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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “275” has been used to designate both “bottom tube” and “electrical wire”. 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. 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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the first copy of “or the first fan and the second fan” appears to be in error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: expansion device (i.e. device [generic placeholder] for expansion [functional language]) in claims 1-17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In the case of expansion device, the corresponding structure(s) are found in paragraph [0033].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-13 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 1 recites the limitation “generally coupled in cycle via tubing and to work a refrigerant carried by the tubing”. This is not understood. Is “cycle” the same or different from the refrigeration cycle earlier claimed? How coupled must the components be to meet or fail to meet “generally coupled”? Does “to work a refrigerant” refer back only to the condenser or was it intended to refer to the refrigeration cycle as a whole? To expedite prosecution, “generally coupled in cycle” is considered as “coupled” and that the cycle as a whole works on the refrigerant. Additionally, the term “substantially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how “substantially” the gas and oil discharge must be to meet or fail to meet the claim. To expedite prosecution, it has been interpreted as discharging. Additionally, claim 1 recites the limitation “discharging oil” following “receiving the discharged oil”. It is unclear if the oil discharged is the same or different from the oil received. It is believed to be the same. Claims 2-13 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on or incorporate claim 1 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claims 6-8 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 6 recites the limitation “a body width orthogonal to the body width”. This is unclear. It appears to be in error for “a body width orthogonal to the body height”. Additionally, the term “substantially” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how “substantially” greater the height must be to meet or fail to meet the claim. To expedite prosecution, it has been interpreted as greater. Claims 7-8 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 6 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claim 7 is 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how “substantially” cylindrical the accumulator must be to meet or fail to meet the claim. To expedite prosecution, it has been interpreted as cylindrical.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites the limitation “when coupled in cycle”. Is this the same or different from the cycle(s) of claim 1? It is believed to be the same. Additionally, the term “substantially” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how “substantially” in line with gravity the accumulator must be to meet or fail to meet the claim. To expedite prosecution, it has been interpreted as in line.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation “an ice maker assembly including the refrigeration system of claim 1”. It is not clear what additional structure, if any, is required beyond that of claim 1. Note also, that as set forth, it appears that claim 10 could be objected to as a substantial duplicate of claim 1 since there is no additional ice maker structure required beyond that of claim 1.
Claims 11-13 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 limitations “opening the valve to cause an oil mixture to flow from the accumulator to the compressor; and closing the valve to prevent the oil mixture flowing from the accumulator to the compressor”. Claim 11 incorporates claim 1. Claim 1 has indicated that the valve receives and discharges oil. How is “an oil mixture” related to the oil of claim 1? It is believed to be the same. Application should consider writing claim 11 in a format such that it is clear which element(s) of claim 1 are intended or not intended to be claimed. Claims 12-13 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 11 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claims 12-13 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 12 recites the limitations “opening the expansion device to cause a greater amount of a refrigerant mixture to flow through the cycle; and closing the expansion device to prevent a lesser amount of a refrigerant mixture from flowing through the cycle”. Claim 12 depends on claim 11, which incorporates claim 1. Claim 1 has referred to “refrigerant”. How is “refrigerant mixture” related to the refrigerant of claim 1? It is believed to be the same. Additionally, are both refrigerant mixtures of claim 12 intended to be the same? It is believed that they are intended to be the same and that the second should be “the refrigerant mixture”. Claim 13 is rejected insofar as it is dependent on claim 12 and therefore includes the same error(s).
Claim 13 is 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.
The term “substantial” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “substantial” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what would constitute “substantial” and what would be the limits of “substantial”. To expedite prosecution, the term is treated broadly with any amount meeting “substantial”.
Claims 14-17 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 14 recites the limitation “generally coupled in cycle via tubing and to work a refrigerant carried by the tubing”. This is not understood. Is “cycle” the same or different from the refrigeration cycle earlier claimed? How coupled must the components be to meet or fail to meet “generally coupled”? Does “to work a refrigerant” refer back only to the condenser or was it intended to refer to the refrigeration cycle as a whole? To expedite prosecution, “generally coupled in cycle” is considered as “coupled” and that the cycle as a whole works on the refrigerant. Additionally, the term “substantially” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how “substantially” the gas and oil discharge must be to meet or fail to meet the claim. To expedite prosecution, it has been interpreted as discharging. Additionally, claim 14 recites the limitation “discharging oil” following “receiving the discharged oil”. It is unclear if the oil discharged is the same or different from the oil received. It is believed to be the same. Claims 15-17 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 14 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claim 17 is 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 17 recites the limitation “a body width orthogonal to the body width”. This is unclear. It appears to be in error for “a body width orthogonal to the body height”. Additionally, the term “substantially” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how “substantially” greater the height must be to meet or fail to meet the claim. To expedite prosecution, it has been interpreted as greater.
Claims 18-20 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.
The terms “substantial” and “minimal” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “substantial” and “minimal” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what would constitute “substantial” versus “minimal” and what would be the limits of “substantial” versus “minimal”. To expedite prosecution, the terms are treated broadly with any amount meeting “substantial” or “minimal”. Additionally, claim 18 recites the limitations “accumulating liquid refrigerant and compressor oil” and “to cause an oil”. It is unclear if these are the same or different from the liquid refrigerant and compressor oil previously recited. It is believed that they are the same. Claims 19-20 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 18 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Micai et al. (US 4,068,493).
Regarding claim 1, Micai et al. shows A refrigeration system comprising a vapor-compression refrigeration cycle having an expansion device, an evaporator, a compressor, and a condenser generally coupled in cycle via tubing and to work a refrigerant carried by the tubing (see at least column 2, lines 7-21: Examiner notes that the reference is silent regarding the expansion device, but notes that an expansion device is inherent to the vapor-compression cycle), the refrigeration system further comprising:
an accumulator (see at least accumulator #100) having an inlet receiving refrigerant discharged from the evaporator (see at least @#104), a first outlet substantially discharging gas refrigerant to the compressor (see at least @#108), and a second outlet substantially discharging oil from the accumulator (see at least @#116);
a valve having an inlet receiving the discharged oil from the accumulator and an outlet discharging oil from the valve to the compressor (see at least valve #402/#625); and
a controller to control the valve between an open state and a closed state (see at least column 3, lines 45-49: the valve #402 is temperature controlled; column 7, lines 41-44: the valve #625 is electrically controlled).
Regarding claim 2, Micai et al. further shows wherein the tubing includes a tube coupling the second outlet of the accumulator to the inlet of the valve (see at least tube #118).
Regarding claim 3, Micai et al. further shows wherein the tubing comprises:
a T section (see at least outlet connection #110: Examiner notes that the interface of #110 and #120 forms a T section of #110/#108);
a first tube coupling the outlet of the valve to a first inlet port of the T section (see at least connection #120/tube #119);
a second tube coupling the first outlet of the accumulator to a second inlet port of the T section (see at least outlet tube #108); and
a third tube coupling an outlet port of the T section to the compressor (see at least lower portion of outlet connection #110),
wherein the T section mixes the discharged oil with the discharged gas refrigerant (inherent to the tubing assembly as disclosed).
Regarding claim 4, Micai et al. further shows wherein the tubing includes a fourth tube coupling the second outlet of the accumulator to the inlet of the valve (see at least tube #118).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Micai et al. (US 4,068,493).
Regarding claim 10, Micai et al. shows an ice maker assembly including the refrigeration system of claim 1 (see at least rejection of claim 1, above: Examiner notes that vapor compression systems require defrosting to remove ice deposits, thus absent additional structural distinction, Micai et al. can be understood as an ice maker).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Micai et al. (US 4,068,493).
Regarding claim 11, Micai et al. shows a method of controlling the refrigeration system of claim 1 (see at least rejection of claim 1, above), the method comprising:
opening the valve to cause an oil mixture to flow from the accumulator to the compressor (see at least column 2, lines 15-25; column 7, lines 50-58); and
closing the valve to prevent the oil mixture flowing from the accumulator to the compressor (see at least column 2, lines 15-25; column 7, line 58 through column 6, line 2).
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Micai et al. (US 4,068,493).
Regarding claim 18, Micai et al. shows a method of limiting accumulation of compressor oil in an accumulator assembly of a refrigeration system, the accumulator assembly including an accumulator (see at least accumulator #100), a valve in fluid communication with the accumulator (see at least valve #625), and a controller in electrical communication with the valve (see at least column 7, lines 41-44: the valve is electrically controlled), the method comprising:
receiving a refrigerant mixture through the accumulator, the refrigerant mixture comprising substantial vapor refrigerant, minimal liquid refrigerant, and minimal compressor oil (see at least column 2, lines 5-11);
accumulating liquid refrigerant and compressor oil with the accumulator (see at least column 2, lines 11-15);
opening the valve with the controller to cause an oil to flow from the accumulator to a compressor of the refrigeration system (see at least column 2, lines 15-25; column 7, lines 50-58); and
closing the valve with the controller to prevent the oil flowing from the accumulator to the compressor (see at least column 2, lines 15-25; column 7, line 58 through column 6, line 2).
Regarding claim 20, Micai et al. further shows wherein the accumulator assembly includes a sensor, and wherein the opening of the valve and/or the closing of the valve is based on a parameter sensed by the sensor (see at least column 7, line 44 through column 6, line 2; column 2, lines 17-25).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micai et al. (US 4,068,493).
Micai et al. discloses all the elements of claim 1, upon which claims 5-8 depend.
Regarding claim 5, Micai et al. does not disclose wherein the accumulator is a copper-spun type accumulator.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein the accumulator is a copper-spun type accumulator would result in a difference in function of the Micai et al. system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Micai et al., would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed type of accumulator. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed type of accumulator solves any stated problem, indicating that “The accumulator 255 shown in FIGS. 6 and 7 is a vertical copper spun-type accumulator. However, other accumulator types can be used in place of the accumulator 255.” (see paragraph [0041]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the accumulator type as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Micai et al. with wherein the accumulator is a copper-spun type accumulator as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 6, Micai et al. further discloses wherein the accumulator has a body height (from bottom wall #102 of accumulator tank #100 to top wall of accumulator tank #100) and a body width orthogonal to the body width (see at least defined by sides #104/#106).
Micai et al. does not disclose and wherein the body height is substantially greater than the body width.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein the accumulator is wherein the body height is substantially greater than the body width would result in a difference in function of the Micai et al. system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Micai et al., would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed type of accumulator. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that wherein the body height is substantially greater than the body width solves any stated problem, indicating that “The accumulator 255 shown in FIGS. 6 and 7 is a vertical copper spun-type accumulator. However, other accumulator types can be used in place of the accumulator 255.” (see paragraph [0041]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the accumulator type as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Micai et al. with wherein the body height is substantially greater than the body width as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 7, Micai et al. further discloses wherein the accumulator is substantially cylindrical and the body width is a diameter of the accumulator (see at least Figures 1-5, accumulator #100 is cylindrical and sides #104/#106 form the width and a diameter of the cylindrical tank).
Regarding claim 8, Micai et al. further discloses wherein the accumulator has a defined orientation with respect to gravity when coupled in cycle, and wherein the body height is substantially in line with gravity (inherent to the separation disclosed with respect to the accumulator #100).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micai et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hansen (US 2,801,523).
Regarding claim 9, Micai et al. is silent regarding wherein the refrigeration system further comprises a first fan in thermal communication with the evaporator, a second fan in thermal communication with the condenser, or the first fan and the second fan, and wherein the controller further controls the first fan, the second fan, or the first fan and the second fan.
However, it was old and well-known to have an evaporator fan, a condenser fan, and a controller controlling either or both of the evaporator fan and the condenser fan, as evidenced by Hansen, which teaches another refrigeration system, wherein the refrigeration system further comprises first fan in thermal communication with the evaporator (see fan #28 for evaporator #14), a second fan in thermal communication with the condenser (see fan #27 for condenser #4), or the first fan and the second fan, and wherein the controller further controls the first fan, the second fan, or the first fan and the second fan (see at least control circuit Figure 5; column 8, lines 11-19).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Micai et al. with wherein the refrigeration system further comprises a first fan in thermal communication with the evaporator, a second fan in thermal communication with the condenser, or the first fan and the second fan, and wherein the controller further controls the first fan, the second fan, or the first fan and the second fan, since, as taught by Hansen, such provision was old and well-known in the art and would provide the predictable benefit of allowing for automatic defrost.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micai et al. as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Matsushima et al. (JP H11223431: English Translation Provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 12, Micai et al. is silent regarding further comprising:
opening the expansion device to cause a greater amount of a refrigerant mixture to flow through the cycle; and closing the expansion device to prevent a lesser amount of a refrigerant mixture from flowing through the cycle.
Masushima et al. teaches another method of controlling a refrigeration system comprising: opening the expansion device to cause a greater amount of a refrigerant mixture to flow through the cycle (see at least “When the operation of the refrigeration system 1 constructed as described above is started, the controller 11 determines from the detection results of the first refrigerant leak detector 17 and the second refrigerant leak detector 18 that there is no refrigerant leakage. Then, an operation start signal is sent from the controller 11, the on-off valve 8 is opened, the compressor 2 is driven by the compressor driving device 12, the condenser fan 13 is driven by the condenser fan driving device 14, and the evaporator fan driving device. The evaporator fan 15 is driven by 16.”: Examiner notes that the combination of capillary #4 and valve #8 is considered an expansion device); and closing the expansion device to prevent a lesser amount of a refrigerant mixture from flowing through the cycle (see at least “When it is detected that air has entered the refrigerant, The operation of all the devices is stopped by the controller 11 and a failure is displayed on the display 22. Further, the on-off valve 8 is closed, and the check valve 9 prevents the high-pressure refrigerant in the condenser 3 from moving to the low-pressure evaporator 5.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the method of Micai et al. with further comprising:
opening the expansion device to cause a greater amount of a refrigerant mixture to flow through the cycle; and closing the expansion device to prevent a lesser amount of a refrigerant mixture from flowing through the cycle, as taught by Matsushima et al., to improve the method of Micai et al. by preventing operating of the system upon ingress of non-compressible gas to the system, as in the case of a refrigerant leak.
Regarding claim 13, Micai et al. further discloses wherein the refrigerant mixture includes a substantial amount of vapor refrigerant, the oil mixture includes a substantial amount of oil (see at least column 2, lines 5-11).
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews (US 2004/0237555: cited by Applicant) Micai et al. (US 4,068,493).
Regarding claim 14, Andrews discloses a stand-alone ice maker assembly comprising:
an evaporator sleeve or mold to receive water (see at least Figure 1, evaporator with “ice” surface; see also paragraph [0035] which discloses optional sleeves/molds for ice formation in conjunction with the evaporator);
a water source to provide water to the evaporator sleeve or mold (see at least Figure 1, water);
a refrigeration system comprising a vapor-compression refrigeration cycle having an expansion device (see at least Figure 1, control valve), an evaporator coupled to the evaporator sleeve or mold to draw heat from the water to freeze the water (see at least Figure 1, evaporator with “ice” surface; paragraph [0035]), a compressor (see at least Figure 1, compressor), and a condenser (see at least condenser) generally coupled in cycle via tubing and to work a refrigerant carried by the tubing (see tubing connecting the above), the refrigeration system further comprising:
an accumulator (see at least paragraph [0041]).
Andrews is silent regarding the accumulator having an inlet receiving refrigerant discharged from the evaporator, a first outlet substantially discharging gas refrigerant to the compressor, and a second outlet substantially discharging oil;
a valve having an inlet receiving the discharged oil from the accumulator and an outlet discharging oil from the valve to the compressor; and
a controller to control the valve between an open state and a closed state.
Micai teaches another vapor-compression system having an accumulator (see at least accumulator #100) having an inlet receiving refrigerant discharged from the evaporator (see at least @#104), a first outlet substantially discharging gas refrigerant to the compressor (see at least @#108), and a second outlet substantially discharging oil from the accumulator (see at least @#116);
a valve having an inlet receiving the discharged oil from the accumulator and an outlet discharging oil from the valve to the compressor (see at least valve #402/#625); and
a controller to control the valve between an open state and a closed state (see at least column 3, lines 45-49: the valve #402 is temperature controlled; column 7, lines 41-44: the valve #625 is electrically controlled).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the are before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the accumulator in the ice maker of Andrews with an inlet receiving refrigerant discharged from the evaporator, a first outlet substantially discharging gas refrigerant to the compressor, and a second outlet substantially discharging oil; a valve having an inlet receiving the discharged oil from the accumulator and an outlet discharging oil from the valve to the compressor; and a controller to control the valve between an open state and a closed state, as taught by Micai et al., to improve the accumulator of Andrews by allowing for oil to be returned to the compressor without returning non-compressible liquid refrigerant.
Regarding claim 15, Andrews in view of Micai et al. does not disclose wherein an amount of refrigerant for the refrigeration system is less than twenty pounds, instead teaching eighty pounds (see at least Andrews paragraph [0041]).
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein an amount of refrigerant for the refrigeration system is less than twenty pounds would result in a difference in function of the Andrews in view of Micai et al. system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Andrews in view of Micai et al., would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed capacity. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed capacity solves any stated problem, indicating that “Example refrigerant amounts include one hundred pounds or less, fifty pounds or less, between fifty pounds and twenty pounds, and one pound or less (e.g., approximately 1 oz)” (see paragraph [0041]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the capacity as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Andrews in view of Micai et al. with wherein an amount of refrigerant for the refrigeration system is less than twenty pounds as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 16, Andrews in view of Micai et al. does not disclose wherein the accumulator is a copper-spun type accumulator.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein the accumulator is a copper-spun type accumulator would result in a difference in function of the Andrews in view of Micai et al. system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Andrews in view of Micai et al., would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed type of accumulator. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed type of accumulator solves any stated problem, indicating that “The accumulator 255 shown in FIGS. 6 and 7 is a vertical copper spun-type accumulator. However, other accumulator types can be used in place of the accumulator 255.” (see paragraph [0041]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the accumulator type as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Andrews in view of Micai et al. with wherein the accumulator is a copper-spun type accumulator as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 17, Andrews as modified by Micai et al. further discloses wherein the accumulator has a body height (see at least Micai et al. from bottom wall #102 of accumulator tank #100 to top wall of accumulator tank #100) and a body width orthogonal to the body width (see at least defined by sides #104/#106).
Andrews in view of Micai et al. does not disclose and wherein the body height is substantially greater than the body width.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein the accumulator is wherein the body height is substantially greater than the body width would result in a difference in function of the Andrews in view of Micai et al. system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Andrews in view of Micai et al., would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed type of accumulator. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that wherein the body height is substantially greater than the body width solves any stated problem, indicating that “The accumulator 255 shown in FIGS. 6 and 7 is a vertical copper spun-type accumulator. However, other accumulator types can be used in place of the accumulator 255.” (see paragraph [0041]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the accumulator type as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Andrews in view of Micai et al. with wherein the body height is substantially greater than the body width as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micai et al. as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Matsuda et al. (US 2019/0242622).
Regarding claim 19, Micai et al. does not disclose wherein the opening of the valve is for a time period and an initiating of the opening of the valve is based on a runtime of the refrigeration system.
Matsuda et al. teaches another oil control method wherein the opening of the accumulator valve is for a time period and an initiating of the opening of the valve is based on a runtime of the refrigeration system (see at least paragraphs [0056]-[0057]; Figure 6, S15-S18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the method of Micai et al. with wherein the opening of the valve is for a time period and an initiating of the opening of the valve is based on a runtime of the refrigeration system, as taught by Matsuda et al., to improve the method of Micai et al. by preventing too much oil from accumulating in the accumulator (see at least Matsuda et al. paragraph [0057]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon teaches spun-copper accumulator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights