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 § 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 44 is 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.
As per claim 44, the claim recites “wherein the evaporation vessel comprises a plurality of evaporation vessels.” It is unclear how a singular “vessel” can comprise a “plurality of vessels.”
As per claim 44, the claim recites “the orifice comprises a plurality of orifices.” Similarly, it is unclear how a singular “orifice” can comprise a “plurality of orifices.”
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.
(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) 42, 45, and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Schibbye et al. (US 4084405).
As per claim 42, Schibbye et al. disclose a cooling system, comprising: a coolant transmitter (line portion 5) configured to transmit a subcooled liquid (liquid refrigerant at receiver 4 – col. 3, lines 20-23; etc.) a pressure above atmospheric pressure (refrigerant is pressurized by compressor 1 above atmospheric pressure as is standard in refrigeration cycles); an evaporation vessel (evaporator 6) configured to be maintained at a pressure lower than a pressure of the coolant transmitter (evaporator is at the low side of the refrigerant cycle); and an orifice (throttle V3) configured to receive at least a portion of the subcooled liquid and expose the subcooled liquid to a region of reduced pressure (entire space of the evaporator is at a reduced pressure) within the evaporation vessel to produce vapor therein (vapor is produced as the reduced pressure refrigerant passes across the heat exchanger), the evaporation vessel configured to contain vapor of the subcooled liquid (evaporator at least partially contains vapor as illustrated in Fig. 1). For the record, it is noted that the terms “throttle” and “orifice” are deemed generally interchangeable. See for example Schreiber (US 2014/0363311 A1) wherein equivalent valve 126 is called an orifice valve (para. 0006; etc.).
As per claim 45, Schibbye et al. disclose wherein the evaporation vessel is at least partially embedded within the coolant transmitter (evaporator 6 is integrally embedded within the refrigeration path).
As per claim 47, Schibbye et al. disclose wherein the subcooled liquid includes a coolant (refrigerant is a coolant).
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, 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) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schibbye et al.
As per claim 44, Schibbye et al. do not teach wherein the evaporation vessel comprises a plurality of evaporation vessels, and the orifice comprises a plurality of orifices, each of the plurality evaporation vessels configured to receive the at least a portion of the subcooled liquid through a respective orifice. However, providing a plurality of orifice/evaporator arrangements in parallel within the system of Schibbye et al. is considered a simple duplication of parts that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the purpose of using the refrigeration cycle to cool more than one space.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 25-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 24 and 26-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11540419 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The limitations of pending independent claim 25 are taught by patented claim 24. Pending claim 25 is a general broadening of the patented claim.
The limitations of pending dependent claims 26-27 and 30-31 are taught by corresponding patented claims 26-27, 30, and 29, respectively.
The limitations of pending claims 28-29 are taught by patented claim 28.
Claims 32-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 24 of U.S. Patent No. 11540419 B2 in view of claims 1, 3, 12, and 13 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11363741 B2. Claim 24 of patent 11540419 B2 discloses the limitations of base claim 25 as discussed above, but does not teach the further details of dependent claims 32-35.
As per pending claim 32, claim 1 of patent 11363741 B2 teaches a level sensor disposed in the evaporation vessel. 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 level sensor to claim 25 of patent 11540419 B2 for the general purpose of monitoring the operation of the system.
As per pending claim 33, claim 1 of patent 11363741 B2 teaches a ball-float level sensor coupled to the pressure regulator. 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 a level sensor to claim 25 of patent 11540419 B2 for the same general purpose of monitoring the operation of the system.
As per pending claim 34, claim 12 of patent 11363741 B2 teaches a thermally insulated jacket. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to dispose a thermally insulated jacket around the evaporation vessel for the basic purpose of preventing unwanted cooling loss from the system.
As per pending claim 35, claim 13 of patent 11363741 B2 teaches a power transmission line electrically coupled to the coolant transmitter. 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 power transmission line electrically coupled to the coolant transmitter for the purpose of cooling the power line.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 36-41, 43, 46, and 48 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 claims 36-39, there is no teaching or motivation to further modify the system of claims of US patent 11540419 B2 to include the respective limitations recited. Claims 40-41 would also be allowable since they depend from claim 39.
As per claims 43, 46, and 48, there is no teaching or motivation to further modify Schibbye et al. to include the respective limitations recited. Note for the record regarding claim 48, while these are all generally known coolants, there is no motivation in the art to utilize them within the vapor compression system of Schibbye et al.
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