DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickle (US 20220397296 A1) in view of Chen (US 20080188173 A1) and Jung (US 20210164665 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Pickle discloses a refrigeration system (Fig. 5) comprising:
a compressor #154;
a condenser (made of #162 & #164);
an evaporator #176, wherein the compressor, the condenser and the evaporator are connected in series by a plurality of tubular lines with a refrigerant disposed throughout (Fig. 5);
a fan (one of #166 and #172) disposed to output airflow through at least one of the condenser and the evaporator (Fig. 5);
a modulator valve #160 disposed between the compressor and the condenser, wherein the condenser is configured as a first heat exchanger #162 and a second heat exchanger #164 in parallel fluid connection, and
a controller #178 operatively connected to the modulator valve to regulate the flow of refrigerant to the first heat exchanger and second heat exchanger ([0035], [0042], and [0048]),
wherein the first heat exchanger has a surface area x and the second heat exchanger has a surface area y.
Pickle does not specifically disclose wherein the fan outputs a constant airflow.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches that it is known to operate an evaporator fan at a constant airflow (see evaporator fan #12a; [0008] and [0029-0030]).
This is clear evidence that operating a fan at constant speed is a well-known practice of the prior art.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the system of Pickle with the fan speed being constant.
One of ordinary skills in the art would have recognized that doing so would have reduced fluctuation of heat transfer coefficient so as to produce relatively stable airflow and heat transfer conditions. Another benefit is simpler and inexpensive control of the fan.
Pickle does not disclose wherein the surface area of the second heat exchanger is greater than surface area of the first heat exchanger.
In the same field of endeavor, Jung discloses a condenser made of two heat exchangers #21 and #23 provided in parallel, wherein the surface area of the heat exchangers is different ([0056] and [0071]).
This is strong evidence the particular size of a heat exchanger is a result effective variable that can be optimized by routine experimentation, as it has been held that only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. See MPEP 2144.05-II, In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
Furthermore, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the system of Pickle with the surface area of the second heat exchanger is greater than surface area of the first heat exchanger.
One of ordinary skills in the art would have recognized that doing so would have yielded the predictable result of maximizing heat transfer efficiency. Other benefits include optimizing space and operating costs.
Regarding claim 2:
Pickle as modified discloses all the limitations.
Pickle further discloses a pressure sensor #184 operatively connected to the controller and located upstream of the modulator valve, wherein the pressure sensor communicates pressure measurements to the controller ([0049]).
Regarding claim 3:
Pickle as modified discloses all the limitations.
Pickle further discloses a pressure sensor #184 operatively connected to the controller and located upstream of the evaporator and downstream of the modulator valve, wherein the pressure sensor communicates pressure measurements to the controller ([0049]).
Regarding claim 4:
Pickle as modified discloses all the limitations.
Pickle further discloses wherein the constant airflow streams across the first heat exchanger and second heat exchanger in parallel (see air stream across the respective heat exchangers).
Also note that the constant airflow streams across the evaporator (see rejection of claim 1). The constant airflow streaming across the first heat exchanger and second heat exchanger is an alternative (see claim 1: “a constant airflow through at least one of the condenser and the evaporator”). Because the prior art discloses one of the alternatives (constant airflow across the evaporator); the limitation is considered met.
Regarding claim 5:
Pickle as modified discloses all the limitations; except for wherein the constant airflow streams across the first heat exchanger and second heat exchanger in series.
Nonetheless, Pickle teaches the concept of flowing an air stream across two condensers in series. See airflow from #166; flowing across condensers #158 and #162.
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Pickle as modified with an air stream flows across the first heat exchanger and second heat exchanger in series; in a similar manner as further taught by Pickle.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have provided precise humidity control for an indoor environment. Other benefits include providing a compact design at least by virtue of using a single fan for multiple condensers; and lowering manufacturing and installation costs at least by virtue of reducing the components of the system.
Also note that the constant airflow streams across the evaporator (see rejection of claim 1). The constant airflow streaming across the first heat exchanger and second heat exchanger is an alternative (see claim 1: “a constant airflow through at least one of the condenser and the evaporator”). Because the prior art discloses one of the alternatives (constant airflow across the evaporator); the limitation is considered met.
Regarding claims 6-10:
Pickle as modified discloses all the limitations; except for the respective claimed sizing proportion of the heat exchangers.
However, it has been shown that in the same field of endeavor, Jung discloses a condenser made of two heat exchangers #21 and #23 provided in parallel, wherein the surface area of the heat exchangers is different ([0056] and [0071]). This is strong evidence the particular size of a heat exchanger is a result effective variable that can be optimized by routine experimentation, as it has been held that only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. See MPEP 2144.05-II, In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
Furthermore, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the system of Pickle as modified with the respective claimed sizing proportion of the heat exchangers.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that doing so would have yielded the predictable result of maximizing heat transfer efficiency. Other benefits include optimizing space and operating costs.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickle (US 20220397296 A1) in view of Buda (US 20110144807 A1) and Jung (US 20210164665 A1).
Regarding claim 11:
Pickle discloses a method of modulating head pressure control within a HVAC system (Fig. 5), the HVAC system comprising:
a fan #166;
a first heat exchanger #162,
a second heat exchanger #164,
a controller #178,
a modulating valve #160, and
refrigerant ([0042]), the method of modulating head pressure comprising the steps of:
installing the first heat exchanger in parallel refrigerant flow with the second heat exchanger
(Fig. 5), wherein the second heat exchanger has a greater surface area than the first heat exchanger;
installing the modulating valve upstream of the first heat exchanger and second heat exchanger (Fig. 5);
operating the fan to output an airflow through the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger (Fig. 5): and
modulating flow of the refrigerant through the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger via the modulating valve ([0042] & [0048]), wherein:
head pressure is reduced by increasing flow of refrigerant to the second heat exchanger; and
head pressure is elevated by increasing flow of refrigerant to the first heat exchanger ([0042] & [0048]).
Pickle does not specifically disclose wherein the airflow is constant.
In the same field of endeavor, Buda teaches that it is known to provide a relatively constant airflow through the condenser using a single speed fan (see [0103]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the system of Pickle with the fan speed being constant; in a similar manner as taught by Buda.
One of ordinary skills in the art would have recognized that doing so would have reduced fluctuation of heat transfer coefficient so as to produce relatively stable airflow and heat transfer conditions. Another benefit is simpler and inexpensive control of the fan.
Pickle does not disclose wherein the second heat exchanger has a greater surface area than the first heat exchanger.
In the same field of endeavor, Jung discloses a condenser made of two heat exchangers #21 and #23 provided in parallel, wherein the surface area of the heat exchangers is different ([0056] and [0071]).
This is strong evidence the particular size of a heat exchanger is a result effective variable that can be optimized by routine experimentation, as it has been held that only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. See MPEP 2144.05-II, In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
Furthermore, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the method of Pickle with the surface area of the second heat exchanger is greater than surface area of the first heat exchanger.
One on ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that doing so would have yielded the predictable result of maximizing heat transfer efficiency. Other benefits include and optimizing space and operating costs.
Regarding claim 12:
Pickle as modified discloses all the limitations.
Pickle further discloses installing the first heat exchanger in parallel constant airflow with the second heat exchanger (see Fig. 5; and rejection of claim 11).
Regarding claim 13:
Pickle as modified discloses all the limitations; except installing the first heat exchanger in series constant airflow with the second heat exchanger.
Nonetheless, Pickle teaches the concept of flowing an air stream across two condensers in series. See airflow from #166; flowing across condensers #158 and #162.
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the method of Pickle as modified with installing the first heat exchanger in series airstream flow with the second heat exchanger; in a similar manner as further taught by Pickle.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have provided precise humidity control for an indoor environment. Other benefits include providing a compact design at least by virtue of using a single fan for multiple condensers; and lowering manufacturing and installation costs at least by virtue of reducing the components of the system.
Regarding claim 14:
Pickle as modified discloses all the limitations; except for wherein the surface area of the second heat exchanger is between 3.5 to 4.5 times greater than the surface area of the first heat exchanger.
However, it has been shown that in the same field of endeavor, Jung discloses a condenser made of two heat exchangers #21 and #23 provided in parallel, wherein the surface area of the heat exchangers is different ([0056] and [0071]). This is strong evidence the particular size of a heat exchanger is a result effective variable that can be optimized by routine experimentation, as it has been held that only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. See MPEP 2144.05-II, In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
Furthermore, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the method of Pickle as modified with the respective claimed sizing proportion of the heat exchangers.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that doing so would have yielded the predictable result of maximizing heat transfer efficiency. Other benefits include optimizing space and operating costs.
Response to Arguments
The following remarks respond to applicant’s arguments filed 07/22/2026.
Applicant submitted that the prior art of record does not disclose wherein the airflow generated by the fan is constant. This argument has been fully considered; but is considered moot in view of the new rejection(s). It has been pointed out to the applicant that Chen (US 20080188173 A1) teaches that it is known to operate an evaporator fan at a constant airflow (see evaporator fan #12a; [0008] and [0029-0030]). Buda (US 20110144807 A1) teaches that it is known to provide a relatively constant airflow through the condenser using a single speed fan (see [0103]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the system of Pickle with the fan speed being constant with the benefit of reducing fluctuation of heat transfer coefficient so as to produce relatively stable airflow and heat transfer conditions. Another benefit would have been to provide simpler and inexpensive control of the fan.
Accordingly, the claims remain unpatentable over the prior art. Refer to the 103 section above for the detailed rejection of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kibo (US 20160252284 A1) teaches operating evaporator fans at constant airflow.
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 LIONEL W NOUKETCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-8438. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri: 08:00 AM - 04:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/LIONEL NOUKETCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights