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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/06/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the published application on 10/16/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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 2-4 and 14 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.
Claims 2 and 14 recite the phrase “and/or” which renders the claim indefinite. This language is indefinite because it is not clear what is being claimed and what the scope is.
No person of the ordinary skill in the art would know what “and/or” means with reasonable
certainty. Therefore, the scope is unclear and for purposes of examination, the limitations that
follow “and/or” will be considered in the alternative.
Claims 3-4 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1, 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fuhrmann (DE 102016115824 A1, hereinafter Fuhrmann).
Regarding claim 1, Fuhrmann teaches a modular fluid-fluid heat transfer arrangement (system 1) comprising: first inlet and outlet junction pipes (3c/3d) for connecting the modular fluid-fluid heat transfer arrangement (system 1) to a cold fluid side (for cooling the within the second heat carrier circuit 3, paragraph 0044) to form a cold side fluid recirculation path (second heat carrier circuit 3); second inlet and outlet junction pipes (2b/2d) for connecting the modular fluid-fluid heat transfer arrangement (system 1) to a hot fluid side (for heating the within the first heat carrier circuit 2, paragraph 0044) to form a hot side fluid recirculation path (first heat carrier circuit 2); and a plurality of heat pump modules (devices 4, figure 3), wherein each heat pump module (devices 4, figure 3) comprises: first inlet and outlet ports (12”/12’); second inlet and outlet ports (11”/11’); control means (central switching device 6) for controlling the heat pump module (at least one conveying device for conveying the heat transfer fluid through the device for controlling the temperature of the heat transfer fluid together with the device and the associated switching device each form a compact, continuous and modular unit, paragraph 0039); and a refrigerant circulation path which includes the following entities connected to one another in sequence (at least one device for tempering the heat transfer fluids has a refrigerant circuit with at least one compressor, at least one condenser, at least one expansion element and at least one evaporator, paragraph 0017): a first heat exchanger unit (heat exchanger 17) fluidly connected to said first inlet and outlet ports (12”/12’); a compressor (compressor 14); a second heat exchanger unit (heat exchanger 15) fluidly connected to said second inlet and outlet ports (11”/11’); and an expander (expansion device 16); wherein, when in use, said plurality of heat pump modules (devices 4, figure 3) are connected in parallel to each other (as shown on figure 3), by their respective first inlet and outlet ports (12”/12’) being connected to said first inlet and outlet junction pipes (3c/3d, figure 3), respectively, and by their respective second inlet and outlet ports (11”/11’) being connected to said second inlet and outlet junction pipes (2b/2d), respectively.
Regarding claim 5, Fuhrmann teaches wherein each heat pump module (devices 4, figure 3) of the plurality of heat pump modules (devices 4, figure 3) comprises a cold side fluid flow control device (pumps 10, figure 3) configured to control a flow rate of cold side fluid being supplied to each heat pump module from said cold side fluid recirculation path (the pump 10 of the individual devices 4 according to the desired flow temperatures of the heat transfer fluids in the heat transfer circuits 3 be managed, paragraph 0038).
Further, it is understood, claim 5 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 10, Fuhrmann teaches wherein each heat pump module (devices 4, figure 3) of the plurality of heat pump modules (devices 4, figure 3) comprises a hot side fluid flow control device (pumps 9) configured to control a flow rate (the pump 9 of the individual devices 4 according to the desired flow temperatures of the heat transfer fluids in the heat transfer circuits 2 be managed, paragraph) of hot side fluid being supplied to the hot fluid side (for heating the within the first heat carrier circuit 2) from each heat pump module (devices 4, figure 3).
Further, it is understood, claim 10 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 2, 7-9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuhrmann (DE 102016115824 A1, hereinafter Fuhrmann) in view of Mortz (US 20160245565 A1, hereinafter Mortz).
Regarding claim 2, Fuhrmann teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein at least one heat pump module of the plurality of heat pump modules is removably arranged in the arrangement in a manner which allows to remove or replace the heat pump module within the arrangement.
However, Mortz teaches wherein at least one heat pump module (heat pumps 54/58 from heat pump modules 12) of the plurality of heat pump modules (figure 3) is removably arranged in the arrangement in a manner which allows to remove or replace the heat pump module within the arrangement (PLC system 16 determines which heat pump is turned on first and which is turned off first and also provides the ability to remove a heat pump from service, paragraph 0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement in the teachings of Fuhrmann to include wherein at least one heat pump module of the plurality of heat pump modules is removably arranged in the arrangement in a manner which allows to remove or replace the heat pump module within the arrangement in view of the teachings of Mortz in order to yield the predictable result of providing the ability to remove a heat pump from service.
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach further comprising a main controller (PLC system 16 of Mortz) being configured to control an operation of each heat pump module (the PLC system 16 provides power from the power supply 18 to the system 10 that is distributed to the heat pump modules 12 and the dual pump module 14 through the power and control conduit 38, as described in paragraph 0044 of Mortz) of the plurality of heat pump modules (heat pump modules 12 and dual pump module 14 of Mortz).
Further, it is understood, claim 7 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach wherein the main controller (PLC system 16 of Mortz) is configured to control the operation of each heat pump module (as described in paragraph 0044 of Mortz) of the plurality of heat pump modules (heat pump modules 12 and dual pump module 14 of Mortz) to operate in an operational mode being common for all heat pump modules (the PLC system 16 provides power from the power supply 18 to the system 10 that is distributed to the heat pump modules 12 and the dual pump module 14 through the power and control conduit 38, as described in paragraph 0044 of Mortz).
Further, it is understood, claim 8 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach wherein the operational mode is defined by an input power being common for all heat pump modules (the PLC system 16 provides power from the power supply 18 to the system 10 that is distributed to the heat pump modules 12 and the dual pump module 14 through the power and control conduit 38, as described in paragraph 0044 of Mortz).
Regarding claim 20, it is noted that although the preamble of claim 20 is directed towards a method, the structure of the combined teachings discloses all the structure being provided in the method steps, thus the method is also rendered obvious by the combined teachings. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently or obviously perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuhrmann, as modified by Mortz, as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Woo (KR 20180128741 A, hereinafter Woo).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein said at least one heat pump module of the plurality of heat pump modules is structured and arranged to be portable.
However, Woo teaches wherein said at least one heat pump module (portable pest control heat pump unit, figures 2-4) of the plurality of heat pump modules (portable pest control heat pump unit, figures 2-4) is structured and arranged to be portable (portable, abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement in the combined teachings to include wherein said at least one heat pump module of the plurality of heat pump modules is structured and arranged to be portable in view of the teachings of Woo in order to yield the predictable result of portability.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuhrmann, as modified by Mortz, as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Charlton et al (GB 2459927 A, hereinafter Charlton).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein said at least one heat pump module of the plurality of heat pump modules have a height between 25-45 cm, a width between 15-35 cm, and a depth between 45-65 cm.
However, Charlton teaches wherein said at least one heat pump module (arrangement 100) of the plurality of heat pump modules (arrangement 100) have a height between 25-45 cm (550mm to 55cm, paragraph 0014), a width between 15-35 cm (400mm to 40cm, paragraph 0014), and a depth between 45-65 cm (300mm to 30cm, paragraph 0014).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement in the combined teachings to include wherein said at least one heat pump module of the plurality of heat pump modules have a height between 25-45 cm, a width between 15-35 cm, and a depth between 45-65 cm in view of the teachings of Charlton in order to yield the predictable result of providing accommodation for space available.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuhrmann, as modified by Mortz, as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of Rosen et al (EP 3933283 A1, hereinafter Rosen).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the cold side fluid flow control device comprises a pump configured to be variably adjustable.
However, Rosen teaches wherein the cold side fluid flow control device comprises a pump (heat pumps 70) configured to be variably adjustable (the control unit 80 may be configured to individually adjust the heat pumping capacity of each of the plurality of heat pumps 70, paragraph 0082).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement in the combined teachings to include wherein the cold side fluid flow control device comprises a pump configured to be variably adjustable in view of the teachings of Rosen in order to yield the predictable result of individually adjusting the heat pumping capacity of each of the plurality of heat pumps.
Further, it is understood, claim 6 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Claims 11-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuhrmann (DE 102016115824 A1, hereinafter Fuhrmann) in view of Hazui et al (US 20180187938 A1, hereinafter Hazui).
Regarding claim 11, Fuhrmann teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the main controller is configured to individually control the operation of each heat pump module of the plurality of heat pump modules to allow operating each heat pump module at a respective operational mode.
However, Hazui teaches wherein the main controller (higher-level control device 24) is configured to individually control the operation of each heat pump module (paragraph 0049) of the plurality of heat pump modules (12/14) to allow operating each heat pump module (12/14) at a respective operational mode (paragraph 0006).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement in the teachings of Fuhrmann to include wherein the main controller is configured to individually control the operation of each heat pump module of the plurality of heat pump modules to allow operating each heat pump module at a respective operational mode in view of the teachings of Hazui in order to yield the predictable result of providing a refrigerator system with which refrigerators can be operated efficiently.
Further, it is understood, claim 8 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach wherein said respective operational mode (paragraph 0006 of Hazui) of each heat pump module (upstream refrigerator 12 and the downstream refrigerator 14 of Hazui) is based on a predetermined fraction (equipment load factor is smaller than a first threshold value, paragraph 0006 of Hazui) of a maximum input power (increased power consumption, figure 11 of Hazui), of that heat pump module (upstream refrigerator 12 and the downstream refrigerator 14 of Hazui), wherein the predetermined fraction is common for all heat pump modules (upstream refrigerator 12 and the downstream refrigerator 14, as further shown on figure 11 of Hazui).
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teach wherein said respective predefined operational mode (first mode, paragraph 0006 of Hazui) of each heat pump module (upstream refrigerator 12 and the downstream refrigerator 14 of Hazui) is based on a predetermined time sequence alternating (equipment load alternating from first and second threshold, paragraph 0006 of Hazui) between a first state (in which the downstream refrigerator 14 is stopped, paragraph 0073 of Hazui), where the heat pump module (downstream refrigerator 14 of Hazui) is not in operation, and a second state (first mode in which the upstream refrigerator 12 is operated, paragraph 0073 of Hazui), where the heat pump module (upstream refrigerator 12) is operated at a predetermined input power (first mode in which the upstream refrigerator 12 is operated, paragraph 0073 of Hazui).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teach wherein the control means (controller 109 of Hazui) of each heat pump module (upstream refrigerator 12 and the downstream refrigerator 14 of Hazui) of the plurality of heat pump modules (upstream refrigerator 12 and the downstream refrigerator 14 of Hazui) is in communication with the control means (controller 109 of Hazui) of the other heat pump modules (upstream refrigerator 12 and the downstream refrigerator 14 of Hazui) of the plurality of heat pump modules (upstream refrigerator 12 and the downstream refrigerator 14 of Hazui) or with the main controller (as described in paragraph 0064 of Hazui).
Regarding claim 19, it is noted that although the preamble of claim 19 is directed towards a method, the structure of the combined teachings discloses all the structure being provided in the method steps, thus the method is also rendered obvious by the combined teachings. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently or obviously perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuhrmann (DE 102016115824 A1, hereinafter Fuhrmann) in view of Moro et al (IT 201900006004 A1, hereinafter Moro).
Regarding claim 15, Fuhrmann teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein each heat pump module of the plurality of heat pump modules comprises a refrigerant, wherein an amount of the refrigerant in each heat pump module is below a predetermined threshold-value.
However, Moro teaches wherein each heat pump module (blast chiller 1) of the plurality of heat pump modules (blast chiller 1) comprises a refrigerant (each heat pump refrigeration circuit 10 of the cooling unit 5 is preferably sized to contain an overall quantity of refrigerant, paragraph 0012), wherein an amount of the refrigerant in each heat pump module (blast chiller 1) is below a predetermined threshold-value (lower than 150 grams, paragraph 0012).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement in the teachings of Fuhrmann to include wherein each heat pump module of the plurality of heat pump modules comprises a refrigerant, wherein an amount of the refrigerant in each heat pump module is below a predetermined threshold-value in view of the teachings of Moro in order to yield the predictable result of staying below the IEC regulations for R290 refrigerant amount.
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach wherein a total volume of refrigerant (each heat pump refrigeration circuit 10 of the cooling unit 5 is preferably sized to contain an overall quantity of refrigerant, paragraph 0012 of Moro) contained in each of the at least one modular liquid-liquid heat pump (blast chiller 1 of Moro) is below 400 g, or below 300 g, or below 200 g (lower than 150 grams, paragraph 0012 of Moro).
Regarding claim 17, the combined teachings teach wherein the predetermined threshold value is 334 g (lower than 150 grams, paragraph 0012 of Moro).
Regarding claim 18, the combined teachings teach wherein the refrigerant is R290 (R290, paragraph 0012 of Moro).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIO DELEON whose telephone number is (571)272-8687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/DARIO ANTONIO DELEON/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights