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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the space should be removed between “frost” and the period at the end of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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: “heating portion” in claim 11.
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.
For the record:
“Heating portion” has been interpreted according to the corresponding structure of reference numeral 640 as described in the specification and shown in the figures, and equivalents thereof.
“Heating element” is considered a commonly used term of art, and thus is not deemed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (KR 1020050009380) in view of Kim et al. (US 2012/0055181 A1).
As per claim 1, Cho et al. disclose a cooling apparatus comprising:
an evaporator (Fig. 9; etc.) through which a refrigerant moves to absorb heat from a cooling target fluid that is a fluid to be cooled, wherein the evaporator includes:
a first evaporator module 260 including: a first refrigerant tube through which the refrigerant moves, and a plurality of first cooling fins arranged on an outer surface of the first refrigerant tube (Fig. 9),
a second evaporator 260A module including: a second refrigerant tube through which the refrigerant moves, and a plurality of second cooling fins arranged on an outer surface of the second refrigerant tube, wherein the second evaporator module is spaced apart from the first evaporator module in a first direction (Fig. 9),
a surface heating element 265 extending along having a plate shape in a plane perpendicular to the first direction and arranged between the first evaporator module and the second evaporator module (Fig. 9).
Cho et al. do not teach a sensor module including: a voltage electrode between the first evaporator module and the second evaporator module, and a ground electrode spaced apart from the voltage electrode with the first evaporator module or the second evaporator module between the ground electrode and the voltage electrode. Kim et al. teach a sensor module including: a voltage electrode (170a-d) at an evaporator (paras. 0107-0115; etc.), and a ground electrode spaced apart from the voltage electrode (paras. 0102-0105; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to provide a similar electrode arrangement at the evaporator of Cho et al. for the same purpose of detecting frost on the evaporator. Further, the specific placement of the voltage electrode between the first evaporator module and the second evaporator module and providing the first evaporator module or the second evaporator module between the ground electrode and the voltage electrode constitute simply particular positioning of the sensing module of K et al. on the evaporator of Cho et al. and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application as a simple rearrangement of existing parts based on the location of the evaporator desired to be monitored for frost.
As per claim 6, Cho et al. do not teach further comprising a processor configured to control an operation of the surface heating element according to a state of frost formed on the first cooling fins and the second cooling fins, the state of the frost being sensed by the sensor module. Kim et al. teach a processor (controller 192) configured to control an operation of a surface heating element (heaters 161, 162) according to a state of frost formed on the evaporator, the state of the frost being sensed by the sensor module (Abstract; Figs. 12A-12B; paras. 0107-0115; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly apply such controls to the evaporator arrangement of Cho et al. for the same purpose of starting and stopping defrost operation according to the level of frost detected on the evaporator fins.
As per claim 12, Cho et al. disclose further comprises a bracket (270, 370) configured to support, from a side, the first evaporator module 260, the second evaporator module 260A, and the surface heating element 265 so that the first evaporator module and the second evaporator module are spaced apart from each other in the first direction (Figs. 5-9; etc.).
As per claim 13, Cho et al. do not teach detecting a state of frost formed on the first cooling fins and the second cooling fins; operating a surface heating element according to the detected state of the frost formed on the first cooling fins and the second cooling fins; detecting a removal state of the frost formed on the first cooling fins and the second cooling fins; and stopping the operation of the surface heating element according to the detected removal state of the frost formed on the first cooling fins and the second cooling fins. Kim et al. teach detecting a state of frost formed on the fins of an evaporator; operating the surface heating element (heaters 161, 162) according to the detected state of the frost formed on the fins (Abstract; Figs. 12A-12B; paras. 0107-0115; etc.); detecting a removal state of the frost formed on the first cooling fins and the second cooling fins; and stopping the operation of the surface heating element according to the detected removal state of the frost formed on the fins (para. 0008, lines 14-16; 0010, lines 13-16; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly apply such defrost controls to the evaporator arrangement of Cho et al. for the same purpose of starting and stopping defrost operation according to the level of frost detected on the evaporator fins.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. in view of Kim et al., and further in view of Senf, Jr. (US 2013/0086929 A1).
As per claim 7, neither Cho et al. nor Kim et al. teach wherein when a flow rate of the cooling target fluid flowing between the first cooling fins and between the second cooling fins is lowered to 50% or less according to the state of the frost formed on the first cooling fins and the second cooling fins, the state of the frost being sensed by the sensor module, the processor is further configured to apply a control signal to operate the surface heating element. Senf, Jr. teaches controlling defrost operation based on fluid flow rate determined by frost detection being below a threshold (para. 0037; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly apply these controls to the evaporator arrangement of Cho et al. for the same purpose of ensuring proper heat exchange at the evaporator. While Senf, Jr. does not specify a particular flow rate threshold, such is considered a result effective variable such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to select 50% as a threshold as simply a particular value for the purpose of ensuring desired heat exchange efficiency.
As per claim 14, neither Cho et al. nor Kim et al. teach wherein when a flow rate of the cooling target fluid flowing between the first cooling fins and between the second cooling fins is lowered to 50% or less according to the detected state of the frost formed on the first cooling fins and the second cooling fins, the detected state of the frost being detected by the sensor module, the operation of the surface heating element is started. Senf, Jr. teaches controlling defrost operation based on fluid flow rate determined by frost detection being below a threshold (para. 0037; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly apply these controls to the evaporator arrangement of Cho et al. for the same purpose of ensuring proper heat exchange at the evaporator. While Senf, Jr. does not specify a particular flow rate threshold, such is considered a result effective variable such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to select 50% as a threshold as simply a particular value for the purpose of ensuring desired heat exchange efficiency.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. in view of Kim et al., and further in view of Tamai et al. (US 5761922).
As per claim 10, Cho et al. do not teach wherein the system further comprises a drain portion arranged below the first evaporator module and the second evaporator module in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, and the drain portion includes a receiving case to receive frost and water released from the first evaporator module and the second evaporator module. Tamai et al. teach a refrigerator comprising a drain portion 18 arranged below evaporator 13 in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (i.e., in a vertical direction below the evaporator), and the drain portion includes a receiving case to receive frost and water released from the evaporator (Fig. 2; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide a drain portion below the evaporator modules of Cho et al. for the same purpose of collecting and discharging water and frost removed therefrom during the defrosting operation.
As per claim 11, Cho et al. do not teach wherein the drain portion includes: a drain hole configured so that the frost and water released from the first evaporator module and the second evaporator module moves outside the evaporator through the drain hole; and a heating portion configured to apply heat to an area around the drain hole to melt the frost. Tamai et al. teach wherein the drain portion includes: a drain hole 17 configured so that the frost and water released from the first evaporator module and the second evaporator module moves outside the evaporator through the drain hole; and a heating portion 19 configured to apply heat to an area around the drain hole to melt the frost. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly further provide a hole and heater within the drain pan for the purpose of effectively melting and removing the frost from the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 8-9, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As per claim 2 (and claims 3-4 which depend therefrom), there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to further modify the system of Cho et al. wherein the voltage electrode has a plate shape in the plane perpendicular to the first direction and facing the surface heating element.
As per claim 5, there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to further modify the system of Cho et al. wherein the surface heating element is one surface heating element of a plurality of surface heating elements included in the evaporator, at least two surface heating elements of the plurality of surface heating elements have different heating densities, and
an operation of each surface heating element of the plurality of surface heating elements is individually controlled.
As per claim 8, (and claim 9 which depend therefrom), there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to further modify the system of Cho et al. wherein the evaporator includes: a support plate and an adhesive layer, and the support plate and the adhesive layer are arranged between the voltage electrode and the surface heating element and have heat resistance for a heating temperature of 150°C or less.
As per claim 15, there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to further modify the system of Cho et al. wherein the surface heating element is one surface heating element of a plurality of surface heating elements included in the evaporator, the plurality of surface heating elements are spaced apart from each other by a predetermined interval in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, at least two surface heating elements of the plurality of surface heating elements have different heating densities, and an operation of each surface heating element of the plurality of surface heating elements is individually controlled.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 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 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.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights