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 § 102
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 8-9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ferreira (US 2014/0053580).
As to claims 8-9, Ferreira discloses a refrigeration system comprising:
at least one compressor 201;
at least one condenser 103;
at least one evaporator 104;
at least one ice sensor 601 configured to measure a thickness of ice or frost accumulated on the at least one evaporator 104 (paragraph 38; paragraph 50, lines 10-11); and
a controller 606 (paragraph 38; also see claim 1) configured to:
receive measurements from the sensor 601 (Fig. 6; Fig. 9, step 802);
determine if a measured ice thickness exceeds a threshold thickness level (paragraph 50, lines 12-14); and
initiate a defrost operation in response to the determination that the measured ice thickness exceeds the threshold thickness level (paragraph 50, lines 12-14),
wherein the defrost operation comprises a reverse flow defrost operation that is performed using a four-way valve 401 (Figs. 4-5; paragraph 48).
As to claim 19, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would nec-essarily perform the method claimed then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. Thus the method as claimed would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus of Ferreira.
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 2, 5-7, 12-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferreira in view of Tamai (US 5,761,922).
As to claim 2, , Ferreira discloses a refrigeration system comprising:
at least one compressor 201;
at least one condenser 103;
at least one evaporator 104;
at least one ice sensor 601 configured to measure a thickness of ice or frost accumulated on the at least one evaporator 104 (paragraph 38; paragraph 50, lines 10-11); and
a controller 606 (paragraph 38; also see claim 1) configured to:
receive measurements from the sensor 601 (Fig. 6; Fig. 9, step 802);
determine if a measured ice thickness exceeds a threshold thickness level (paragraph 50, lines 12-14); and
initiate a defrost operation in response to the determination that the measured ice thickness exceeds the threshold thickness level (paragraph 50, lines 12-14).
Ferreira teaches a hot gas defrost (Fig. 3, paragraph 48) and thus does not explicitly teach that the defrost operation is an electric defrost operation that includes activating an electric defrost heater to supply heat to the evaporator 104. However, Tamai teaches that it is known to use an electric heater 22 in conjunction with a hot gas defrost (col. 7, line 66 – col. 8, line 35), which enacts an effective defrost process by heating both the inside and the outside of the evaporator (col. 8, lines 23-25). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Ferreira to incorporate an electric defrost heater as claimed and taught by Tamai in order to expedite the defrost operation of the system by heating both the inside and outside of the evaporator 104.
As to claim 5, Ferreira teaches a defrost operation comprising a hot gas defrost operation (Fig. 3) that is initiated in response to the determination that the measured ice thickness exceeds the threshold thickness level (paragraph 50, lines 12-14).
As to claims 6-7, Ferreira discloses a hot gas defrost line 204 fluidly coupling the compressor 201 to the evaporator 104; and a discharge gas bypass valve 203 located along the line 204; wherein the controller is configured to operate the valve 203 to route hot gas refrigerant to the evaporator 104 for defrost (Fig. 3; paragraph 36).
As to claims 12-16, Ferreira does not explicitly teach a liquid/vapor separator, suction flow modulation valve, economizer, economizer expansion valve, or liquid collector as claimed. However, Official Notice is taken that these are all common and well-known components of typical refrigeration systems. As such it would have been an obvious design choice to modify the system of Ferreira by having any or all of the claimed features, since applicant has not disclosed that having such components solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected result, and it appears that the system would perform equally well using any well-known system configuration.
As to claims 17-18 and 21, Ferreira is silent regarding the monitoring period of the ice thickness. However, Official Notice is taken that both continual and periodic monitoring of a sensor are well-known in the art. As such it would have been an obvious design choice to modify the system of Ferreira by using either continual or periodic monitoring, since applicant has not disclosed that having a particular monitoring strategy solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected result, and it appears that the system would perform equally well using either method of monitoring the ice thickness.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferreira in view of Lingelbach (US 2012/0312038).
As to claims 10-11, Ferreira teaches most of the claimed limitations as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach use of a water defrost operation as claimed. However, Lingelbach teaches that it is well-known by one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize water defrost in place hot gas defrost (paragraph 64). Therefore, it would have been an obvious design choice to modify the Ferreira reference by having –a water defrost as claimed, since applicant has not disclosed that having a particular defrost method solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected result, and it appears that the system would perform equally well with any suitable means of defrosting.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 9/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the requests support for the Official Notice taken in in the rejections of claims 2, 8, 10, and 19. As such, references have been cited in the rejections as discussed above to meet the limitations of said claims which were previously rejected using Official Notice (additionally, it is noted that paragraph 48 of Ferreira does in fact teach a reverse flow defrost operation as required by claim 8). Since each of the limitations of the claims in question are evidenced by the cited prior art rather than Official Notice, it is maintained that the claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JONATHAN BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-5199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
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.
/JONATHAN BRADFORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights