DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 4-8,10, 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.
With respect to claim 4, in line 2 the claim requires “a base”. It is unclear how this base relates to the base recited in claim 1.
With respect to claim 4 line 5, the claim requires “a high temperature region of the base”. It is unclear how this high temperature region relates to the high temperature region of the base as recited in claim 1.
With respect to claim 4 line 7, the claim requires “an outlet defined proximal to the high temperature region of the base”. It is unclear how this outlet relates to the outlet defined proximal to the high temperature region of the base as recited in claim 1.
With respect to claim 4 line 8, the claim requires “an inlet defined proximal to a low temperature region of the base”. It is unclear how this inlet relates to the inlet defined proximal to the low temperature region of the base as recited in claim 1.
With respect to claim 4 line 9, the claim requires “a low temperature region of the base”. It is unclear how this low temperature region relates to the low temperature region of the base as recited in claim 1.
With respect to claim 4 in line 10, it is unclear how the “at least one evaporator section proximal to the high temperature region” relates to at least one evaporator section proximal to the high temperature region as recited in claim 1.
With respect to claim 4 in line 11, it is unclear how the “at least one condenser section proximal to the low temperature region” relates to at least one condenser section proximal to the low temperature region as recited in claim 1.
With respect to claim 4, in line 12, it is unclear which evaporator section this is referring to.
With respect to claim 4, in line 13, it is unclear which condenser section this is referring to.
With respect to claim 16, in line 4, the claim requires “a heat sink”. It is unclear how this heat sink relates to the heat sink as recited in claim 15.
With respect to claim 16, in line 9, the claim recites the limitation, “the plurality of heat pipes”. There is a lack of antecedent basis in the claims for these terms.
With respect to claim 16, in line 16, the claim recites the limitation, “a base of the heat sink”. It is unclear how this base relates to the heat sink base of claim 15.
Claims 5-8, 10, and 17-20 are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
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;
an expansion valve (20) for expanding a second portion of the condensed refrigerant fluid;
an evaporator (17) for evaporating the expanded second portion of the refrigerant fluid;
the compressor (15), for compressing the evaporated refrigerant vapor from the evaporator and the superheated refrigerant vapor received from the accumulator, and
a heat sink (29) thermally coupled to the VFD (27), the heat sink comprising a supply conduit assembly (36), a discharge conduit assembly (39), and a base (25);
a heat passage (32) defined in the base, the heat passage extending from an outlet (35)) defined proximal to a high temperature region (bottom) of the base towards an inlet (33) defined proximal to a low temperature region of the base (top), the heat passage comprising: at least one evaporator section (lower half of the base) proximal to the high temperature region; and at least one condenser section (top half of the base) proximal to the low temperature region and in fluid communication with the at least one evaporator section. Note that the heat sink is described as an evaporator which implies that the refrigerant will undergo a phase change from a liquid to a vapor while absorbing heat from the electronics. Thus, the heat sink will inherently include a section that can be considered the condenser section which will be before the refrigerant absorbs the heat and is the low temperature section, and another section which can be considered the evaporator section after the heat sink absorbs the heat which will be at a higher temperature section.
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.
Stark further fails to disclose the heat passage being a plurality of heat passages. However, it is noted that the only difference between Stark and Applicant’s claimed invention is providing the heat passage in duplicate. There is no evidence of record that providing a duplicate heat passage would do anything more that produce predictable results (i.e. cool multiple electronic modules that require cooling). 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 such that the heat passage was a plurality of heat passages, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark, hereinafter as modified.
In reference to claim 21, Stark as modified discloses the claimed invention.
A refrigerant circuit for cooling a Variable Frequency Drive (27) unit of an air conditioning system, the refrigerant circuit comprising:
a heat sink (29) thermally coupled to the VFD (27), the heat sink comprising a supply conduit assembly (36), a discharge conduit assembly (39), and a base (25);
a heat passage (32) defined in the base, the heat passage extending from an outlet (35)) defined proximal to a high temperature region (bottom) of the base towards an inlet (33) defined proximal to a low temperature region of the base (top), the heat passage comprising: at least one evaporator section (lower half of the base) proximal to the high temperature region; and at least one condenser section (top half of the base) proximal to the low temperature region and in fluid communication with the at least one evaporator section. Note that the heat sink is described as an evaporator which implies that the refrigerant will undergo a phase change from a liquid to a vapor while absorbing heat from the electronics. Thus, the heat sink will inherently include a section that can be considered the condenser section which will be before the refrigerant absorbs the heat and is the low temperature section, and another section which can be considered the evaporator section after the heat sink absorbs the heat which will be at a higher temperature section.
Stark fails to disclose the heat passage being a plurality of heat passages. However, it is noted that the only difference between Stark and Applicant’s claimed invention is providing the heat passage in duplicate. There is no evidence of record that providing a duplicate heat passage would do anything more that produce predictable results (i.e. cool multiple electronic modules that require cooling). 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 such that the heat passage was a plurality of heat passages, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 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.
Claims 4-8,10, and 16-20 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.
Response to Arguments
It is noted that the amendment to claims 1 and 15 did not include all of the subject matter of a claim previously indicated as allowable and are much broader. As such a rejection of claims 1, 2, 15 and 21 are provided herewith to illustrate how the prior art meet the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights