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 Objections
Claim 16 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Since claim 16 requires dependency upon claim 15 and claims 3 or 4, the claim is of improper form. Accordingly, claim 16 has not been further treated on the merits. Further, since claims 17-20 are being interpreted to depend from claim 16 (see rejection of claims 17-20 under 35 USC 112(b) below), claims 17-20 are also not being further treated on the merits.
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.
Claims 5-10 and 17-20 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 5 recites the limitations, “the supply conduit” in line 1, and "the plurality of heat pipes" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. However, claim 4 does provide antecedent basis for the terms. Accordingly, it is unclear if claim 5 was meant to be dependent upon claim 4. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if claim 5 depended from claim 4.
Claim 6 recites the limitations, “the discharge conduit assembly” in line 1, and “the plurality of heat pipes” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. However, claim 4 does provide antecedent basis for the terms. Accordingly, it is unclear if claim 6 was meant to be dependent upon claim 4. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if claim 6 depended from claim 4.
Claim 7 recites the limitations, “the plurality of heat passages” in line 5 “the plurality of heat pipes” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. However, claim 4 does provide antecedent basis for the terms. Accordingly, it is unclear if claim 7 was meant to be dependent upon claim 4. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if claim 7 depended from claim 4.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the first diverter element” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. However, claim 5 does provide antecedent basis for the term. Accordingly, it is unclear if claim 8 was meant to be dependent upon claim 5. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if claim 8 depended from claim 5.
Claim 9 recites the limitation, “an accumulator”. However, claim 9 ultimately depends from claim 1 which includes an accumulator. Accordingly, it is unclear if accumulator of claim 9 is the same as or in addition to the accumulator of claim 1, For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “the accumulator”.
Claim 10 is also rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claims 17-20 recite numerous limitations which lack antecedent basis in the claims. For example, in claim 17, “the base”, “the housing” and “the first face” all lack antecedent basis in the claims. Similar antecedent basis issue exists in claims 18-20. However, claim 16 which attempts to claim priority to claims 3 and 4 would provide antecedent basis for all of the limitations of claims 17-20. Accordingly, it is unclear if the dependency upon claim 15 is a typographical error and was meant to be dependent upon claim 16, or perhaps claims 3 or 4 or some combination thereof, or if the claimed limitations are to be separately included. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claims as if they depended from claim 16 and due to the confusing dependency of the multiple dependent claims and antecedent basis issues, are not being further treated on their merits until the dependency is confirmed and corrected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,116,040 to Stark, hereinafter referred to as Stark, in view of US 2022/0011028 to Koike et al., hereinafter referred to as Koike.
In reference to claims 1 and 15, Stark and Koike disclose the claimed invention.
Stark discloses a refrigerant circuit (see figure 3) for cooling a Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) unit (25) of an air conditioning system, the refrigerant circuit comprising:
a condenser (13) for condensing refrigerant vapor;
a heat sink (29) comprising a supply conduit (36) assembly and a discharge conduit (39) assembly, wherein the supply conduit assembly is adapted to receive a first portion of a subcooled refrigerant fluid from the condenser (13) and the discharge conduit assembly is adapted to discharge a superheated refrigerant vapor (towards 20), wherein the subcooled refrigerant fluid transitions to the superheated refrigerant vapor upon absorbing heat from the VFD unit thermally coupled to the heat sink;
the accumulator adapted to supply the superheated refrigerant vapor to a compressor;
an expansion valve for expanding a second portion of the condensed refrigerant fluid;
an evaporator for evaporating the expanded second portion of the refrigerant fluid; and
the compressor, for compressing the evaporated refrigerant vapor from the evaporator and the superheated refrigerant vapor received from the accumulator.
It should be noted that the claim does not further specify, define, or limit what, if any, additional structure is required in order to be “adapted to receive a first portion of a subcooled refrigerant fluid from the condenser”, and “adapted to discharge a superheated refrigerant vapor, wherein the subcooled refrigerant fluid transitions to the superheated refrigerant vapor upon absorbing heat from the VFD unit thermally coupled to the heat sink.” beyond that previously recited, of which Stark includes, as detailed above. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, see MPEP 2114 (II). Since the device of Stark is capable of receiving a first portion of a subcooled refrigerant fluid from the condenser, and capable of discharging a superheated refrigerant vapor, wherein the subcooled refrigerant fluid transitions to the superheated refrigerant vapor upon absorbing heat from the VFD unit thermally coupled to the heat sink, the device of Stark meets the claimed limitations of being adapted to do so.
Stark fails to disclose discharging the superheated refrigerant vapor to an accumulator, the accumulator adapted to supply the superheated refrigerant vapor to a compressor.
Koike teaches that in the art of refrigeration cycle device which employ a cooler (603) for cooling electronic components (118), that it is a known method to discharge the fluid from the cooler into an accumulator (104), the accumulator adapted to supply the superheated refrigerant vapor to a compressor (101) to separate liquid refrigerant and gas refrigerant from each other and a function of storing excess refrigerant therein [0027]. This is strong evidence that modifying Stark as claimed would produce predictable results. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Stark by Koike such that the superheated refrigerant vapor was discharged to an accumulator the accumulator adapted to supply the superheated refrigerant vapor to a compressor, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of separating liquid refrigerant and gas refrigerant from each other and storing excess refrigerant therein.
In reference to claim 2, Stark and Koike disclose the claimed invention.
Stark discloses at least one valve (40) for selectively allowing flow of the first portion of the subcooled refrigerant fluid to the heat sink.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, and 11-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSEY D BAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 10AM-8PM (ET).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CASSEY D BAUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763