DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1-6 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US 2007/0125106 A1).
As per claim 1, Ishikawa et al. disclose a refrigerant module for an integrated thermal management system for a vehicle, the refrigerant module comprising: a compressor 1 comprising a first refrigerant intake port through which a refrigerant is drawn and a first refrigerant discharge port through which the refrigerant is discharged after being compressed (Fig. 1); a condenser 2 comprising a second refrigerant intake port through which the refrigerant discharged from the compressor is drawn and a second refrigerant discharge port through which the refrigerant is discharged after being heat-exchanged (Fig. 1); an expansion valve 4 comprising a third refrigerant intake port through which the refrigerant discharged from the condenser is drawn and a third refrigerant discharge port through which the refrigerant is discharged after being expanded (Fig. 1); an evaporator 5 comprising a fourth refrigerant intake port through which the refrigerant discharged from the expansion valve and a fourth refrigerant discharge port through which the refrigerant is discharged after being heat-exchanged (Fig. 1); a vapor-liquid separator 8 comprising a fifth refrigerant intake port through which the refrigerant discharged from the evaporator is drawn and a fifth refrigerant discharge port through which a liquid refrigerant and a vapor refrigerant separated from the refrigerant are discharged (Fig. 1); a heat exchanger 3 configured to perform a heat exchange between the refrigerant discharged from the condenser and drawn into the expansion valve and the refrigerant discharged from the vapor-liquid separator and drawn into the compressor (Fig. 1); and wherein the second refrigerant discharge port of the condenser 2 and the third refrigerant intake port of the expansion valve 4 are indirectly connected through the first flow path of the heat exchanger such that the refrigerant discharged from the condenser passes through the first flow path of the heat exchanger and then draws into the expansion valve Fig. 1; etc.) . Ishikawa et al. do not teach wherein the heat exchanger and the expansion valve are disposed below the condenser and the evaporator; wherein a first inlet of a first flow path provided in the heat exchanger is disposed directly below the second refrigerant discharge port provided in the condenser; and wherein the third refrigerant intake port of the expansion valve is disposed directly above a first outlet of the first flow path provided in the heat exchanger. However, such arrangement constitutes a simple re-positioning of existing parts not affecting the basic functioning of the system. Such re-positioning would have been a simple mechanical expedient to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the purpose of optimizing space considerations of the overall system.
As per claim 2, Ishikawa et al. disclose wherein: the first refrigerant discharge port of the compressor 1 and the second refrigerant intake port of the condenser 2 are directly connected (Fig. 1); the third refrigerant discharge port of the expansion valve 4 and the fourth refrigerant intake port of the evaporator 5 are directly connected (Fig. 1); the fourth refrigerant discharge port of the evaporator 5 and the fifth refrigerant intake port of the vapor-liquid separator 8 are directly connected (Fig. 1); and the fifth refrigerant discharge port of the vapor-liquid separator 8 and the first refrigerant intake port of the compressor 1 are indirectly connected through the heat exchanger 3 (Fig. 1).
As per claim 3, Ishikawa et al. disclose wherein the heat exchanger comprises: the first flow path through which the refrigerant discharged from the condenser and drawn into the expansion valve flows (flow path through 3a); and a second flow path through which the refrigerant discharged from the vapor-liquid separator and drawn into the compressor flows (flow path through 3b); wherein the first flow path and the second flow path are formed on both sides of a heat exchange region such that the heat exchanger is configured to perform the heat exchange between the refrigerant flowing through the first flow path and the refrigerant flowing through the second flow path in the heat exchange region (Fig. 1; etc.).
As per claim 4, Ishikawa et al. disclose wherein: the heat exchanger 3 comprises a first inlet through which the refrigerant is introduced to the first flow path 3a and a first outlet through which the refrigerant is discharged from the first flow path 3a (Fig. 1), the second refrigerant discharge port and the first inlet are directly connected to and communicate with each other (outlet of condenser 2 and inlet of 3a directly fluidly connect), and the first outlet and the third refrigerant intake port are directly connected to and communicate with each other (outlet of 3a and inlet of expansion valve 4 are directly fluidly connected). Ishikawa et al. do not teach wherein the first inlet and first outlet being open upward; the second refrigerant discharge port is formed downward in a bottom end of the condenser; the third refrigerant intake port is formed downward in a bottom end of the expansion valve. Again, such arrangement constitutes a simple re-positioning of existing parts not affecting the basic functioning of the system. Such re-positioning would have been a simple mechanical expedient to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the purpose of optimizing space considerations of the overall system.
As per claim 5, Ishikawa et al. disclose wherein: the heat exchanger 3 comprises a second inlet through which the refrigerant is introduced to the second flow path 3b and a second outlet through which the refrigerant is discharged from the second flow path 3b (Fig. 1), the fifth refrigerant discharge port and the second inlet (of 3b) are directly connected to and communicate with each other (outlet of separator 8 and inlet of 3b are directly fluidly connected), and the second outlet and the first refrigerant intake port are directly connected to and communicate with each other (outlet of 3b and intake of compressor 1 are directly fluidly connected). Ishikawa et al. do not teach the second inlet and the second outlet being open downward; the fifth refrigerant discharge port is formed upward in a top portion of the vapor-liquid separator; the first refrigerant intake port is formed upward in a top portion of the compressor; the second inlet of the heat exchanger is disposed directly above the fifth refrigerant discharge port provided in the vapor-liquid separator; and the first refrigerant intake port of the compressor is disposed directly below the second outlet provided in the heat exchanger. Again, such arrangement constitutes a simple re-positioning of existing parts not affecting the basic functioning of the system. Such re-positioning would have been a simple mechanical expedient to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the purpose of optimizing space considerations of the overall system.
As per claim 6, Ishikawa et al. disclose wherein the first flow path and the second flow path formed in the heat exchanger are in direct contact with the heat exchange region (in direct contact with the interface region between 3a and 3b).
As per claim 10, Ishikawa et al. disclose wherein: the first refrigerant discharge port is formed upward in a top portion of the compressor 1 (Fig. 1); the second refrigerant intake port is formed downward in a bottom portion of the condenser; and the second refrigerant intake port of the condenser is disposed above the first refrigerant discharge port provided in the compressor such that the first refrigerant discharge port and the second refrigerant intake port are directly connected to and communicate with each other (directly fluidly connected via the flow path comprising sensor 11 in Fig. 1). Ishikawa et al. do not teach the condenser intake port being directly above the first discharge port of the compressor. However, such is considered a simple re-positioning of existing parts not affecting the basic functioning of the system. As such, positioning the condenser directly above the compressor would have been a simple mechanical expedient to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the purpose of optimizing space considerations of the overall system.
As per claim 11, Ishikawa et al. do not teach wherein: the third refrigerant discharge port is formed upward in a top portion of the expansion valve; the fourth refrigerant intake port is formed downward in a bottom portion of the evaporator; and the fourth refrigerant intake port of the evaporator is disposed directly above the third refrigerant discharge port provided in the expansion valve such that the third refrigerant discharge port and the fourth refrigerant intake port are directly connected to and communicate with each other. However, again, the positioning upward or downward of the various ports, or the position of the evaporator intake port relative to the expansion valve discharge port, constitute simple re-positioning of existing parts not affecting the basic functioning of the system. Such re-positioning would have been a simple mechanical expedient to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the purpose of optimizing space considerations of the overall system.
