.
Regarding claim 74, Luerken discloses the supplemental refrigeration system or one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers (23) is either physically attached to the outside of the enclosure and/or uses associated ducts (the heat exchanger column 25; noted that alternative limitation; the ducts limitation has been addressed) to establish fluid communication with the enclosure (the cooling chambers 1 and 2; see figures 1-2).
Claim(s) 66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luerken in view of Golovin et al. (WO0153764A1).
Regarding claim 66, Luerken fails to disclose said modifying the refrigeration apparatus comprises adding means for isolating one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers from said refrigeration apparatus.
Golovin teaches a refrigeration of a food transport vehicle utilizing liquid nitrogen comprising adding means (a louver arrangement 43) for isolating one or more of the supplemental heat exchangers (nitrogen heat exchanger 44; see figures 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the refrigeration apparatus as of Luerken to incorporate a louver arrangement as taught by Golovin in order to provide protection to the nitrogen heat exchanger while ventilating the cooled air between the air and the nitrogen fluid.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 67 and 69 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reference Luerken taken alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed structure detail of the recycling line of the method of modifying a refrigeration apparatus as required in claim 67 and the apparatus for refrigerating a product as required in claim 69. Also, the prior art of record fails to provide further teachings or motivations to modify the system of Luerken in order to arrive the claim invention. Therefore, claims 67 and 69 are currently in allowable condition.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUN KAI MA whose telephone number is (571)-270-3530. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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 Atkisson can be reached on 5712707740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KUN KAI MA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763