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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “coil” (claim 12) and the “conduit” (claim 15) as presented in claim 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“15. The heat pump of claim 12, wherein the condenser comprises a conduit having a predefined number of turns and passes disposed of within the housing and extending through each of the compartments, wherein the conduit is in thermal contact with the condenser coil of each of the compartments and configured to facilitate flow of a working-fluid therethrough.”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 7-11 and 16-20 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 7 recites “the conduit” (two recitations) which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 8 recites “the conduit” and “the working-fluid” which lack antecedent basis.
Claim 9 recites “the motor”, “the working-fluid” and “the conduit” which lack antecedent basis.
Claim 10 recites “the working-fluid” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 11 recites “the working-fluid” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 16 recites “the conduit” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 17 recites “the conduit” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 18 recites “the motor”, “the working-fluid” and “the conduit” which lack antecedent basis.
Claim 19 recites “the working-fluid” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 20 recites “the working-fluid” which lacks antecedent basis.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takada et al (JPS60238650).
Regarding claim 1, Takada discloses a multi-circuit heat pump comprising:
an evaporator (1);
a plurality of condensers (6, 9, and 11) fluidically connected in series (in series relative to the fluid flowing through 13 to 14); and
a plurality of compressor units (4, 8, and 10) configured between the evaporator and the plurality of condensers such that one of the compressor units is fluidically configured between the evaporator and one of the condensers.
Regarding claim 2, Takada discloses each of the compressor units comprises a compressor operatively coupled to a motor (“electric motor which drives a compressor” from machine translation), wherein each of the motors is configured to be independently operated at a predefined speed (motors are understood to be built to some specification, thus their operation speed is predefined insofar as they are operated within their particular specification). Additionally, regarding limitations drawn to independent operation at a predefined speed, the "manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus from the prior art" And “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” MPEP 2114. Absent distinguishing structure, a mere functional limitation is not sufficient to define over the prior art.
Regarding claim 5, Takada discloses at least one of the plurality of condensers is a single-pass heat exchanger (condensers 6, 9, and 11 are illustrated as single pass).
Regarding claim 7, Takada discloses an outlet of the conduit associated with one of the condensers is fluidically connected to an inlet of the conduit associated with the adjacent condenser to connect the plurality of condensers in series (condensers 6, 9, and 11 are in series where the conduit 13 to 14 connects their respective inlets and outlets).
Regarding claim 8, Takada discloses n an outlet of a conduit associated with each of the condensers is adapted to facilitate tapping of a working-fluid from the respective condensers (conduits 15, 16, and 17).
Regarding claim 10, Takada discloses the working-fluid is water and the plurality of condensers is a water-cooled condenser.
PNG
media_image1.png
201
349
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 - human assisted machine translation page 3
Claim(s) 12, 16, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kabushiki (EP0179225).
Regarding claim 12, Kabushki discloses (reference made to figure 16 unless otherwise noted) a multi-circuit heat pump comprising:
an evaporator (188);
a condenser (186) comprising a housing having a plurality of compartments isolated from each other (separated by partitions 190) and arranged in series within the housing, wherein each of the compartments comprises a refrigerant coil (from Merriam-Webster a coil is “a series of connected pipes in rows, layers, or windings” thus the illustrated straight pipes of Kabushki are coils); and
a plurality of compressor units (192a, 192b, and 192c) configured between the evaporator and the plurality of compartments of the condenser such that one of the compressor units is fluidically configured between the evaporator and one of the compartments.
Regarding claim 16, Kabushiki discloses the conduit is adapted to facilitate tapping of the working-fluid from each of the compartments (conduit outlet at “A”)
Regarding claim 17, Kabushiki discloses the condenser comprises one or more partition walls (190) disposed of within the housing to create and isolate the plurality of compartments, wherein the conduit extends through the one or more partition walls.
Regarding claim 19, Kabushiki discloses the working-fluid is water and the condenser is a water-cooled condenser (system is for generation of hot water).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 6, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al (JPS60238650).
Regarding claim 2, in the alternative, as discussed above Takada discloses the compressors include a motor but is silent concerning independent operation and speed. The examiner takes official notice that operating a plurality of compressors independently is old and well known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Takada with independent compressor operation at predefined speed in order to control system capacity.
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Takada discloses the heat pump of claim 1, but lacks that the condensers are multi-pass heat exchangers. The examiner takes official notice that multi-pass heat exchangers are old and well known, such as with a predefined number of turns and passes, e.g. a shell and tube type heat exchanger. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Takada with multi-pass heat exchangers, such as shell and tube heat exchangers, for each condenser in order to increase an amount of heat transfer area.
Regarding claim 11, Takada discloses the heat pump of claim 1, but lacks that the load fluid is air. Takada discloses a “load fluid” and offers water as one example. The examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known to heat air with heat pump condensers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein the working-fluid is air and the plurality of condensers is an air-cooled condenser.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al (JPS60238650) in view of Lifson et al (US 6,694,750).
Regarding claim 3, Takada discloses the heat pump of claim 1, but lacks economizers. Lifson discloses a refrigeration cycle wherein the heat pump comprises a plurality of economizers (130a and 130b), wherein one of the economizers is fluidically configured between the evaporator (128), one of the condensers (124), and the respective compressor (122). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Takada with an economizer for each of the compressors in order to cool the compressor and provide subcooling.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al (JPS60238650) in view of Xiong et al (US 12,292,220).
Regarding claim 9, Takada discloses the heat pump of claim 1, but lacks a controller as claimed. Xiong discloses a heat pump comprising a controller (figure 2) operatively coupled to one or more of the motor of the compressor unit, the evaporator, and the plurality of condensers, wherein the controller is configured to independently operate the motor of the compressor unit (“gradually tun on… compressors”) associated with each of the condensers based on temperature of the working-fluid (comparison of target load step) to be maintained in and tapped from the conduit across each of the condensers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have individually controlled the compressors of Takada, based on working fluid temperature, as taught by Xiong in order to maintain the system within a desired operating temperature range.
Claim(s) 13, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabushiki (EP0179225).
Regarding claim 13, Kabushiki discloses the heat pump of claim 12, but lacks a motor for each compressor. The examiner takes official notice that it is known to control compressors independently with their own motors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Kabushiki with independently controlled compressor motors in order to control system capacity.
Regarding claim 15, Kabushiki discloses the condenser comprises a conduit (connection from 196 to 195, respectively) disposed of within the housing and extending through each of the compartments, wherein the conduit is in thermal contact with the condenser coil of each of the compartments and configured to facilitate flow of a working-fluid therethrough. Kabushiki lacks a plurality of turns and passes. The examiner takes official notice that heat exchangers having plural turns and passes are old and well known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Kabushiki with a plurality of predefined turns and passes in order to increase heat exchange amount.
Regarding claim 20, Kabushiki discloses the heat pump of claim 12, but lacks that the load fluid is air. The examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known to heat air with heat pump condensers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein the working-fluid is air and the plurality of condensers is an air-cooled condenser.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabushiki (EP0179225) in view of Lifson et al (US 6,694,750).
Regarding claim 14, Kabushiki discloses the heat pump of claim 12, but lacks economizers. Lifson discloses a refrigeration cycle wherein the heat pump comprises a plurality of economizers (130a and 130b), wherein one of the economizers is fluidically configured between the evaporator (128), one of the condensers (124), and the respective compressor (122). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Kabushiki with an economizer for each of the compressors in order to cool the compressor and provide subcooling.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabushiki (EP0179225) in view of Xiong et al (US 12,292,220).
Regarding claim 18, Kabushiki discloses the heat pump of claim 12, but lacks a controller as claimed. Xiong discloses a heat pump comprising a controller (figure 2) operatively coupled to one or more of the motor of the compressor unit, the evaporator, and the plurality of condensers, wherein the controller is configured to independently operate the motor of the compressor unit (“gradually tun on… compressors”) associated with each of the condensers based on temperature of the working-fluid (comparison of target load step) to be maintained in and tapped from the conduit across each of the condensers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have individually controlled the compressors of Kabushiki, based on working fluid temperature, as taught by Xiong in order to maintain the system within a desired operating temperature range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Furlan et al (US 2026/0016197) modular chiller pumped economizer
Kim et al (US 9,347,697) economizer arrangement
Wang et al (US 11,162,723) air cooled condensers
Machey et al (US 10,520,235) air cooled condensers
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 PM.
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 at 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799