As per claim 12, Ishikawa et al. disclose wherein the fourth refrigerant discharge port and the fifth refrigerant intake port are directly connected to and communicate with each other (discharge of evaporator 5 is directly fluidly connected to inlet of the separator 8). Ishikawa et al. do not teach wherein: the fourth refrigerant discharge port is formed downward in a bottom portion of the evaporator; the fifth refrigerant intake port is formed upward in a top portion of the vapor-liquid separator; and the fifth refrigerant intake port of the vapor-liquid separator is disposed directly below the fourth refrigerant discharge port provided in the evaporator. However, again, the positioning upward or downward of the various ports, or the position of the evaporator discharge port relative to the separator intake port, constitute simple re-positioning of existing parts not affecting the basic functioning of the system. Such re-positioning would have been a simple mechanical expedient to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the purpose of optimizing space considerations of the overall system.
As per claim 13, Ishikawa et al. do not teach wherein: the compressor and the vapor-liquid separator are arranged in parallel in a horizontal direction; and the condenser and the evaporator are provided above the compressor and the vapor-liquid separator and arranged in parallel in the horizontal direction. Again, such arrangement constitutes a simple re-positioning of existing parts not affecting the basic functioning of the system. Such re-positioning would have been a simple mechanical expedient to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the purpose of optimizing space considerations of the overall system.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US 2007/0125106 A1) in view of Sakitani et al. (US 2008/0060365 A1).
As per claim 7, Ishikawa et al. do not teach wherein the heat exchange region of the heat exchanger comprises one or more protruding fins protruding in a direction of the first flow path or a direction of the second flow path. Sakitani et al. teach an internal heat exchanger 23 for a refrigeration cycle wherein the heat exchange region comprises one or more protruding fins 26 protruding in a direction of a flow path 25. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to similarly provide fins in the internal heat exchanger of Ishikawa et al. for the same well-known purpose of enhancing heat transfer by increasing the heat transfer surface area.
As per claim 8, Ishikawa et al. do not teach wherein each of the protruding fins has a cross-section that is constant in a direction in which the refrigerant flows. Sakitani et al. teach wherein each of the protruding fins has a cross-section constant in a direction in which the refrigerant flows (fins shown as having similar cross sections – Fig. 2a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to similarly provide fins in the heat exchanger of Ishikawa et al. wherein each of the protruding fins has a cross-section constant in a direction in which the refrigerant flows for the purposes of providing simple construction and effective heat exchange.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US 2007/0125106 A1) in view of Wittmann et al. (US 2009/0260386 A1).
As per claim 14, Ishikawa et al. do not teach wherein: the condenser comprises a first cooling water intake port through which cooling water for exchanging heat with the refrigerant drawn through the second refrigerant intake port and discharged through the second refrigerant discharge port is introduced and a first cooling water discharge port through which the cooling water is discharged; and the evaporator comprises a second cooling water intake port through which cooling water for exchanging heat with the refrigerant drawn through the fourth refrigerant intake port and discharged through the fourth refrigerant discharge port is introduced and a second cooling water discharge port through which the cooling water is discharged. Wittmann et al. teach a similar refrigeration cycle (comprising compressor 1, condenser 10, internal heat exchanger 3, evaporator 6, and separator 2), wherein: the condenser 10 comprises a first cooling water intake port (intake portion of 12) through which cooling water for exchanging heat with the refrigerant drawn through a condenser refrigerant intake port 12 and discharged through a condenser refrigerant discharge port 108 is introduced and a first cooling water discharge port (discharge portion of 12) through which the cooling water is discharged (Figs. 1-7); and the evaporator 6 comprises a second cooling water intake port (intake portion of 8) through which cooling water for exchanging heat with the refrigerant drawn through the evaporator refrigerant intake port 100 and discharged through the evaporator refrigerant discharge port 101 is introduced and a second cooling water discharge port through which the cooling water is discharged (discharge portion of 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to similarly provide water heat exchange at the condenser and evaporator of Ishikawa et al. for the same purpose of improving energy efficiency and improving coefficient of performance (para. 0014, etc.).
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12097746 b2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
The limitations of pending independent claim 1 are taught within patented claims 6 and 7, and constitutes a general broadening of these combined claims.
The limitations of dependent pending claims 2-14 are further taught within patented claims 7-18, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763