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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 5/15/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Group II is not independent or distinct from Group I. This is not found persuasive because the inventions are considered distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus can be operated in a materially different process such as not operating in a reduced power operating mode and operating a maximum power operating mode.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/4/2024 was/were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 9-10, recites “the forced-air heat-exchange unit” and should recite - - the oblong-shaped forced-air heat exchange unit - - for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 2-10 are objected to as being dependent from an objected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “large thermal-insulated compartment” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large” 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. For purposes of examination “a large thermal-insulated compartment” will be considered - - a thermal-insulated compartment - - .
Claim 9 recites “the same finned body”. However it is unclear what “same finned body” is being referred to because there is a lack of antecedent basis for a “same finned body”. For purposes of examination “the same finned body” will be considered - - a same finned body - - .
Claim 10 recites “the rear wall”. However it is unclear what “rear wall” is being referred to because there is a lack of antecedent basis for a “rear wall”. For purposes of examination “the rear wall” will be considered - - a rear wall - - .
Claim(s) 2-10 are rejected to as being dependent from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moro et al. (IT201900006004A1).
Per claim 1, Moro teaches a refrigerating machine for food products comprising:
an outer casing (2) internally provided with a thermal-insulated compartment (3) adapted to contain the food product or products to be preserved;
an electrically-operated cooling assembly (5, 10) adapted to cool the content of the thermal-insulated compartment; and
an electronic control unit (6) that controls the cooling assembly;
said cooling assembly comprising:
a plurality of heat-pump refrigeration circuits (plurality of 10) separate and independent of one another (see figure 3),
each of which is provided with a low-pressure heat exchanger (11) which is capable of cooling the inside of the thermal-insulated compartment (3); and
an oblong-shaped forced-air heat exchange unit (5), which extends inside the thermal-insulated compartment parallel to a given first direction (see figure 2), and is structured so as to accommodate said low-pressure heat exchangers (11) and a ventilation apparatus (17) adapted to generate a transversal airflow that passes through said low-pressure heat exchangers (see figure 2);
said refrigerating machine being characterized in that the low-pressure heat exchangers are arranged in the oblong-shaped forced-air heat-exchange unit so as to form at least two rows of low-pressure heat exchangers (see annotated figure below), which extend in said first direction side by side and superimposed on one another (see figure 2 showing heat exchangers superimposed on one another from a top view); and
in that said ventilation apparatus (11) is structured so as to generate a transversal airflow that flows substantially perpendicular to said at least two rows of low-pressure heat exchangers passing through said rows of low-pressure heat exchangers (see figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
557
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per claim 2, Moro meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Moro teaches wherein the electronic control unit (6) is programmed/configured so as to selectively activate a subgroup of low-pressure heat exchangers distributed substantially seamlessly along the length of the oblong-shaped forced-air heat-exchange unit (“the electronic control unit 6 is preferably programmed / configured in such a way as to be able to selectively activate the various heat pump refrigeration circuits 10 separately and independently of each other, in such a way as to parcel out the cooling power supplied”, pg. 6 of translation).
Per claim 3, Moro meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Moro teaches wherein the ventilation apparatus (17) is located beside one of said at least two rows of low-pressure heat exchangers (11) (see figure 2).
Per claim 4, Moro meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Moro teaches wherein said rows of low-pressure heat exchangers are adjoined/contiguous to one another (see figure 1 showing 11 adjoined to one another)
Per claim 8, Moro meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Moro teaches wherein the low-pressure heat exchangers are finned pack heat exchangers (“the low pressure heat exchangers 11 are preferably plate-like exchangers with a finned pack structure”, pg. 8 of translation).
Per claim 10, Moro meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Moro teaches wherein said oblong-shaped forced-air heat-exchange unit (5) is arranged inside the thermal-insulated compartment (3) in a substantially vertical position (see figure 2), nearly skimming a rear wall of the thermal-insulated compartment (right wall of 3 shown in figure 2).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moro et al. (IT201900006004A1) in view of Cheng et al. (CN 113446764).
Per claim 9, Moro meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 8. Further, Moro teaches the low-pressure heat exchanger belonging to a same longitudinal segment (segment of 5 including plurality of 11) of the oblong-shaped forced-air heat exchange unit (5) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the low-pressure heat exchangers share a same finned body.
However, Cheng teaches a cooling system wherein a plurality of low-pressure heat exchangers (3-1, 3-2) share a same finned body (3) (“the fin common combined evaporator”, pg. 9 of translation) for improved efficiency (pg. 9 of translation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a plurality of low-pressure heat exchangers share a finned body, as taught by Cheng in the invention of Moro, in order to advantageously improve system efficiency (pg. 9 of translation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Okumura et al. (JP2014214922) teaches a refrigerating machine.
Iovanel (US 2012/0291466) teaches a refrigerating machine.
Ledbetter (US 5,826,432) teaches a refrigerating machine.
Oswald (US 8,056,349) teaches a refrigerating machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J TEITELBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5142. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571) 272-66816681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID J TEITELBAUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights