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 remarks and amendments filed on {DATE}. The objections to the 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn. Claims 1-18 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toniolo et al (US 20240318836) in view of Fernandez et al (US 20120103560) and Wu et al (US 20100295429).
Regarding claim 1, Toniolo teaches an air conditioning system (fig. 6) comprising: a vapor compression cycle (608, heat pump, paragraph 0090) having a plurality of components including a compressor (compressor, paragraph 0056) and at least one heat exchanger (outdoor/indoor coil, paragraph 0056), and a heat transfer fluid (refrigerant, paragraph 0056) is configured to circulate within the vapor compression cycle; an energy storage device (604) selectively operable to supply power to an electrical component (heat and cooling system, paragraph 0051) of the vapor compression cycle (power, paragraph 0039-0040, 0051); and a cooling system (610) associated with the energy storage device, wherein the cooling system is a geothermal cooling system (paragraph 0091) but fails to explicitly teach a ground near the energy storage device is a heat sink configured to absorb heat from a fluid heated directly by the energy storage device.
However, Fernandez teaches a cooling system (104, 130) associated with the energy storage device, wherein the cooling system is a geothermal cooling system (104) and a ground (130) near the energy storage device (142) is a heat sink (heated air passes through the manifold inlet chamber 122 and enters heat exchange tubes or pipes 116, where geothermal cooling takes place due to the contact of the heat exchange tubes 116 with soil, paragraph 0039) to provide a natural cooling solution to cool batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the air conditioning system of Toniolo to include a cooling system associated with the energy storage device, wherein the cooling system is a geothermal cooling system and a ground near the energy storage device is a heat sink in view of the teachings of Fernandez to provide a natural cooling solution to cool batteries.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but a ground near the energy storage device is a heat sink configured to absorb heat from a fluid heated directly by the energy storage device.
However, Wu teaches a ground (soil, Fig. 1) near the energy storage device (power consuming equipment, corresponds to 142 of Fernandez) is a heat sink (paragraph 0029) configured to absorb heat from a fluid (hot air, fig. 1) heated directly by the energy storage device (air flow from equipment to 203 in fig. 1) to improve the cooling ability of the electronic equipment under the premise of being environmentally friendly and energy-saving.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the air conditioning system of the combined teachings to include a ground near the energy storage device is a heat sink configured to absorb heat from a fluid heated directly by the energy storage device in view of the teachings of Wu to improve the cooling ability of the electronic equipment under the premise of being environmentally friendly and energy-saving.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach the cooling system includes a coolant loop (116 of Fernandez, unnumbered loop, fig. 6 of Toniolo) fluidly connected to the energy storage device (fig. 1b of Fernandez) and a coolant (heat released by 604, paragraph 0091 of Toniolo) circulating within the coolant loop is the fluid heated directly by the energy storage device (fig. 6 of Toniolo), wherein at least a portion of the coolant loop (figs. 1a-1c of Fernandez) is positioned vertically beneath a surface level of the ground (beneath the surface of 130, fig. 1a of Fernandez).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach the coolant loop includes at least one coolant pipe (116 of Fernandez) and at least part of the at least one coolant pipe extends beneath a frost line (understood 116 would be under the frost line as it’s well known in the art of geothermal heating/cooling to place pipes under the frost line, figs. 1a-1c of Fernandez) associated with the ground.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, the combined teachings teach the cooling system includes at least one cooling channel (116 of Fernandez) arranged at an exterior surface (112 of Fernandez) of the energy storage device.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, the combined teachings teach the cooling system includes a coolant (heat released by 604, paragraph 0091 of Toniolo) operable to circulate through the cooling system (fig. 6 heat released by 604, paragraph 0091 of Toniolo), wherein the coolant is an internal cooling fluid (heat released by 604, paragraph 0091 of Toniolo) of the energy storage device and is the fluid heated directly by the energy storage device (heat released by 604, paragraph 0091 of Toniolo).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the combined teachings teach the energy storage device is arranged at or above a surface level of the ground (figs. 1a-1c of Fernandez).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach at least one of the plurality of components of the vapor compression cycle is arranged within an outdoor unit (102 of Fernandez, fig. 6 of Toniolo), the energy storage device being positioned directly beneath the outdoor unit (figs. 1a-1c of Fernandez).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, the combined teachings teach wherein at least one of the plurality of components of the vapor compression cycle is arranged within an outdoor unit (102 of Fernandez, fig. 6 of Toniolo), the energy storage device being positioned remotely from the outdoor unit (figs. 1a-1c of Fernandez, fig. 6 of Toniolo).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach at least a portion of the energy storage device is arranged below a surface level of the ground.
However, there is no evidence of record that establishes at least a portion of the energy storage device is arranged below a surface level of the ground would result in a difference in function of the Fernandez system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system Fernandez, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed structure. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed removability solves any stated problem, indicating that the coolant “may be directly positioned within the ground” (see paragraph 0080), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on at least a portion of the energy storage device is arranged below a surface level of the ground as claimed such that they produce an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach wherein all of the energy storage device is located below the surface level of the ground.
However, there is no evidence of record that establishes the energy storage device is located below the surface level of the ground would result in a difference in function of the Fernandez system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system Fernandez, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed structure. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed removability solves any stated problem, indicating that the coolant “may be directly positioned within the ground” (see paragraph 0080), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the energy storage device is located below the surface level of the ground as claimed such that they produce an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach at least part of the energy storage device is located below a frost line associated with the ground.
However, there is no evidence of record that establishes at least part of the energy storage device is located below a frost line associated with the ground would result in a difference in function of the Fernandez system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system Fernandez, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed structure. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed removability solves any stated problem, indicating that the coolant “may be directly positioned within the ground” (see paragraph 0080), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on at least part of the energy storage device is located below a frost line associated with the ground as claimed such that they produce an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teaches all the limitations of claim 13 including the cooling system includes a heat exchanger (104, 130), an ambient atmosphere (soil, paragraph 0039 of Fernandez) surrounding the heat exchanger being operable to remove heat from the energy storage device (paragraph 0039 of Fernandez). See rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teaches the heat exchanger is located at the energy storage device (figs. 1a-1c of Fernandez).
Regarding claim 17, the combined teachings teaches the heat exchanger is mounted to an exterior surface of a building (figs. 1a-1c of Fernanez, fig. 6 of Toniolo) to be conditioned by the air conditioning system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant does not separately argue claims 2-5, 7-12, 14-18 except for the dependency from claims 1 and 13. Therefore the rejections are considered proper and maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3840. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-3:00 CT pm 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, 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.
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights