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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. One of the following titles is suggested:
HEAT EXCHANGER DISPOSITION IN CRYOCOOLER COMPRESSOR, or
HEAT EXCHANGER ARRANGEMENT IN CRYOCOOLER COMPRESSOR.
The disclosure is objected to because of informalities:
The typographical error in the following is underlined, “ . . . the cryocooler is usually provided with a heat exchanger the cools the compressor.” (paragraph 6). A suggested replacement is underlined, “ . . . the cryocooler is usually provided with a heat exchanger that cools the compressor.” (paragraph 6).
The following omits a word between the underlined, “. . . the heat exchanger may be one of obstacles.” (paragraph 6). A suggested addition is underlined, “. . . the heat exchanger may be one of many obstacles.” (paragraph 6).
In the following sentence, oil outlet 58b and oil inlet 58a omit their respective reference numbers (but their respective structures are shown in Fig. 1), “The oil circulation line 20 connects an oil outlet to an oil inlet of the compressor main body 16 . . . .” (paragraph 22). Suggested additions are underlined, “The oil circulation line 20 connects an oil outlet 58b to an oil inlet 58a of the compressor main body 16 . . . .” (paragraph 22).
Fig. 4 is not a schematic perspective view, but Fig. 3 is. The following is therefore incorrect, “Fig. 4 is a schematic perspective view showing the disposition of the devices inside the compressor 12 according to the embodiment.” (paragraph 29). A suggested change is underlined, “Fig. 3 is a schematic perspective view showing the disposition of the devices inside the compressor 12 according to the embodiment.” (paragraph 29).
The underlined oil inlet omits reference number 58a, “The oil outlet 58b is connected to the oil inlet of the compressor main body 16, and the cooled oil is returned to the compressor main body 16” (paragraph 41). A suggested addition is underlined, “The oil outlet 58b is connected to the oil inlet 58a of the compressor main body 16, and the cooled oil is returned to the compressor main body 16” (paragraph 41).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1–7 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.
With respect to claim 1, type in “double pipe-type heat exchanger” renders double pipe heat exchanger indefinite. Addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression (e.g. Friedel-Crafts catalyst) extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(E). For purposes of this office communication, “double pipe heat exchanger” replaces “double pipe-type heat exchanger.”
With respect to claims 2–7, they are rejected because they depend on base claim 1.
With respect to claim 7, type in “double pipe-type heat exchanger” renders double pipe heat exchanger indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(E).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semura (US 20200284486 A1), in view of Hislop et al. (US 20080210413 A1) and Swanson (US 20180106484 A1).
In reference to claim 1, Semura, Hislop, and Swanson teach or disclose the claimed invention.
Semura discloses a cryocooler compressor (16) comprising: a compressor casing (38); and a heat exchanger (34, 36) that is accommodated in the compressor casing (38) and that cools the compressor (16). (paragraph 31, 34; Fig. 1). In addition to Semura disclosing that the heat exchanger cools the compressor, Semura discloses that the heat exchanger cools refrigerant flowing out of the compressor. (paragraph 28, 34; Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
448
821
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Semura.
Semura fails to disclose a double pipe heat exchanger.
Hislop teaches a double pipe heat exchanger. (paragraph 42–43, 103, 106, 126; Figs. 7A–7B). Hislop teaches that a double pipe heat exchanger is suitable in “cryogenics devices,” amongst others, and that it provides an increase in heat transfer surface area and porosity for given hydraulic radii, and that in turn reduces volume, weight, and cost compared with other heat exchanger types. (paragraph 2–3, 5, 42–43, 126).
[0126] Although illustrative embodiments of the invention have been described in detail herein with reference to the accompanying drawings, it is to be understood that the invention is not limited to those precise embodiments, and that various changes and modifications can be effected therein by one skilled in the art without departing from the scope of the invention as defined by the appended claims. In particular, the invention also relates to reformers, reactors, combustors and any combination of them, and is particularly relevant where reducing size, weight, and/or use of materials, and improving reaction and/or heat transfer efficiency is important, or where high temperatures and/or pressures apply. Applications extend beyond Stirling engines, for example, to quasi-Stirling cycle machines, Brayton cycle machines, boilers, water or other fluid heaters, fuel cells, vaporizers, cryogenics devices, cooling devices, air conditioners and refrigerators, and devices for use in chemical, pharmaceutical and related processes. In general terms the invention applies to any machine or process which requires heat exchange, reforming, reaction or combustion.
(paragraph 126).
PNG
media_image2.png
437
492
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figs. 7A–7B of Hislop.
One skilled in the art would have understood that these advantages would also be provided to a cryocooler. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, in view of Hislop, to modify Semura by selecting a double pipe heat exchanger.
Swanson discloses a compressor (12) comprising: a compressor casing (28, 30, 32, 44, 36, 66; paragraph 7, 35, 66, 71; Figs. 16–19, 30); and a heat exchanger (16) that is accommodated in the compressor casing. Swanson also implicitly discloses that the heat exchanger is disposed along a surface of the compressor casing. (paragraph 22, 34; Figs. 1–6, 32).
PNG
media_image3.png
651
779
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Swanson.
PNG
media_image4.png
861
909
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 30 of Swanson.
PNG
media_image5.png
482
602
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 32 of Swanson.
Swanson and the present application are in analogous arts because both address arrangement of a compressor and heat exchanger, to maximize efficient use of space within a given compressor casing, or, to miniaturize a compressor casing for a given cooling system’s performance or efficiency. (paragraph 3–6, 34; Figs. 1–6, 32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Semura, that discloses all limitations of claim 1 except that the heat exchanger is of the variety “double pipe” and disposed along a surface of the compressor casing, with Hislop, because Hislop (paragraph 2–3, 5, 42–43, 126) teaches that: double pipe heat exchangers are suitable in cryogenics applications and a person of ordinary skill would have recognized the benefits of a double pipe heat exchanger in a cryocooler; or, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to select a double pipe heat exchanger simply to reduce its footprint for a given heat exchanger performance or efficiency. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to dispose the double pipe heat exchanger along a surface of the compressor casing because (A) such a disposition is commonplace in analogous art seeking to miniaturize compressor casings that comprise a compressor and heat exchanger, for a given cooling efficiency or performance (Swanson paragraph 3–5); (B) Swanson designed an arrangement of assemblies (including a compressor and heat exchanger) to maximize the efficient use of available space within a compressor casing for a given cooler performance or efficiency (paragraph 34), and Swanson’s arrangement shows disposition of the heat exchanger along a surface of the compressor casing (Figs. 1–6, 32); or (C) a person of ordinary skill would have known that a compressor casing surface is typically exposed to a cooler temperature than the interior of a compressor casing (that is warmer due to the operating compressor) and thus would have been motivated to dispose a heat exchanger along the surface such that the surface cools the heat exchanger.
With respect to claim 6, neither Semura nor Hislop disclose a compressor casing that includes a back surface but Fig. 32 of Swanson does: the left most surface of the structure labeled “back plate.” Because it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to arrange assemblies according to the combination of references to reject claim 1, then this would have resulted in a compressor casing that includes a back surface.
Claims 2–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semura, in view of Hislop and Swanson, as applied supra, and in further view of Kim et al. (US 20150000328 A1).
With respect to claim 2, neither Semura, Hislop, nor Swanson disclose a heat exchanger pipe that is spirally bent along a surface. Kim does.
Kim discloses a compressor casing (50) comprising a compressor (10) and a heat exchanger (100). (paragraph 6, 44; Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image6.png
865
567
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Kim.
Kim also teaches a heat exchanger pipe that is spirally bent along a surface (paragraph 56, “first direction ‘W1’ may include a direction having a spiral shape on a plurality of virtual surfaces [P1, P2, etc.]”), and that the spiral reduces the footprint of a heat exchanger for a given heat exchanger efficiency or performance. (paragraph 7–8, 10–13, 27, 35, 48–49, 54, 56; Figs. 5, 7). Kim and the present application are thus analogous art because both arrange, within a compressor casing, heat exchanger pipe to reduce the footprint of a heat exchanger for a given heat exchanger efficiency or performance. (paragraph 7–8, 10–13, 27, 35, 48–49, 54–56; Figs. 5, 7).
PNG
media_image7.png
783
886
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5 of Kim.
PNG
media_image8.png
568
504
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 7 of Kim.
Therefore, as to claim 2, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, in view of Kim, to spirally bend heat exchanger pipe to reduce the footprint of the heat exchanger for a given heat exchanger efficiency or performance.
With respect to claim 3, neither Semura, Hislop, nor Swanson disclose a heat exchanger pipe disposed to leave a space at a center portion of a surface. Kim does.
Fig. 7 of Kim shows a space at a center portion of the spiraled pipe in the area bounded by an semi-opaque dotted line (annotation). And because it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to arrange the pipe according to the combination of references to reject claim 2, then this would have resulted in a space at a center portion of the surface of the compressor casing.
With respect to claim 4, neither Semura, Hislop, nor Swanson disclose a heat exchanger pipe bent along two adjacent sides of a surface. Kim does.
Figs. 5 and 7 of Kim disclose a heat exchanger pipe that is bent along two adjacent sides of a virtual surface. (paragraph 54–56). And because it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to arrange the pipe according to the combination of references to reject claim 1, then this would have resulted in a heat exchanger pipe bent along at least two adjacent sides of a surface of the compressor casing.
With respect to claim 5, neither Semura, Hislop, nor Swanson disclose a heat exchanger pipe disposed to leave a space at a center portion of a surface. Kim does (similarly to the reason above, with respect to claim 3). Fig. 7 of Kim shows a space at a center portion of the spiraled pipe in the area bounded by a semi-opaque dotted line (annotation). Because it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to arrange the pipe according to the combination of references to reject claim 4, then this would have resulted in a space at a center portion of the surface of the compressor casing.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semura, in view of Hislop and Swanson, as applied supra, and in further view of Gull (WO 2016168191 A1).
With respect to claim 7, neither Semura, Hislop, nor Swanson disclose either a back outer frame to surround a back surface and to support pipe, or a removable back panel. Gull, however, implicitly discloses a back outer frame to surround a back surface and support pipe, and implicitly discloses a removable back panel.
Gull and the present application are in analogous arts because both address supporting pipes that are in a casing. (paragraph 6–7). Gull also discloses that it is well known that pipe supports (“radiant tube coil supports 24”) affixed to “support columns or beams 26,” that are on the exterior of the casing, allow the pipe supports to support heavier pipes (than if the pipe supports were not affixed to “support columns or beams 26”). (paragraph 6–7; Figs. 1A–1D). Similarly, Gull also discloses pipe supports (50, 70) that are mounted to an external frame (60) and that support pipe (22). (paragraph 36–37; Figs. 3A and 3B). Gull teaches that a person of ordinary skill considers the size of pipe to determine distance between pipe supports. (paragraph 6–7; Figs. 1A–1D).
PNG
media_image9.png
764
567
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figs. 1A–1D of Gull.
Moreover, Gull discloses that support frame assemblies (60) can be “affixed vertically (as depicted in Fig. 8A) or horizontally (as depicted in Fig. 8B) on the outside of the heater casing,” and that “radiant tube coil supports” (50, 70) support pipe (22). (paragraph 43; Figs. 8A–8B).
PNG
media_image10.png
761
577
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figs. 8A and 8B of Gull.
Gull goes on to teach motivation to inspect pipe and its supports from outside these assemblies’ casing. (paragraph 10–11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine vertical and horizontal “support frame assemblies” in Figs. 8A–8B of Gull to create a frame that surrounds a surface along which heat exchanger pipe is disposed, for the benefit of an increase in the number of pipe supports (“tube keeper[s]” and “tube support[s]” in Figs. 8A–8B or, “radiant tube coil supports” in Figs. 1A–1D of Gull) that would have thereby increased the support for pipe disposed along a surface of the compressor casing (as compared to only vertical or only horizontal “support frame assemblies”). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine vertical and horizontal “support frame assemblies” because, as Gull teaches, a person of ordinary skill would have adapted “support frame assemblies” and pipe supports (“tube keeper[s]” and “tube supports,” or “radiant tube coil supports”) attached thereon to result in suitably spaced pipe supports according to the “size of tube being supported, and as dictated by applicable codes and specifications.” (paragraph 7). Finally, unlike the casing in Gull designed to minimize interruptions in its insulation lining (paragraph 29), here maximally retaining heat in the compressor casing and pipes would have been antithetical to cooling the compressor or refrigerant. Thus, in place of a maximally uninterrupted insulation lining of the compressor casing that comprises fixed panels, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to select a removable panel attached to the frame because one of ordinary skill would have known that a removable panel, as opposed to a fixed panel, would have facilitated access to, and inspection of assemblies inside a compressor casing.
Conclusion
The following prior art is not relied upon in this office communication and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Geiger et al. (US 6434972 B1) for claims 1–3,
Ootani (WO 2022181296 A1) for claim 1,
Klusmier (US 4693736 A) for claim 1,
Oyama (US 20200400356 A1) for claim 1,
Bushnell et al. (US 6425256 B1) for claim 1,
Thompson et al. (US 5222374 A) for claim 1,
da Silva (US 6205804 B1) for claim 1,
Kennedy (US 4742691 A) for claims 2–3,
Dowell et al. (US 20160348988 A1) for claims 1–5,
Hori et al. (JP 2012242054 A) for claims 1–5,
Haugen (US 2805648 A) for claim 7,
Kakar et al. (US 20240307931 A1) for claim 7, and
Hjelmeland et al. (NO 344796 B1) for claim 7.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ENRICO MIOTTO whose telephone number is (571) 272-2650. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 a.m. - 5 p.m.
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.
/ENRICO MIOTTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/CASSEY D BAUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763