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 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 1: “The apparatus of claim 1 where” should read “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11, 19, and 23-24 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 11 recites the limitation "the refrigerant condenser" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing, “the refrigerant condenser" in line 1 of claim 11 to “the condenser” which is given proper antecedent basis in claim 1 from which claim 11 depends. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the refrigerant condenser and the condenser to be the same components.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the refrigerant compressor" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing, “the refrigerant compressor " in line 3 of claim 19 to “the compressor” which is given proper antecedent basis in claim 12 from which claim 19 depends. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the refrigerant compressor and the compressor to be the same components.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the refrigerant condenser" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing, “the refrigerant condenser" in line 3 of claim 19 to “the condenser” which is given proper antecedent basis in claim 12 from which claim 19 depends. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the refrigerant condenser and the condenser to be the same components.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the refrigerant receiver" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing, “the refrigerant receiver " in line 3 of claim 19 to “a refrigerant condenser”.
Claim 23, lines 4-6 recite, “wherein the at least one pressure gauge sensor is configured to obtain a measured reading of refrigerant pressure, obtains the measured pressure reading from the pressure gauge sensor” which is unclear to the Examiner as the recitation of “obtains the measured pressure reading from the pressure gauge sensor” appears to me missing a link to the controller. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read as follows, “wherein the at least one pressure gauge sensor is configured to obtain a measured reading of refrigerant pressure, wherein the controller obtains the measured pressure reading from the pressure gauge sensor”. The Examiner recommends amending the claim as interpreted herein.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the compressed refrigerant cooling system" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing, “the compressed refrigerant cooling system " in line 1 of claim 24 to “the cooling system” which is given proper antecedent basis in claim 12 from which claim 24 depends. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the compressed refrigerant cooling system and the cooling system to be the same components.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/095,565 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the at least one stepper motor needle valve of the instant application and the at least one variable interface refrigerant flow controller of the reference application are both expansion valves that serve the same purpose of throttling a refrigerant for introduction into an evaporator.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 16 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of copending Application No. 19/095,565 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the at least one stepper motor needle valve of the instant application and the at least one variable interface refrigerant flow controller of the reference application are both expansion valves that serve the same purpose of throttling a refrigerant for introduction into an evaporator.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 17 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of copending Application No. 19/095,565 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the at least one stepper motor needle valve of the instant application and the at least one variable interface refrigerant flow controller of the reference application are both expansion valves that serve the same purpose of throttling a refrigerant for introduction into an evaporator.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 20 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of copending Application No. 19/095,565 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the at least one stepper motor needle valve of the instant application and the at least one variable interface refrigerant flow controller of the reference application are both expansion valves that serve the same purpose of throttling a refrigerant for introduction into an evaporator.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 3, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia (US Patent No. 7,342,787), hereinafter Bhatia in view of Wada et al. (US Patent No. 11,473,821), hereinafter Wada and Campbell et al. (US Patent No. 8,899,052), hereinafter Campbell.
Regarding claim 1, Bhatia discloses a cooling apparatus (Fig. 4c, heat dispersal unit 403b; Col. 4, lines 15-16, FIGS. 4a, 4b, 4c, and 4d illustrate embodiments of remote vapor compression systems) comprising:
a compressor (Fig. 4c, compressor 221);
a condenser connected downstream of the compressor (Fig. 4c of Bhatia depicts condenser 231 disposed downstream of the compressor 221);
at least one puck assembly including an evaporator and a thermoelectric module (Fig. 4c, evaporator 225, TEM 457, thermo conductive plate 403, heat pipe 107; Col. 4, lines 31-37, In some embodiments, as seen in FIGS. 4c and 4d, a TEM (e.g., TEM 457 and/or TEM 459) may be used. In some embodiments, a TEM 457 may be used between a thermo conductive plate 403 and the evaporator 225 (e.g., the cool side of the TEM 457 may be in thermal contact with the thermo conductive plate 403 and the warm side of the TEM 457 may be in thermal contact with the evaporator 225)).
However, Bhatia does not disclose the cooling apparatus comprising:
a receiver; and
the condenser connected between the compressor and the receiver.
Wada teaches the cooling apparatus (Fig. 2; Col. 2, lines 48-50, FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating the configuration of a refrigerant circuit in the refrigeration cycle apparatus according to the first embodiment) comprising:
a receiver (Fig. 2, high-pressure receiver 204); and
the condenser connected between the compressor and the receiver (Fig. 2 of Wada depicts the outdoor heat exchanger 203, which functions as the condenser in the cooling mode, to be connected between the compressor 201 and the high-pressure receiver 204).
Bhatia fails to teach the cooling apparatus comprising a receiver; and the condenser connected between the compressor and the receiver, however Wada teaches that it is a known method in the art of vapor compression cycles to include the cooling apparatus comprising a receiver; and the condenser connected between the compressor and the receiver. This is strong evidence that modifying Bhatia as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. ensuring only liquid phase refrigerant reaches the expansion valve to improve overall system efficiencies). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhatia by Wada and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of ensuring only liquid phase refrigerant reaches the expansion valve to improve overall system efficiencies.
Further, Bhatia as modified does not disclose the cooling apparatus comprising:
a controller operatively coupled to the at least one puck assembly.
Campbell teaches the cooling apparatus (Fig. 8, cooled electronic system 400') comprising:
a controller operatively coupled to the at least one puck assembly, a temperature sensor, and a pressure sensor (Fig. 8, controller 460, temperature sensor TR, pressure sensor PR; Col. 12, lines 41-59, FIG. 8 depicts an alternate embodiment of a cooled electronic system 400' similar to that described above in connection with FIG. 4. As an enhancement, however, sensors are provided for ascertaining refrigerant temperature (TR) and refrigerant pressure (PR) within the refrigerant loop 415, for example, at an inlet of compressor 420. As illustrated, controller 460 monitors the temperature and pressure sensors readings. One embodiment of a further control process for the system of FIG. 8 is depicted in FIG. 9. In the exemplary control process of FIG. 9, measurements of refrigerant temperature and refrigerant pressure, for example, at the inlet of the compressor are used to control the mode and amount of heat delivered or extracted by the controllable thermoelectric array to the refrigerant. This heat load control is advantageously tailored to ensure (in one embodiment) that superheated vapor is received at the compressor, which in turn advantageously results in the elimination of the use of any adjustable expansion valve(s), which might otherwise be used, and be susceptible to fouling).
Bhatia as modified fails to teach the cooling apparatus comprising a controller operatively coupled to the at least one puck assembly, however Campbell teaches that it is a known method in the art of hybrid vapor compression thermoelectric systems to include the cooling apparatus comprising a controller operatively coupled to the at least one puck assembly, a temperature sensor, and a pressure sensor. This is strong evidence that modifying Bhatia as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. controlling the mode and amount of heat delivered or extracted by the controllable thermoelectric array to the refrigerant to improve overall system efficiencies (Campbell, Col. 12, lines 52-59)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhatia as modified by Campbell and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of controlling the mode and amount of heat delivered or extracted by the controllable thermoelectric array to the refrigerant to improve overall system efficiencies (Campbell, Col. 12, lines 52-59).
Regarding claim 3, Bhatia as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the thermoelectric module of the at least one puck assembly is further connected to a heat source (Bhatia, Fig. 4c, evaporator 225, TEM 457, thermo conductive plate 403, heat pipe 107; Col. 4, lines 31-37, In some embodiments, as seen in FIGS. 4c and 4d, a TEM (e.g., TEM 457 and/or TEM 459) may be used. In some embodiments, a TEM 457 may be used between a thermo conductive plate 403 and the evaporator 225 (e.g., the cool side of the TEM 457 may be in thermal contact with the thermo conductive plate 403 and the warm side of the TEM 457 may be in thermal contact with the evaporator 225)).
Regarding claim 7, Bhatia as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the controller is integrated into an electronic device and managed via the electronic device (Campbell, Fig. 8, controller 460, temperature sensor TR, pressure sensor PR; Col. 12, lines 41-59, FIG. 8 depicts an alternate embodiment of a cooled electronic system 400' similar to that described above in connection with FIG. 4. As an enhancement, however, sensors are provided for ascertaining refrigerant temperature (TR) and refrigerant pressure (PR) within the refrigerant loop 415, for example, at an inlet of compressor 420. As illustrated, controller 460 monitors the temperature and pressure sensors readings. One embodiment of a further control process for the system of FIG. 8 is depicted in FIG. 9. In the exemplary control process of FIG. 9, measurements of refrigerant temperature and refrigerant pressure, for example, at the inlet of the compressor are used to control the mode and amount of heat delivered or extracted by the controllable thermoelectric array to the refrigerant. This heat load control is advantageously tailored to ensure (in one embodiment) that superheated vapor is received at the compressor, which in turn advantageously results in the elimination of the use of any adjustable expansion valve(s), which might otherwise be used, and be susceptible to fouling; Further, the teachings of Campbell at least imply the controller is integrated into an electronic device and managed via the electronic device since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)). Further, the limitations of claim 7 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Bhatia as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the controller receives readings from at least one thermocouple sensor over a sensor network harness (Campbell, Fig. 8, controller 460, temperature sensor TR, pressure sensor PR, the sensor network harness being interpreted to be the dashed lines connecting between the controller 460 and the temperature sensor TR, pressure sensor PR; Col. 12, lines 41-59, FIG. 8 depicts an alternate embodiment of a cooled electronic system 400' similar to that described above in connection with FIG. 4. As an enhancement, however, sensors are provided for ascertaining refrigerant temperature (TR) and refrigerant pressure (PR) within the refrigerant loop 415, for example, at an inlet of compressor 420. As illustrated, controller 460 monitors the temperature and pressure sensors readings. One embodiment of a further control process for the system of FIG. 8 is depicted in FIG. 9. In the exemplary control process of FIG. 9, measurements of refrigerant temperature and refrigerant pressure, for example, at the inlet of the compressor are used to control the mode and amount of heat delivered or extracted by the controllable thermoelectric array to the refrigerant. This heat load control is advantageously tailored to ensure (in one embodiment) that superheated vapor is received at the compressor, which in turn advantageously results in the elimination of the use of any adjustable expansion valve(s), which might otherwise be used, and be susceptible to fouling). Further, the limitations of claim 8 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Bhatia as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the controller receives readings from at least one pressure gauge sensor over a sensor network harness (Campbell, Fig. 8, controller 460, temperature sensor TR, pressure sensor PR, the sensor network harness being interpreted to be the dashed lines connecting between the controller 460 and the temperature sensor TR, pressure sensor PR; Col. 12, lines 41-59, FIG. 8 depicts an alternate embodiment of a cooled electronic system 400' similar to that described above in connection with FIG. 4. As an enhancement, however, sensors are provided for ascertaining refrigerant temperature (TR) and refrigerant pressure (PR) within the refrigerant loop 415, for example, at an inlet of compressor 420. As illustrated, controller 460 monitors the temperature and pressure sensors readings. One embodiment of a further control process for the system of FIG. 8 is depicted in FIG. 9. In the exemplary control process of FIG. 9, measurements of refrigerant temperature and refrigerant pressure, for example, at the inlet of the compressor are used to control the mode and amount of heat delivered or extracted by the controllable thermoelectric array to the refrigerant. This heat load control is advantageously tailored to ensure (in one embodiment) that superheated vapor is received at the compressor, which in turn advantageously results in the elimination of the use of any adjustable expansion valve(s), which might otherwise be used, and be susceptible to fouling). Further, the limitations of claim 9 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia as modified by Wada and Campbell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goth et al. (US Patent No. 6,923,014), hereinafter Goth.
Regarding claim 2, Bhatia as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising:
an expansion valve (Bhatia, Fig. 4c, expansion valve 227).
However, Bhatia as modified does not disclose the expansion valve to be at least one stepper motor needle valve operatively coupled to the controller.
Goth teaches the expansion valve to be at least one stepper motor needle valve operatively coupled to the controller (Fig. 1, cooling system 100, expansion valve 114, expansion valve 116, controller 120; Col. 1-2, lines 67 and 1-9, A controller 120 provides control signals to expansion valve 114 and expansion valve 116 to control refrigerant flow and pressure drop across each expansion valve. In an exemplary embodiment, expansion valves 114 and 116 includes a stepper motor the responds to control signals from controller 120. The stepper motor opens or closes an orifice in the expansion valve to regulate refrigerant flow and pressure drop. Controller 120 executes a computer program to control the expansion valves 114 and 116).
Bhatia as modified fails to teach the expansion valve to be at least one stepper motor needle valve operatively coupled to the controller, however Goth teaches that it is a known method in the art of vapor compression systems to include the expansion valve to be at least one stepper motor needle valve operatively coupled to the controller. This is strong evidence that modifying Bhatia as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. obtaining desired superheat values to improve overall system efficiencies (Goth, Col. 2, lines 35-34)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhatia as modified by Goth and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of obtaining desired superheat values to improve overall system efficiencies (Goth, Col. 2, lines 35-34).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia as modified by Wada and Campbell as applied to claim 3 and 1 above, respectively, and further in view of Whiteley et al. (WO 2025099453), hereinafter Whiteley.
Regarding claim 4, Bhatia as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 3 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 3 above).
However, Bhatia as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the thermoelectric module and the heat source are separated by a thermally conductive epoxy or a thermally conductive paste.
Whiteley teaches the use of thermal interface material which includes a thermally conductive paste can be used to increase thermal conductivity between either side of a thermoelectric module and a device in thermal communication with the thermoelectric module (Fig. 2a, device 1, heat sink 61, thermal interface material 55, cooling component 41, thermal interface material 50; Pg. 13, lines 3-8, A thermal interface material (or TIM) refers to any material that is inserted between two components in order to enhance the thermal coupling between them. In one embodiment, the heat extraction system comprises a heat sink. It may be a thermal paste, a thermal adhesive, a thermally conductive pad, a thermal tape, a phase-change material, etc. In one instance, the first thermal interface material may include graphene. Other thermal interface materials (e.g. Graphite) could also be used).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling apparatus of Bhatia as modified to include wherein the thermoelectric module and the heat source are separated by a thermally conductive epoxy or a thermally conductive paste as taught by Whitely. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to enhance the thermal coupling between two components (Whiteley, Pg. 13, lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 5, Bhatia as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Bhatia as modified does not explicitly disclose where the evaporator and the thermoelectric module are separated by one of a thermally conductive epoxy or a thermally conductive paste.
Whiteley teaches the use of thermal interface material which includes a thermally conductive paste can be used to increase thermal conductivity between either side of a thermoelectric module and a device in thermal communication with the thermoelectric module (Fig. 2a, device 1, heat sink 61, thermal interface material 55, cooling component 41, thermal interface material 50; Pg. 13, lines 3-8, A thermal interface material (or TIM) refers to any material that is inserted between two components in order to enhance the thermal coupling between them. In one embodiment, the heat extraction system comprises a heat sink. It may be a thermal paste, a thermal adhesive, a thermally conductive pad, a thermal tape, a phase-change material, etc. In one instance, the first thermal interface material may include graphene. Other thermal interface materials (e.g. Graphite) could also be used).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling apparatus of Bhatia as modified to include where the evaporator and the thermoelectric module are separated by one of a thermally conductive epoxy or a thermally conductive paste as taught by Whitely. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to enhance the thermal coupling between two components (Whiteley, Pg. 13, lines 3-4).
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia as modified by Wada and Campbell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Langer et al. (US 20240401857), hereinafter Langer.
Regarding claim 6, Bhatia as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Bhatia as modified does not disclose wherein the controller is further connected to at least one of the compressor, the condenser, and the receiver.
Langer teaches wherein the controller is further connected to the compressor (Fig. 12, cooling system 100, control device 112, compressor motor 118, compressor 206; Pg. 16, paragraph 170, A compression performance, or compression work, of the compressor 102 can be adjusted by changing the rotational speed of a compressor motor 118 (see FIG. 12); Pg. 16, paragraph 173, Furthermore, the control device 112 can detect a motor output in order to control the compressor according to the detected pressure and/or temperature data. The control device 112 can be connected to the sensors by corresponding control lines).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling apparatus of Bhatia as modified wherein the controller is further connected the compressor as taught by Langer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide compressor control based on real-time sensor data to improve overall system efficiencies (Langer, Pg. 16, paragraphs 170 and 173).
Regarding claim 11, Bhatia as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Bhatia as modified does not disclose wherein the refrigerant condenser further comprises a fan assembly.
Langer teaches wherein the refrigerant condenser further comprises a fan assembly (Fig. 12, gas cooler 103, ventilator 206).
Bhatia as modified fails to teach wherein the refrigerant condenser further comprises a fan assembly, however Langer teaches that it is a known method in the art of hybrid vapor compression thermoelectric systems to include wherein the refrigerant condenser further comprises a fan assembly. This is strong evidence that modifying Bhatia as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. removing heat from the system to improve overall system efficiencies). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhatia as modified by Langer and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of removing heat from the system to improve overall system efficiencies.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia as modified by Wada and Campbell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Travers (US 20150068235), hereinafter Travers.
Regarding claim 10, Bhatia as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Bhatia as modified does not disclose wherein the controller receives readings from at least one atmospheric sensor over an atmospheric sensor harness.
Travers teaches wherein the controller receives readings from at least one atmospheric sensor over an atmospheric sensor harness (Fig. 1, refrigerated enclosure 12, inside temperature/humidity (Dewpoint) sensor unit 18, ambient air temperature/humidity (Dewpoint) sensor unit 20, controller 22; Pg. 2, paragraph 18, There is an inside temperature/humidity (dew point) sensor unit 18 inside enclosure 12 and an outside or ambient air temperature/humidity (dew point) sensor unit 20 outside of enclosure 12. Controller 22 is responsive to both inside and ambient sensor units 18 and 20 to control the operation of conventional refrigerator unit 14 and auxiliary ambient air refrigerator unit 16. There may also be a humidifier 24 that may be controlled by controller 22 to keep the humidity within enclosure 12 within a desired range. Controller 22 responds to the sensor units and the indicated dew points of the enclosure and the ambient air and enables the auxiliary refrigerator unit to provide cool ambient air to the enclosure when the temperature inside the enclosure is above a first predetermined temperature, the ambient temperature is less than the temperature inside the enclosure by a predetermined differential temperature and the dew point of the ambient air is matched to the dew point range of the air in the enclosure. Controller 22 also responds to the sensor units 18 and 20 to enable the conventional refrigeration unit when the temperature is at above a second predetermined temperature that is higher than the first predetermined temperature. The dew point range may include a minimum humidity dew point for the enclosure, in which case the auxiliary refrigeration unit will not be enabled if the dew point of the air inside the enclosure is below that minimum dew point and the dew point of the ambient air is not higher than the dew point of the air inside the enclosure. The dew point range may include a maximum humidity dew point and the auxiliary refrigeration unit in that case will not be enabled if the dew point of the air inside the enclosure is above that maximum dew point and the dew point of the ambient air is not lower than the dew point of the air inside the enclosure. Sensor units 18 and 20 may include a temperature sensor and a humidity sensor from which controller 22 calculates the dew point. Or the temperature humidity sensors 18 and 20 may actually include a dew point meter to directly provide the dew point to controller 22).
Bhatia as modified fails to teach wherein the controller receives readings from at least one atmospheric sensor over an atmospheric sensor harness, however Travers teaches that it is a known method in the art of vapor compression systems to include wherein the controller receives readings from at least one atmospheric sensor over an atmospheric sensor harness. This is strong evidence that modifying Bhatia as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. to ensure a humidity range is not violated to improve overall system efficiencies (Travers, Pg. 2, paragraph 18)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhatia as modified by Travers and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of to ensure a humidity range is not violated to improve overall system efficiencies (Travers, Pg. 2, paragraph 18).
Claims 12-14 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia (US Patent No. 7,342,787), hereinafter Bhatia in view of Campbell et al. (US Patent No. 8,899,052), hereinafter Campbell.
Regarding claim 12, Bhatia discloses a method for cooling a heat source via a cooling system having a compressor, a condenser, at least one puck assembly including an evaporator and a thermoelectric module, the at least one puck assembly being connected to a heat source (Fig. 4c, heat dispersal unit 403b, compressor 221, condenser 231, evaporator 225, TEM 457, thermo conductive plate 403, heat pipe 107; Col. 4, lines 15-16 and 31-37, FIGS. 4a, 4b, 4c, and 4d illustrate embodiments of remote vapor compression systems… In some embodiments, as seen in FIGS. 4c and 4d, a TEM (e.g., TEM 457 and/or TEM 459) may be used. In some embodiments, a TEM 457 may be used between a thermo conductive plate 403 and the evaporator 225 (e.g., the cool side of the TEM 457 may be in thermal contact with the thermo conductive plate 403 and the warm side of the TEM 457 may be in thermal contact with the evaporator 225)), the method comprising:
compressing a refrigerant via the compressor (Col. 4, lines 23-25, The vapor compression medium may travel through heat pipe 451 and be compressed in compressor 221);
transferring the compressed refrigerant from the compressor to the condenser (Col. 4, lines 23-26, The vapor compression medium may travel through heat pipe 451 and be compressed in compressor 221, cooled in condenser 231 (aided by heat sink 233));
cooling the compressed refrigerant via the condenser (Col. 4, lines 25-26, cooled in condenser 231 (aided by heat sink 233));
transferring the cooled and compressed refrigerant from the condenser to the evaporator of the at least one puck assembly (Col. 4, lines 26-27, before traveling through an expansion valve 227 to arrive back at the evaporator 225);
cooling the evaporator via the transferred cooled and compressed refrigerant (Col. 4, lines 20-23, For example, the evaporator 225 may absorb heat from a thermo conductive plate 403 in which the medium from the heat pipe 107 may flow through to dissipate heat);
applying a signal to the thermoelectric module and absorbing, by the evaporator, heat generated by the thermoelectric module to cool the thermoelectric module (Col. 4, lines 31-37, In some embodiments, as seen in FIGS. 4c and 4d, a TEM (e.g., TEM 457 and/or TEM 459) may be used. In some embodiments, a TEM 457 may be used between a thermo conductive plate 403 and the evaporator 225 (e.g., the cool side of the TEM 457 may be in thermal contact with the thermo conductive plate 403 and the warm side of the TEM 457 may be in thermal contact with the evaporator 225)); and
transferring refrigerant including the heat generated from the thermoelectric module to the compressor (Col. 4, lines 23-25, The vapor compression medium may travel through heat pipe 451 and be compressed in compressor 221).
Bhatia does not disclose the method to include having a controller operatively coupled to the puck assembly.
Campbell teaches the method to include having a controller operatively coupled to the puck assembly, a temperature sensor, and a pressure sensor (Fig. 8, cooled electronic system 400', controller 460, temperature sensor TR, pressure sensor PR; Col. 12, lines 41-59, FIG. 8 depicts an alternate embodiment of a cooled electronic system 400' similar to that described above in connection with FIG. 4. As an enhancement, however, sensors are provided for ascertaining refrigerant temperature (TR) and refrigerant pressure (PR) within the refrigerant loop 415, for example, at an inlet of compressor 420. As illustrated, controller 460 monitors the temperature and pressure sensors readings. One embodiment of a further control process for the system of FIG. 8 is depicted in FIG. 9. In the exemplary control process of FIG. 9, measurements of refrigerant temperature and refrigerant pressure, for example, at the inlet of the compressor are used to control the mode and amount of heat delivered or extracted by the controllable thermoelectric array to the refrigerant. This heat load control is advantageously tailored to ensure (in one embodiment) that superheated vapor is received at the compressor, which in turn advantageously results in the elimination of the use of any adjustable expansion valve(s), which might otherwise be used, and be susceptible to fouling).
Bhatia fails to teach the method to include having a controller operatively coupled to the puck assembly, however Campbell teaches that it is a known method in the art of hybrid vapor compression thermoelectric systems to include the method to include having a controller operatively coupled to the puck assembly, a temperature sensor, and a pressure sensor. This is strong evidence that modifying Bhatia as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. controlling the mode and amount of heat delivered or extracted by the controllable thermoelectric array to the refrigerant to improve overall system efficiencies (Campbell, Col. 12, lines 52-59)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhatia by Campbell and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of controlling the mode and amount of heat delivered or extracted by the controllable thermoelectric array to the refrigerant to improve overall system efficiencies (Campbell, Col. 12, lines 52-59).
Regarding claim 13, Bhatia as modified discloses the method of claim 12 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the condenser vents the heat from the refrigerant to an exterior of the condenser (Bhatia, Fig. 4c, heat sink 233; Col. 4, lines 25-26, cooled in condenser 231 (aided by heat sink 233)).
Regarding claim 14, Bhatia as modified discloses the method of claim 12 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the heat is generated by the thermoelectric module when the signal from the controller is applied to the thermoelectric module during transfer of the refrigerant to the evaporator (Bhatia, Col. 4, lines 31-37, In some embodiments, as seen in FIGS. 4c and 4d, a TEM (e.g., TEM 457 and/or TEM 459) may be used. In some embodiments, a TEM 457 may be used between a thermo conductive plate 403 and the evaporator 225 (e.g., the cool side of the TEM 457 may be in thermal contact with the thermo conductive plate 403 and the warm side of the TEM 457 may be in thermal contact with the evaporator 225); Campbell, Col. 12, lines 41-59, FIG. 8 depicts an alternate embodiment of a cooled electronic system 400' similar to that described above in connection with FIG. 4. As an enhancement, however, sensors are provided for ascertaining refrigerant temperature (TR) and refrigerant pressure (PR) within the refrigerant loop 415, for example, at an inlet of compressor 420. As illustrated, controller 460 monitors the temperature and pressure sensors readings. One embodiment of a further control process for the system of FIG. 8 is depicted in FIG. 9. In the exemplary control process of FIG. 9, measurements of refrigerant temperature and refrigerant pressure, for example, at the inlet of the compressor are used to control the mode and amount of heat delivered or extracted by the controllable thermoelectric array to the refrigerant. This heat load control is advantageously tailored to ensure (in one embodiment) that superheated vapor is received at the compressor, which in turn advantageously results in the elimination of the use of any adjustable expansion valve(s), which might otherwise be used, and be susceptible to fouling). Further, the limitations of claim 14 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 21, Bhatia as modified discloses the method of claim 12 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the cooling system further comprises:
at least one thermocouple sensor connected to the system controller (Campbell, Fig. 8, controller 460, temperature sensor TR);
wherein the thermocouple sensor is configured to obtain a measured reading of a level of heat from the heat source; and
wherein the controller obtains the measured reading of the level of heat from the at least one thermocouple sensor, compares the measured reading to an ideal variable, and controls the cooling system in response to results of the comparison (Campbell, Fig. 8, controller 460, temperature sensor TR, pressure sensor PR; Col. 12, lines 41-59, FIG. 8 depicts an alternate embodiment of a cooled electronic system 400' similar to that described above in connection with FIG. 4. As an enhancement, however, sensors are provided for ascertaining refrigerant temperature (TR) and refrigerant pressure (PR) within the refrigerant loop 415, for example, at an inlet of compressor 420. As illustrated, controller 460 monitors the temperature and pressure sensors readings. One embodiment of a further control process for the system of FIG. 8 is depicted in FIG. 9. In the exemplary control process of FIG. 9, measurements of refrigerant temperature and refrigerant pressure, for example, at the inlet of the compressor are used to control the mode and amount of heat delivered or extracted by the controllable thermoelectric array to the refrigerant. This heat load control is advantageously tailored to ensure (in one embodiment) that superheated vapor is received at the compressor, which in turn advantageously results in the elimination of the use of any adjustable expansion valve(s), which might otherwise be used, and be susceptible to fouling). Further, the limitations of claim 21 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 22, Bhatia as modified discloses the method of claim 21 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 21 above), wherein the controller obtains a measured reading from one puck assembly at a time (Campbell, Col. 12, lines 41-59, FIG. 8 depicts an alternate embodiment of a cooled electronic system 400' similar to that described above in connection with FIG. 4. As an enhancement, however, sensors are provided for ascertaining refrigerant temperature (TR) and refrigerant pressure (PR) within the refrigerant loop 415, for example, at an inlet of compressor 420. As illustrated, controller 460 monitors the temperature and pressure sensors readings. One embodiment of a further control process for the system of FIG. 8 is depicted in FIG. 9. In the exemplary control process of FIG. 9, measurements of refrigerant temperature and refrigerant pressure, for example, at the inlet of the compressor are used to control the mode and amount of heat delivered or extracted by the controllable thermoelectric array to the refrigerant. This heat load control is advantageously tailored to ensure (in one embodiment) that superheated vapor is received at the compressor, which in turn advantageously results in the elimination of the use of any adjustable expansion valve(s), which might otherwise be used, and be susceptible to fouling; Further, the limitations of claim 22 are implied as only one puck assembly is disclosed in the prior art of record since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)). Moreover, the limitations of claim 21 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 23, Bhatia as modified discloses the method of claim 12 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the cooling system further comprises:
at least one pressure gauge sensor connected to the system controller (Campbell, Fig. 8, controller 460, pressure sensor PR);
wherein the at least one pressure gauge sensor is configured to obtain a measured reading of refrigerant pressure, obtains the measured pressure reading from the pressure gauge sensor, compares the measured pressure reading to an ideal variable, and controls the cooling system in response to results of the comparison (Campbell, Fig. 8, controller 460, temperature sensor TR, pressure sensor PR; Col. 12, lines 41-59, FIG. 8 depicts an alternate embodiment of a cooled electronic system 400' similar to that described above in connection with FIG. 4. As an enhancement, however, sensors are provided for ascertaining refrigerant temperature (TR) and refrigerant pressure (PR) within the refrigerant loop 415, for example, at an inlet of compressor 420. As illustrated, controller 460 monitors the temperature and pressure sensors readings. One embodiment of a further control process for the system of FIG. 8 is depicted in FIG. 9. In the exemplary control process of FIG. 9, measurements of refrigerant temperature and refrigerant pressure, for example, at the inlet of the compressor are used to control the mode and amount of heat delivered or extracted by the controllable thermoelectric array to the refrigerant. This heat load control is advantageously tailored to ensure (in one embodiment) that superheated vapor is received at the compressor, which in turn advantageously results in the elimination of the use of any adjustable expansion valve(s), which might otherwise be used, and be susceptible to fouling). Further, the limitations of claim 23 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 12 above.
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia as modified by Campbell as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Wada et al. (US Patent No. 11,473,821), hereinafter Wada.
Regarding claim 15, Bhatia as modified discloses the method of claim 12 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 12 above).
However, Bhatia as modified does not disclose further comprising:
transferring the cooled and compressed refrigerant to a receiver prior to transferring the cooled and compressed refrigerant to the evaporator of the at least one puck assembly.
Wada teaches further comprising:
transferring the cooled and compressed refrigerant to a receiver prior to transferring the cooled and compressed refrigerant to the evaporator (Fig. 2, high-pressure receiver 204; Col. 6-7, lines 66-67 and 1-2, The condensed refrigerant passes through pipe 221, high-pressure receiver 204, and outdoor expansion valve 206, and then passes through refrigerant pipe S0y so as to be delivered to indoor unit 40).
Bhatia as modified fails to teach further comprising: transferring the cooled and compressed refrigerant to a receiver prior to transferring the cooled and compressed refrigerant to the evaporator of the at least one puck assembly, however Wada teaches that it is a known method in the art of vapor compression cycles to include the cooling apparatus comprising further comprising: transferring the cooled and compressed refrigerant to a receiver prior to transferring the cooled and compressed refrigerant to the evaporator. This is strong evidence that modifying Bhatia as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. ensuring only liquid phase refrigerant reaches the expansion valve to improve overall system efficiencies). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhatia as modified by Wada and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of ensuring only liquid phase refrigerant reaches the expansion valve to improve overall system efficiencies.
Regarding claim 18, Bhatia as modified discloses the method of claim 12 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 12 above), further comprising:
transferring the refrigerant from the at least one puck assembly to the compressor (Bhatia, Col. 4, lines 20-27, For example, the evaporator 225 may absorb heat from a thermo conductive plate 403 in which the medium from the heat pipe 107 may flow through to dissipate heat. The vapor compression medium may travel through heat pipe 451 and be compressed in compressor 221, cooled in condenser 231 (aided by heat sink 233), before traveling through an expansion valve 227 to arrive back at the evaporator 225)
However, Bhatia as modified does not disclose a collection manifold disposed between the at least one puck assembly and the compressor used for the transfer of refrigerant.
Wada teaches a collection manifold disposed between the at least one puck assembly and the compressor used for the transfer of refrigerant (Fig. 2, pipe 231, pipe 80x; Col. 6, lines 1-4, The other end of refrigerant pipe 80x is connected through pipe 231 on the indoor unit 40 side to port Pla on one side of indoor heat exchanger 207a and port Plb on one side of indoor heat exchanger 207b).
Bhatia as modified fails to teach a collection manifold disposed between the at least one puck assembly and the compressor used for the transfer of refrigerant, however Wada teaches that it is a known method in the art of vapor compression systems to include a collection manifold disposed between the at least one puck assembly and the compressor used for the transfer of refrigerant. This is strong evidence that modifying Bhatia as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. connecting multiple evaporator assemblies into a single vapor compression cycle to allow for cooling at different temperatures). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhatia as modified by Wada and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of connecting multiple evaporator assemblies into a single vapor compression cycle to allow for cooling at different temperatures.
Claim 16 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia as modified by Campbell as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Goth et al. (US Patent No. 6,923,014), hereinafter Goth.
Regarding claim 16, Bhatia as modified discloses the method of claim 12 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the cooling system further comprises:
at least one expansion valve (Bhatia, Fig. 4c, expansion valve 227), the method further comprising:
transferring the cooled and compressed refrigerant to the at least one expansion valve prior to transferring the cooled and compressed refrigerant to the evaporator of the at least one puck assembly (Bhatia, Col. 4, lines 20-27, For example, the evaporator 225 may absorb heat from a thermo conductive plate 403 in which the medium from the heat pipe 107 may flow through to dissipate heat. The vapor compression medium may travel through heat pipe 451 and be compressed in compressor 221, cooled in condenser 231 (aided by heat sink 233), before traveling through an expansion valve 227 to arrive back at the evaporator 225); and
lowering a pressure of the cooled and compressed refrigerant via the at least one expansion valve (Further, the teachings of Bhatia at least imply lowering a pressure of the cooled and compressed refrigerant via the at least one expansion valve as this is the main function of an expansion valve in a vapor compression system since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
However, Bhatia as modified does not disclose the expansion valve to be at least one stepper motor needle valve operatively coupled to the controller.
Goth teaches the expansion valve to be at least one stepper motor needle valve operatively coupled to the controller (Fig. 1, cooling system 100, expansion valve 114, expansion valve 116, controller 120; Col. 1-2, lines 67 and 1-9, A controller 120 provides control signals to expansion valve 114 and expansion valve 116 to control refrigerant flow and pressure drop across each expansion valve. In an exemplary embodiment, expansion valves 114 and 116 includes a stepper motor the responds to control signals from controller 120. The stepper motor opens or closes an orifice in the expansion valve to regulate refrigerant flow and pressure drop. Controller 120 executes a computer program to control the expansion valves 114 and 116).
Bhatia as modified fails to teach the expansion valve to be at least one stepper motor needle valve operatively coupled to the controller, however Goth teaches that it is a known method in the art of vapor compression systems to include the expansion valve to be at least one stepper motor needle valve operatively coupled to the controller. This is strong evidence that modifying Bhatia as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. obtaining desired superheat values to improve overall system efficiencies (Goth, Col. 2, lines 35-34)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhatia as modified by Goth and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of obtaining desired superheat values to improve overall system efficiencies (Goth, Col. 2, lines 35-34).
Regarding claim 20, Bhatia as modified discloses the method of claim 16 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 16 above), wherein the controller further comprises at least one sensor harness attached to the at least one stepper motor needle valve (Goth, Col. 1-2, lines 67 and 1-9, A controller 120 provides control signals to expansion valve 114 and expansion valve 116 to control refrigerant flow and pressure drop across each expansion valve. In an exemplary embodiment, expansion valves 114 and 116 includes a stepper motor the responds to control signals from controller 120. The stepper motor opens or closes an orifice in the expansion valve to regulate refrigerant flow and pressure drop. Controller 120 executes a computer program to control the expansion valves 114 and 116; Further, the teachings of Goth with disclose control signals to be exchanged between the controller 120 and the stepper motors of expansion valves 114 and 116 in combination with the lines depicted between the controller 120 and the stepper motors of expansion valves 114 and 116 at least imply wherein the controller further comprises at least one sensor harness attached to the at least one stepper motor needle valve since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)). Further, the limitations of claim 20 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 16 above.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia as modified by Campbell and Goth as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Wada et al. (US Patent No. 11,473,821), hereinafter Wada.
Regarding claim 17, Bhatia as modified discloses the method of claim 16 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 16 above).
However, Bhatia as modified does not disclose further comprising:
transferring the cooled and compressed refrigerant to a receiver prior to transferring the cooled and compressed refrigerant to the at least one stepper motor needle valve.
Wada teaches further comprising:
transferring the cooled and compressed refrigerant to a receiver prior to transferring the cooled and compressed refrigerant to the at least one stepper motor needle valve (Fig. 2, high-pressure receiver 204; Col. 6-7, lines 66-67 and 1-2, The condensed refrigerant passes through pipe 221, high-pressure receiver 204, and outdoor expansion valve 206, and then passes through refrigerant pipe S0y so as to be delivered to indoor unit 40).
Bhatia as modified fails to teach further comprising: transferring the cooled and compressed refrigerant to a receiver prior to transferring the cooled and compressed refrigerant to the at least one stepper motor needle valve, however Wada teaches that it is a known method in the art of vapor compression cycles to include the cooling apparatus comprising further comprising: transferring the cooled and compressed refrigerant to a receiver prior to transferring the cooled and compressed refrigerant to the at least one stepper motor needle valve. This is strong evidence that modifying Bhatia as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. ensuring only liquid phase refrigerant reaches the expansion valve to improve overall system efficiencies). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhatia as modified by Wada and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of ensuring only liquid phase refrigerant reaches the expansion valve to improve overall system efficiencies.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia as modified by Campbell as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Langer et al. (US 20240401857), hereinafter Langer.
Regarding claim 19, Bhatia as modified discloses the method of claim 12 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 12 above).
However, Bhatia as modified does not disclose wherein the controller further comprises:
at least one sensor harness attached to at least one of the refrigerant compressor, the refrigerant condenser, the refrigerant receiver, and the at least one puck assembly.
Langer teaches wherein the controller further comprises:
at least one sensor harness attached to the refrigerant compressor (Fig. 12, cooling system 100, control device 112, compressor motor 118, compressor 206; Pg. 16, paragraph 170, A compression performance, or compression work, of the compressor 102 can be adjusted by changing the rotational speed of a compressor motor 118 (see FIG. 12); Pg. 16, paragraph 173, Furthermore, the control device 112 can detect a motor output in order to control the compressor according to the detected pressure and/or temperature data. The control device 112 can be connected to the sensors by corresponding control lines; Further, the control line connected between the control device 112 and the compressor motor 118 of Langer at least imply at least one sensor harness attached to the refrigerant compressor since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bhatia as modified wherein the controller further comprises at least one sensor harness attached to the refrigerant compressor as taught by Langer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide compressor control based on real-time sensor data to improve overall system efficiencies (Langer, Pg. 16, paragraphs 170 and 173).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia as modified by Campbell as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Travers (US 20150068235), hereinafter Travers.
Regarding claim 19, Bhatia as modified discloses the method of claim 12 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 12 above).
However, Bhatia as modified does not disclose wherein the compressed refrigerant cooling system further comprises:
at least one atmospheric sensor;
wherein the atmospheric sensor is configured to obtain a measured reading of a dew point of the ambient environment; and
wherein the controller obtains the measured reading of the dew point from the atmospheric sensor, compares the measured reading of the dew point to an ideal variable, and controls the cooling system in response to results of the comparison.
Travers teaches wherein the compressed refrigerant cooling system further comprises:
at least one atmospheric sensor (Fig. 1, refrigerated enclosure 12, inside temperature/humidity (Dewpoint) sensor unit 18, ambient air temperature/humidity (Dewpoint) sensor unit 20, controller 22);
wherein the atmospheric sensor is configured to obtain a measured reading of a dew point of the ambient environment; and
wherein the controller obtains the measured reading of the dew point from the atmospheric sensor, compares the measured reading of the dew point to an ideal variable, and controls the cooling system in response to results of the comparison (Pg. 2, paragraph 18, There is an inside temperature/humidity (dew point) sensor unit 18 inside enclosure 12 and an outside or ambient air temperature/humidity (dew point) sensor unit 20 outside of enclosure 12. Controller 22 is responsive to both inside and ambient sensor units 18 and 20 to control the operation of conventional refrigerator unit 14 and auxiliary ambient air refrigerator unit 16. There may also be a humidifier 24 that may be controlled by controller 22 to keep the humidity within enclosure 12 within a desired range. Controller 22 responds to the sensor units and the indicated dew points of the enclosure and the ambient air and enables the auxiliary refrigerator unit to provide cool ambient air to the enclosure when the temperature inside the enclosure is above a first predetermined temperature, the ambient temperature is less than the temperature inside the enclosure by a predetermined differential temperature and the dew point of the ambient air is matched to the dew point range of the air in the enclosure. Controller 22 also responds to the sensor units 18 and 20 to enable the conventional refrigeration unit when the temperature is at above a second predetermined temperature that is higher than the first predetermined temperature. The dew point range may include a minimum humidity dew point for the enclosure, in which case the auxiliary refrigeration unit will not be enabled if the dew point of the air inside the enclosure is below that minimum dew point and the dew point of the ambient air is not higher than the dew point of the air inside the enclosure. The dew point range may include a maximum humidity dew point and the auxiliary refrigeration unit in that case will not be enabled if the dew point of the air inside the enclosure is above that maximum dew point and the dew point of the ambient air is not lower than the dew point of the air inside the enclosure. Sensor units 18 and 20 may include a temperature sensor and a humidity sensor from which controller 22 calculates the dew point. Or the temperature humidity sensors 18 and 20 may actually include a dew point meter to directly provide the dew point to controller 22).
Bhatia as modified fails to teach wherein the compressed refrigerant cooling system further comprises: at least one atmospheric sensor; wherein the atmospheric sensor is configured to obtain a measured reading of a dew point of the ambient environment; and wherein the controller obtains the measured reading of the dew point from the atmospheric sensor, compares the measured reading of the dew point to an ideal variable, and controls the cooling system in response to results of the comparison, however Travers teaches that it is a known method in the art of vapor compression systems to include wherein the compressed refrigerant cooling system further comprises: at least one atmospheric sensor; wherein the atmospheric sensor is configured to obtain a measured reading of a dew point of the ambient environment; and wherein the controller obtains the measured reading of the dew point from the atmospheric sensor, compares the measured reading of the dew point to an ideal variable, and controls the cooling system in response to results of the comparison. This is strong evidence that modifying Bhatia as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. to ensure a humidity range is not violated to improve overall system efficiencies (Travers, Pg. 2, paragraph 18)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhatia as modified by Travers and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of to ensure a humidity range is not violated to improve overall system efficiencies (Travers, Pg. 2, paragraph 18).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pham et al. (US Patent No. 7,278,269) discloses a similar hybrid vapor compression and thermoelectric cooling system.
Ghoshal (US Patent No. 6,338,251) discloses a similar hybrid vapor compression and thermoelectric cooling system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
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.
/DEVON MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 April 23rd, 2026
Prosecution Insights