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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because first and second condensers 212, 214 are described as “214, 216”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorentzen (US 5497631) in view of Hatomura (US 20190162454).
Regarding claim 1,
Referring to Fig. 1, Lorentzen teaches a vapor cycle system for cooling components, the system comprising: a refrigeration circuit through which a mass of a refrigerant flows (see abstract), the refrigeration circuit comprising: a compressor 1; a first condenser 2; an expansion valve 3; an evaporator 4; and a refrigerant charge control device 5 configured to increase or decrease the mass of the refrigerant flowing through the refrigeration circuit, wherein the refrigerant charge control device comprises a storage device (e.g. the device comprising compartments 7, 8).
Lorentzen does not teach a second condenser fluidly coupled to the first condenser in series.
Hatomura, directed to a vapor cycle system, teaches an outdoor unit 1 comprising a second
condenser 12b fluidly coupled to a first condenser 12a in series or in parallel (see Figs. 2-3, abstract, par. 5). Referring to par. 5, Hatomura teaches that when said first and second condensers are coupled in series or parallel, the coupling provides the advantage of:
a. increasing the flow speed of the refrigerant, thereby improving the performance of the
heat exchangers; or
b. reducing pressure loss, improving the performance of the heat exchangers.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date
of the invention to modify Lorentzen by Hatomura to comprise a second condenser fluidly coupled to the first condenser in series with the motivation of providing the advantages of:
increasing the flow speed of the refrigerant, thereby improving the performance of the
heat exchangers; or
reducing pressure loss, improving the performance of the heat exchangers.
Regarding claim 2,
Lorentzen teaches wherein the refrigerant charge control device is disposed upstream from the expansion valve.
Regarding claim 3,
Lorentzen teaches wherein the storage device is disposed downstream from the first condenser and upstream from the expansion valve.
Regarding claim 4,
Lorentzen teaches wherein the storage device includes a piston 6 (e.g. a partition) disposed within the cylinder.
Lorentzen does not teach that said storage device includes a cylinder but it has been held that the configuration of a claimed element (i.e. the shape) was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed element was significant (see MPEP 2144.04 IV B).
Regarding claim 5,
Lorentzen teaches wherein the cylinder defines a first chamber and a second chamber 7, 8, wherein the piston separates the first chamber from the second chamber.
Regarding claim 6,
Lorentzen teaches wherein the refrigeration circuit further comprises a pressure source (see col 3, lines 30-40), wherein the cylinder is fluidly coupled to the pressure source via the second chamber.
Regarding claim 7,
Lorentzen teaches wherein the refrigeration circuit further comprises a pressure source (see col 3, lines 30-40) and a control valve 9, wherein the control valve fluidly couples the pressure source to the second chamber of the cylinder 8.
Regarding claim 10,
Lorentzen teaches wherein the storage device is configured to passively control the mass of the refrigerant flowing through the refrigeration circuit (e.g. if valve 9 is configured to only be opened or closed and is thereby passively open or closed, and the pressure source is not actively utilized).
Regarding claim 11,
Lorentzen teaches wherein the storage device is configured to actively control the mass of the refrigerant flowing through the refrigeration circuit (e.g. through the active control of valve 9 and pressure source).
Regarding claim 12,
Lorentzen teaches wherein therein the storage device is in series with the refrigeration circuit (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13,
Lorentzen as modified above teaches wherein the refrigeration circuit further comprises a second condenser disposed downstream from the first condenser and upstream from the storage device.
Claim(s) 8-9, 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorentzen (US 5497631) in view of Hatomura (US 20190162454) and Lifson (US 7010927).
Regarding claim 8,
Lorentzen does not teach a temperature sensor disposed between the first condenser and the storage device.
Lifson, directed to a refrigeration system, teaches a temperature sensor 56 disposed configured to capture data indicative of a temperature of refrigerant exiting a condenser, wherein said data is utilized to control an operation of a refrigerant charge control device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Lorentzen by Lifson with the motivation of more accurately achieving a desired amount of refrigerant within the system to achieve a desired optimal system operation and to prevent damage to the system (see Lifson, col 1, lines 7-11, 18-20, 43-47).
Regarding claim 9,
Lorentzen does not teach a pressure sensor disposed between the first condenser and the storage device.
Lifson teaches a pressure sensor 54 configured to capture data indicative of a pressure of a refrigerant exiting a condenser 30, wherein said data is utilized to control an operation of a refrigerant charge control device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Lorentzen by Lifson with the motivation of more accurately achieving a desired amount of refrigerant within the system to achieve a desired optimal system operation and to prevent damage to the system (see Lifson, col 1, lines 7-11, 18-20, 43-47).
Regarding claim 14,
Lorentzen does not teach a pressure sensor configured to capture data indicative of a pressure of the refrigerant exiting the second condenser; a temperature sensor configured to capture data indicative of a temperature of the refrigerant exiting the second condenser; a computing system communicatively coupled to the pressure sensor and the temperature sensor, the computing system configured to: monitor the pressure of the refrigerant exiting the second condenser based on the data captured by the pressure sensor; monitor the temperature of the refrigerant exiting the second condenser based on the data captured by the temperature sensor; and control an operation of the refrigerant charge control device to adjust the mass of the refrigerant flowing through the refrigeration circuit based on the monitored pressure and the monitored temperature.
Referring to Fig. 1, Lifson, directed to a refrigerant system with controlled refrigerant charge amount, teaches a pressure sensor 54 configured to capture data indicative of a pressure of the refrigerant exiting a condenser 30; a temperature sensor 56 configured to capture data indicative of a temperature of the refrigerant exiting the condenser; a computing system (e.g. a controller 52) communicatively coupled to the pressure sensor and the temperature sensor, the computing system configured to: monitor the pressure of the refrigerant exiting the condenser based on the data captured by the pressure sensor (see col 2, lines 1-5, col 3, lines 26-31, col 4, lines 25-33, col 5, lines 35-41, claims 4, 13); monitor the temperature of the refrigerant exiting the condenser based on the data captured by the temperature sensor (see col 2, lines 1-5, col 3, lines 26-31, col 4, lines 25-33, col 5, lines 35-41, claims 4, 13); and control an operation of the refrigerant charge control device to adjust the mass of the refrigerant flowing through the refrigeration circuit based on the monitored pressure and the monitored temperature (see col 2, lines 1-5, col 3, lines 26-31, col 4, lines 25-33, col 5, lines 35-41, claims 4, 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Lorentzen by Lifson with the motivation of more accurately achieving a desired amount of refrigerant within the system to achieve a desired optimal system operation and to prevent damage to the system (see Lifson, col 1, lines 7-11, 18-20, 43-47).
Regarding claim 15,
Lorentzen as modified above teaches when controlling the operation of the refrigerant charge control device, the computing system is further configured to: compare the monitored pressure to a maximum pressure value; and when the monitored pressure exceeds the maximum pressure value, control the operation of the refrigerant charge control device such that the mass of the refrigerant flowing through the refrigeration circuit is decreased (see Lifson, col 2, lines 19-23, col 5, lines 32-49).
Regarding claim 16,
Lorentzen as modified above teaches wherein controlling the operation of the refrigerant charge control device, the computing system is further configured to: determine a subcool value of the refrigerant exiting the second condenser based on the monitored temperature; compare the determined subcool value to a minimum subcool value; and when the determined subcool value falls below the minimum subcool value, control the operation of the refrigerant charge control device such that the mass of the refrigerant flowing through the refrigeration circuit is increased (see Lifson, col 4, lines 10-18).
Regarding claims 17-19,
If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Manole and Campbell teach cooling systems with refrigerant charge control devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE S TANENBAUM whose telephone number is (313)446-6522. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 AM - 7 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/Steve S TANENBAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763