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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the preliminary amendments filed 09/04/2024. Claims 1-20 have been canceled. Claims 21-40 are new. Claims 21-40 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/04/2024, 09/25/2025 and 10/30/2025 was filed on or after the mailing date of the Application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the device for forcing an airflow being mounted at the air channel inlet side, as described in claim 31 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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:
Pressurizing element in at least claim 1
Device for forcing an airflow in at least claim 1
Guiding element in at least claim 1
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.
A review of the specification show that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
A pressurizing element appears to be described as at least a compressor, a pump, or some other pressurizing element driven by a motor in at least ¶ 60 of the specification.
A device for forcing an airflow appears to be described as one or multiple fans or ventilators in at least ¶ 63 of the specification.
A guiding element appears to be described as a baffle with any amount of noise-absorbing acoustic foam in at least ¶ 55 of the specification.
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
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 23-26, 28, 32-38 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.
Regarding Claim 26, the recitation of “...in such a way that the overall air flow through the air channel is improved by reducing friction losses, so that the pressure drop over the air channel is decreased compared to a situation without guiding elements,” renders the claim unclear. For example, it is unclear as to what structure of the guiding elements performs the recited function of reducing friction loss and decreasing pressure drop. MPEP 2173.05(g) requires the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish a function be recited to indicate the scope of the subject matter claimed. Therefore, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding Claim 28, the recitation of “…two heat-exchangers for cooling pressurized fluid in the fluid duct which are air coolers, a first air-cooler which is an inter-cooler positioned downstream (in the fluid flow) of the first compressor and upstream (in the fluid flow) of the second compressor, and a second air-cooler which is an after-cooler positioned downstream (in the fluid flow) of the second compressor,” renders the claims unclear. Specifically, the phrasing of the claim may appear to imply that the claimed “two heat-exchangers” are entirely separate elements from “a first air cooler” and “a second air cooler”. The Examiner understands the claim as aiming to further specify a first and second air cooler as being the claimed two heat-exchangers. This understanding is similar to the above limitation in claim 28, citing “at least two pressuring stages, with a first pressurizing element…and a second pressurizing element…”, wherein the Examiner does not interpret the limitation as claiming two pressurizing stages in addition to the first and second pressurizing element. The claims appear to intend to further limit the structure, however they may be interpreted as claiming additional structure (i.e. claiming two heat-exchangers as well as an additional first and second air cooler), thereby making interpretation indefinite. Accordingly, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The Examiner may recommend amending the claims similar to the following form:
“…wherein the pressurizing device comprises at least two pressurizing stages, the pressurizing stages comprising a first pressurizing element…and a second pressurizing element…,” and
“…two heat exchangers for cooling…the heat exchangers comprising a first air cooler…and a second air cooler”
Regarding Claim 34, The term “mainly vertical direction” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “mainly vertical” 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. Specifically, it is unclear as to what magnitude of relative horizontal movement would not meet the limitations of “mainly vertical”, therefore making it unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art as to when infringement would occur. Accordingly, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purposes of examination, the limitation(s) will be interpreted as – wherein the air channel is extending in a vertical direction –
Regarding Claim 36, the recitation of “...in a mainly vertical plane…which is mainly U-shaped or V-shaped…,” renders the claim unclear. The terms “mainly vertical” and “mainly U-shaped or V-shaped” are relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “mainly vertical and ”mainly U-shaped or V-shaped” 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. Specifically, it is unclear as to what magnitude of relative horizontal movement would not meet the limitations of “mainly vertical” or what disqualifies a V or U-shape, therefore making it unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art as to when infringement would occur. Accordingly, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purposes of examination, the limitation(s) will be interpreted as – in a vertical plan – and – U-shaped or V-shaped –
Regarding Claims 23-26, the recitation of “…wherein one or more guiding elements…” renders the claims unclear. Specifically, independent claim 21 has already disclosed “one or more sheetlike or platelike guiding elements”. Therefore, it is unclear if the new instance of the terms are referring to the previously disclosed elements, or if they are entirely new elements. Applicant should either fix antecedent basis issues for clarity, or Applicant should further name the elements to meet the minimum requirements for clarity and precision. Accordingly, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purposes of examination, the limitation(s) will be interpreted as – wherein the one or more guiding elements –
Regarding Claims 32-33 and 37-38, the recitation of “…wherein a guiding element…” renders the claims unclear. Specifically, independent claim 21 has already disclosed “one or more sheetlike or platelike guiding elements”. Therefore, it is unclear if the new instance of the terms are referring to the previously disclosed elements, or if they are entirely new elements. Applicant should either fix antecedent basis issues for clarity, or Applicant should further name the elements to meet the minimum requirements for clarity and precision. Accordingly, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purposes of examination, the limitation(s) will be interpreted as – wherein the guiding element –
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21, 25-32, 34, 36 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fujimoto et al. (US 20100135840 A1, hereinafter “Fujimoto”).
Regarding Claim 21 , Fujimoto teaches an air-cooled pressurizing device [Fig. 1; ¶ 0027], comprising a housing [1], a fluid duct [air flowing through compressors 2a and 2b, from air intake; ¶ 0028] for guiding the fluid through the pressurizing device from a fluid duct inlet [air intake] to a fluid duct outlet [discharge] [Fig. 1], one or more pressurizing stages [2a, 2b] in the fluid duct each comprising a pressurizing element [¶ 0028; 2a and 2b are compressor bodies], one or more devices for forcing an airflow [14] in an air channel [Figs. 2A-2D; at least 15, 16, 17, 18] through the housing and two or more heat-exchangers [9, 10, 11] positioned in the air channel for transferring heat from the heat-exchanger to air forced through the air channel by means of the device or devices for forcing an airflow [¶ 0032-0037; air induced by fan 14 flows through the system via at least ducts 15, 16, 17 and 18 such that the airflow cools the heat exchangers; see Fig. 2C],
wherein the two or more heat-exchangers are arranged near one another or on top of one another or both in a cross-section of the air channel in such a way that the total air flow through the air channel is subdivided in several air streams [Fig. 2c; apparent from inspection heat exchangers 9, 10 and 11 overlap and/or are near one another; it is commonsensical that each heat exchanger receives some portion of airflow],
wherein each air stream is flowing through one corresponding heat-exchanger of the two or more heat-exchangers [¶ 0032-0037; all heat exchangers are described as air-cooled heat exchangers, therefore each heat exchanger comprises an airflow therethrough],
wherein the air streams divide the total air flow over the two or more heat-exchangers in the cross-section [Figs. 3A-3B; ¶ 0032-0037; duct 15 may comprise multiple louvers to divide the airflow into separate paths before flowing to respective heat exchangers] and
wherein one or more sheetlike or platelike guiding elements [louver structure of duct 15/16] is or are provided in the air channel for splitting the air flow and guiding air to one or more of the two or more heat-exchangers or a part of such one or more heat-exchangers [Figs. 3A-3B; ¶ 0035-0036; entrance of duct 15 may comprise multiple louvers [see Fig. 3B] to divide the airflow into separate paths before flowing to respective heat exchangers; see respective louver dividers in duct 16 of Fig. 3A, wherein different heights of louvers are directed to different heat exchangers/sections of heat exchangers in a top-down fashion].
Regarding Claim 25, Fujimoto teaches the air-cooled pressurizing device according to claim 21 above and Fujimoto teaches wherein one or more guiding elements [louvers in duct 15] are positioned and oriented in the air channel in such a way that the air flow passing through the concerned heat-exchangers is more evenly distributed over the concerned heat-exchangers, than would be the case without such one or more guiding elements [Figs. 3A-3B; ¶ 0014-0016, 0035-0036; louvers may divide the duct into two or more channels; apparent from inspection of Fig. 3a that the louvers may extend to form said channels leading up to respective heat exchangers at different elevations, correspond to the different louver elevations from duct 15].
Regarding Claim 26, Fujimoto teaches the air-cooled pressurizing device according to claim 21 above and Fujimoto teaches wherein one or more guiding elements [louvers in duct 15] are oriented and positioned in the air channel for constraining, guiding, or splitting the air flow in the air channel [Figs. 3A-3B; ¶ 0014-0016, 0035-0036; louvers may divide the duct into two or more channels; apparent from inspection of Fig. 3a that the louvers may extend to form said channels leading up to respective heat exchangers at different elevations, correspond to the different louver elevations from duct 15] in such a way that the overall air flow through the air channel is improved by reducing friction losses, so that the pressure drop over the air channel is decreased compared to a situation without guiding elements [see 112(b) above].
Regarding Claim 27, Fujimoto teaches the air-cooled pressurizing device according to claim 21 above and Fujimoto teaches wherein at least one of the heat-exchangers forms [at least 9] an air cooler for cooling pressurized fluid in the fluid duct downstream (in the fluid flow) of a pressurizing element [¶ 0028; compressed air from 2a passes through air cooled heat exchanger 9 to be cooled].
Regarding Claim 28, Fujimoto teaches the air-cooled pressurizing device according to claim 21 above and Fujimoto teaches wherein the pressurizing device comprises at least two pressurizing stages [2a, 2b], with a first pressurizing element in the form of a first compressor and a second pressurizing element in the form of a second compressor [¶ 0028; compressor bodies 2a and 2b], two heat-exchangers [9, 11] for cooling pressurized fluid in the fluid duct which are air coolers [¶ 0028], a first air-cooler [9] which is an inter-cooler positioned downstream (in the fluid flow) of the first compressor and upstream (in the fluid flow) of the second compressor [Fig. 1; apparent from inspection; see flow arrows in conduit], and a second air-cooler [11] which is an after-cooler positioned downstream (in the fluid flow) of the second compressor [Fig. 1; apparent from inspection; receiving fluid flowing from 2b].
Regarding Claim 29, Fujimoto teaches the air-cooled pressurizing device according to claim 21 above and Fujimoto teaches wherein one of the two or more heat-exchangers is an air-cooled oil-cooler [13] [¶ 0029; Fig. 1; lubricating oil is cooled by air-cooled heat exchanger 13].
Regarding Claim 30, Fujimoto teaches the air-cooled pressurizing device according to claim 21 above and Fujimoto teaches wherein the air channel extends from an air channel inlet to one or more air channel outlets [Figs 1, 2A-2D and 3A-3B; ¶ 0032; apparent from inspection that air enters the rightmost side of Fig. 3A and flows through ducts 15, 16, 17 and 18 to exhaust via 14] wherein the device for forcing an airflow [14] is mounted at an air channel outlet side [¶ 0032; Fig. 3A; fan 14 may be disposed at the end of duct 17, 18].
Regarding Claim 31, Fujimoto teaches the air-cooled pressurizing device according to claim 21 above and Fujimoto teaches wherein the air channel extends from an air channel inlet to one or more air channel outlets [Figs 1, 2A-2D and 3A-3B; ¶ 0032; apparent from inspection that air enters the rightmost side of Fig. 3A and flows through ducts 15, 16, 17 and 18 to exhaust via 14] wherein the device for forcing an airflow [14] is mounted at the air channel inlet side [Fig. 3A; ¶ 0040; cooling fans may be compact in designed ductwork, such that the fans may be provided in alternative locations (at least 14’) upstream the inlet of duct 17, 18, therefore reinforcing that an obvious change in location of the fan would not significantly modify the function of the device in any significant manner, as the fan would still provide the expected function of inducing an airflow through the channels].
Regarding Claim 32, Fujimoto teaches the air-cooled pressurizing device according to claim 21 above and Fujimoto teaches wherein a guiding element is positioned at the upstream side (in the air flow) of the two or more heat-exchangers [Figs. 3A-3B; ¶ 0035-0036; louvers through duct 15/16 are upstream of heat exchangers 9, 10, 11].
Regarding Claim 34, Fujimoto teaches the air-cooled pressurizing device according to claim 21 above and Fujimoto teaches wherein the air channel is extending in a mainly vertical direction (AA') [note: reference characters in the claims do not affect the scope of the claim; see MPEP 608.01(m)] through the pressurizing device [Figs. 3A-3B; ¶ 0035-0036; duct 16 is provide with angles to flow air vertically], wherein the device for forcing an air flow is positioned at the upper side of the pressurizing device or on top of the pressurizing device [Figs.1-3; apparent from inspection fan 14 is disposed at the top].
Regarding Claim 36, Fujimoto teaches the air-cooled pressurizing device according to claim 21 above and Fujimoto teaches wherein the two or more heat-exchangers are positioned on top of one another in a mainly vertical plane which divides the air channel, which is mainly U-shaped or V-shaped, between a part for downward air flow and a part for upward air flow.
Regarding Claim 39, Fujimoto teaches the air-cooled pressurizing device according to claim 21 above and Fujimoto teaches wherein the fluid to be pressurized is a gaseous fluid or a denser fluid and is selected from one of the following groups consisting: air; oxygen; carbon dioxide; nitrogen; argon; helium; hydrogen; and; water vapor [¶ 0027; at least air].
Regarding Claim 40, Fujimoto teaches the air-cooled pressurizing device according to claim 21 above and Fujimoto teaches wherein the pressurizing elements are compressors [¶ 0027; 2a, 2b] and that a device or multiple such devices for forcing an air flow in the air channel is a fan or ventilator [¶ 0032; fan 14].
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 22-24 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Obara et al. (US 20200400320 A1, hereinafter “Obara”).
Regarding Claim 22 , Fujimoto teaches the air-cooled pressurizing device according to claim 21 above and while Fujimoto discloses a plurality of different heat exchangers [9, 10, 11] comprising a plurality if orientations and sizes], Fujimoto does not explicitly teach wherein in the air channel heat-exchangers are provided with a different flow resistance.
However, Obara teaches an indoor unit [5] of an air-conditioning apparatus [Fig. 3], wherein the indoor unit comprises a plurality of heat exchangers [10, 20, 30] configured to receive an airflow from the casing entrance [6] via a fan [4] rotating to induce said airflow [¶ 0022-0023]. Obara discloses that heat exchangers having different shapes or orientations (i.e. different row numbers or having a different angle from the direction of air from the fan) from one another may have relatively different air resistances, therefore encouraging the airflow to the heat exchanger with less resistance [¶ 0051]. Obara further discloses that differences between flow rates through heat exchangers may lead to increased noise production [¶ 0050-0052], such that a desire to more evenly distribute airflow across a plurality of heat exchangers exists. Obara further teaches the technique of providing plate-like blocking members [at least 50] in the system, such that airflow throughout the device is more evenly distributed, therefore reducing noise from the fan [4] [¶ 0050]. Thus, the air resistance through a heat exchanger is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is an air intake unit with reduced fan noise [¶ 0050].
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide wherein the plurality of heat exchangers are provided with different flow resistance, in order to achieve a device with reduced fan noise.
Regarding Claim 23, Fujimoto, as modified, teaches the air-cooled pressurizing device according to claim 22 above and Fujimoto teaches wherein one or more guiding elements [louvers of duct 15; see Fig. 3B] are oriented and positioned in the air channel for constraining, guiding, or splitting the air flow in the air channel [Fig. 3B; apparent that louvers split air flow] in such a way that a relatively larger portion of the air flow is guided towards a heat-exchanger with higher flow-resistance and the portion of the air flow towards a heat-exchanger with lower flow-resistance is partly guided away from that heat-exchanger or is somewhat constrained [Obara also teaches that different airflows through different heat exchangers are common when their flow resistances are also different, also teaching the known technique of utilize structural members to modify the flow of air through said heat exchangers, such that a more uniform airflow is provided; Obara ¶ 0050-0052].
Regarding Claim 24, Fujimoto, as modified, teaches the air-cooled pressurizing device according to claim 22 and Fujimoto teaches wherein one or more guiding elements [louvers of duct 15; see Fig. 3B] are oriented and positioned in the air channel for constraining, guiding, or splitting the air flow in the air channel [Fig. 3B; apparent that louvers split air flow] in such a way that a relatively larger portion of the air flow is guided towards a heat-exchanger with lower flow-resistance and the portion of the air flow towards a heat-exchanger with higher flow-resistance is partly guided away from that heat-exchanger or is somewhat constrained [Obara also teaches that different airflows through different heat exchangers are common when their flow resistances are also different, also teaching the known technique of utilize structural members to modify the flow of air through said heat exchangers, such that a more uniform airflow is provided; Obara ¶ 0050-0052; therefore the techniques are well-known in the art if a person of ordinary skill in the art had a reason at the time of design to provide more airflow to a heat exchanger with less flow resistance].
Regarding Claim 33, Fujimoto teaches the air-cooled pressurizing device according to claim 21 above but Fujimoto does not explicitly teach wherein a guiding element is positioned at the downstream side (in the air flow) of the two or more heat-exchangers.
However, Obara teaches an indoor unit [5] of an air-conditioning apparatus [Fig. 3], wherein the indoor unit comprises a plurality of heat exchangers [10, 20, 30] configured to receive an airflow from the casing entrance [6] via a fan [4] rotating to induce said airflow [¶ 0022-0023]. Obara discloses that heat exchangers having different shapes or orientations (i.e. different row numbers or having a different angle from the direction of air from the fan) from one another may have relatively different air resistances, therefore encouraging the airflow to the heat exchanger with less resistance [¶ 0051]. Obara further discloses that differences between flow rates through heat exchangers may lead to increased noise production [¶ 0050-0052], such that a desire to more evenly distribute airflow across a plurality of heat exchangers exists. Obara further teaches the technique of providing plate-like blocking members [at least 50] in the system, such that airflow throughout the device is more evenly distributed, therefore reducing noise from the fan [4] [¶ 0050]. Apparent from Fig. 9, the guiding element 50 is disposed on the downstream side of the airflow, depicted from arrows A and B induced by fan 4, in order to redistribute an airflow across heat exchanger with different resistances [¶ 0047-0050]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the guiding element as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the guiding element would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing a means to redistribute flow rate across heat exchangers, thereby reducing noise production and improving the system [¶ 0047-0052].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Fujimoto to have wherein a guiding element is positioned at the downstream side (in the air flow) of the two or more heat-exchangers, in view of the teachings of Obara where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a means to redistribute flow rate across heat exchangers, thereby reducing noise production and improving the system.
Claims 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al. (US 20100135840 A1, hereinafter “Fujimoto”) as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Shiinoki et al. (US 6,193,486 B1, hereinafter “Shiinoki”).
Regarding Claim 35, Fujimoto teaches the air-cooled pressurizing device according to claim 34 above but Fujimoto does not explicitly teach wherein the air channel inlet and the air channel outlet are provided at the upper side of the pressurizing device, wherein the air in the air channel is flowing in a downward direction from the air channel inlet towards the two or more heat-exchangers and in an upward direction from the two or more heat-exchangers towards the air channel outlet.
However, Shiinoki teaches a package-type scroll compressor [Fig. 1] comprising a suction port [16] on an upper side of the device, as the suctioned air flows downwards towards a plurality of fins [21] (heat exchanger) to cool the compressor element, further flowing downwards to also cool a motor [2] (heat exchanger) [Col. 5, 14-25; Fig. 1], before flowing through the end of the motor duct [10] (left side) and then flowing upwards through an exhaust port [19] [Col. 5, 38-64] [See airflow arrows in Fig. 1; flowing from 16, downwards onto 21, then further downwards onto 2, then to the left and up towards 19]. Shiinoki therefore shows that the claimed configuration of providing the channel to have a first downwards airflow towards heat exchanging elements, then upwards towards the output, is already a readily known configuration in the prior art. The differences in structure relating to Fujimoto may simply be considered to be an obvious design choice regarding a change in shape [MPEP 2144.04], as the cooling airflow in both devices of Fujimoto and Shiinoki appear to accomplish the same function. Therefore, it is well within the technical grasp of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to explore all known configurations in the art if there is a reasonable expectation of success (i.e. the cooling air circuit in the claimed configuration still provides a means to cool the components within the packaged compressor [Col. 5, 14-25] in a similar manner to that of Fujimoto).
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Fujimoto to have wherein the air channel inlet and the air channel outlet are provided at the upper side of the pressurizing device, wherein the air in the air channel is flowing in a downward direction from the air channel inlet towards the two or more heat-exchangers and in an upward direction from the two or more heat-exchangers towards the air channel outlet, in view of the teachings of Shiinoki where the air channel have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a known means to cool the components within the packaged compressor.
Regarding Claim 36, Fujimoto teaches the air-cooled pressurizing device according to claim 21 above and Fujimoto teaches wherein the two or more heat-exchangers [9, 10, 11] are positioned on top of one another in a mainly vertical plane which divides the air channel [Fig. 3A; heat exchangers are above and below each other on the relative vertical plane], however Fujimoto does not teach wherein the air channel is mainly U-shaped or V-shaped, between a part for downward air flow and a part for upward air flow.
However, Shiinoki teaches a package-type scroll compressor [Fig. 1] comprising a suction port [16] on an upper side of the device, as the suctioned air flows downwards towards a plurality of fins [21] (heat exchanger) to cool the compressor element, further flowing downwards to also cool a motor [2] (heat exchanger) [Col. 5, 14-25; Fig. 1], before flowing through the end of the motor duct [10] (left side) and then flowing upwards through an exhaust port [19] [Col. 5, 38-64] [See airflow arrows in Fig. 1; flowing from 16, downwards onto 21, then further downwards onto 2, then to the left and up towards 19]. Shiinoki therefore shows that the claimed configuration of providing the channel to have a first downwards airflow towards heat exchanging elements, then upwards towards the output, is already a readily known configuration in the prior art. The differences in structure relating to Fujimoto may simply be considered to be an obvious design choice regarding a change in shape [MPEP 2144.04], as the cooling airflow in both devices of Fujimoto and Shiinoki appear to accomplish the same function. Furthermore, Fujimoto explicitly discloses that it is the plurality of angle changes in the duct 15/16 that provide the function of noise suppression [Fujimoto ¶ 0035-0036], therefore leading one to believe that the same duct work angled from an upwards inlet down to the heat exchangers may still provide the main function of noise reduction, while exploring known configurations in the art. Simply rotating the angle of ducts 15/16 180 degrees around the horizontal would provide the claimed V or U-shaped ductwork. Therefore, it is well within the technical grasp of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to explore all known configurations in the art if there is a reasonable expectation of success (i.e. the cooling air circuit in the claimed configuration still provides a means to cool the components within the packaged compressor [Shiinoki Col. 5, 14-25] in a similar manner to that of Fujimoto).
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Fujimoto to have wherein the air channel is mainly U-shaped or V-shaped, between a part for downward air flow and a part for upward air flow, in view of the teachings of Shiinoki where the air channel have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a known means to cool the components within the packaged compressor.
Regarding Claim 37, Fujimoto, as modified, teaches he air-cooled pressurizing device according to claim 36 above and Fujimoto teaches wherein a guiding element [louvers of duct 15; see Fig. 3B] is provided at the upstream side (in the air flow) of the two or more heat- exchangers [See Fig. 3; ¶ 0035], having a lower part with a flat surface which is oriented parallel to the vertical plane of the heat-exchangers and an upper part with a flat surface which slopes in an inclined direction (BB') [note: reference characters in the claims do not affect the scope of the claim; see MPEP 608.01(m)] with respect to the lower part towards the air channel inlet, which is provided in a side wall of the pressurizing device [Fig. 3A; louver 15 comprises bends in the duct].
[While Fujimoto does not explicitly disclose the shape of the guiding element, the claimed shape may considered to be an obvious matter of design choice regarding a change in shape [MPEP 2144.04] because the claimed shape would not appear to provide any further unexpected function not already disclosed by the prior art. Specifically, Fujimoto has already disclosed the known importance of providing some amount of bend in the in the duct work upstream of the heat exchangers to reduce noise production [¶ 0035-0036]. Also taking into account the general known teachings of the other prior art as evidence, Obara et al. (US 20200400320 A1) discloses that heat exchangers having different shapes or orientations (i.e. different row numbers or having a different angle from the direction of air from the fan) from one another may have relatively different air resistances, therefore encouraging the airflow to the heat exchanger with less resistance [Obara ¶ 0051]. Obara further discloses that differences between flow rates through heat exchangers may lead to increased noise production [Obara ¶ 0050-0052], therefore providing a known incentive to change the shape of the guide plate, at least dependent on the given orientation of the heat exchangers within the device at the time of design so as to optimize noise reduction. Accordingly, the claimed shape is not considered patentably significant, as it does not appear to produce a new or unexpected result.]
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Sharp et al. (US 20020106282 A1, hereinafter “Sharp”).
Regarding Claim 38, Fujimoto teaches the air-cooled pressurizing device according to claim 21 above but Fujimoto does not teach wherein a guiding element forms a baffle which is at one or both sides at least partly covered with a noise-absorbing acoustic foam.
However, Sharp teaches an enclosure for an air compressor [10] [Fig. 3] wherein acoustic foam may be utilized on a plurality of surfaces of the enclosure in order to inhibit the reflection of sound [¶ 0007]. Sharp teaches that using acoustic foam reduces the “line of sight” path of noise, therefore reducing the overall noise emanating from the unit [¶ 0008]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the noise-absorbing acoustic foam as claimed by known methods/techniques and that in combination, the noise-absorbing acoustic foam would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing a means to reduce the overall noise emanating from a compressor unit, thus improving the system [¶ 0007-0008].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Fujimoto to have wherein a guiding element forms a baffle which is at one or both sides at least partly covered with a noise-absorbing acoustic foam, in view of the teachings of Sharp, where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a means to reduce the overall noise emanating from a compressor unit, thus improving the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Washio et al. (US 20190128265 A1) teaches a gas supplying apparatus comprising a housing with separate flows to components being cooled [Abstract].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH S MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5102. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571) 270-5054. 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.
/KEITH STANLEY MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights