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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 5/7/2025 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 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) 6 and 22 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.
Claim 6 recites “the fan”. However it is unclear what fan is being referred to because there is a lack of antecedent basis for a “fan”. For purposes of examination “the fan” will be considered - - a fan - - .
Claim 22 recites “the refrigerant”. However, it is unclear what refrigerant is being referred to because there is a lack of antecedent basis for a refrigerant. For purposes of examination “the refrigerant” will be considered - - a refrigerant - - .
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) 1-10, 12, 15-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iovanel (US 20120291466) in view of Wilkinson (US 20250155187).
Per claim 1, Iovanel , as modified, teaches refrigeration system comprising: a conditioned space unit (90), wherein the conditioned space unit (90) is positioned at least partially in an ambient environment (see figure 7/17); a heating circuit (circuit for 20D) communicably coupled to a controller (30), wherein the heating circuit comprises at least one heating element (20D); and a refrigeration circuit (circuit for 20E) communicably coupled to the controller, wherein the refrigeration system is configured to maintain a set temperature range in the conditioned space unit (“The manual shock freeze cycle will maintain the chiller freezer enclosure 90 temperature at -25 F for 240 minutes”, para. 0051); when an ambient temperature of the ambient environment is below an exterior temperature (i.e. “walk-in cooler”, para. 0009; temperature in 40) a freezing point of water at a fixed altitude or a barometric pressure range (“To size the proper area of the room, a customer is first asked how many pounds of food is needed to be blast chilled (160 F down to 40 F degrees) and/or shock freezed (160 F down to 0 F degrees)”, para. 0036) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the ambient temperature of the ambient environment is below a freezing point of water at a fixed altitude or a barometric pressure range.
However, Wilkinson teaches a conditioned space unit (100) positioned in an ambient environment (“walk-in freezer”, para. 0028), wherein the ambient environment is below a freezing point of water at a fixed altitude (“walk-in freezer”, para. 0028) for rapid chilling and freezing products in the conditioned space unit (para. 0028). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide an ambient environment below a freezing point of water at a fixed altitude, as taught by Wilkinson in the invention of Iovanel , as modified,, in order to advantageously rapidly chill and freeze product in a conditioned space unit (para. 0028).
Per claim 2, Iovanel , as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Iovanel , as modified, teaches wherein the refrigeration circuit comprises: a compressor (inherent) operably coupled to the refrigeration circuit; a condenser (50) comprising a condenser input and a condenser output; and an evaporator (20E) comprising an evaporator input and an evaporator output, wherein the evaporator input is communicably coupled to the condenser output and the evaporator output is communicably coupled to the condenser input (inherent to a vapor-compression cooling system).
Per claim 3, Iovanel , as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Iovanel, as modified, teaches wherein the conditioned space unit (40) is entirely located in the ambient environment (see figure 7/17).
Per claim 4, Iovanel, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Iovanel, as modified, teaches wherein a portion (portion of 40 in contact with 42A1) of the conditioned space unit (40) is physically attached to a structure (42A1), and a remainder (portion not in contact with 42A1) of the conditioned space unit (40) is located in the ambient environment (see figure 17).
Per claim 5, Iovanel, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Iovanel, as modified, teaches wherein the heating element (20D) is adjacent to a fan (20C), wherein the fan is configured to direct a flow of air into the conditioned space unit (see figure 2 and 3).
Per claim 6, Iovanel, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 2. Further, Iovanel, as modified, teaches wherein a fan (20C) and the heating element (20D) are adjacent to the evaporator (20E) (see figure 2).
Per claim 7, Iovanel, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Iovanel, as modified, teaches a temperature measuring device (20I).
Per claim 8, Iovanel, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 7. Further, Iovanel, as modified, teaches wherein the temperature measuring device comprises a temperature probe (“temperature inputs are via air probes 20I”, para. 0049).
Per claim 9, Iovanel, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 7. Further, Iovanel, as modified, teaches wherein the temperature measuring device (20I) is configured to measure the temperature of the conditioned space unit (“air probes 20I”, para. 0049) (to clarify, the measured air is from the conditioned space unit, thus the temperature measuring device is considered to measuring the temperature of the conditioned space unit).
Per claim 10, Iovanel, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 9. Further, Iovanel, as modified, teaches wherein the temperature measuring device (20I) is operably coupled to the controller (30) (“On screen programming via controller 30A utilizes inputs from thaw probe(s) 20J, air probe(s) 20I, and food probe(s) 20H, that sense temperature and provide inputs to the controller.”, para. 0045)
Per claim 12, Iovanel, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 10. Further, Iovanel, as modified, teaches wherein the controller is configured to activate the refrigeration circuit based on determining that a temperature of a conditioned space is above a maximum value of the set temperature range (“The manual soft chill cycle will maintain the air temperature in chiller freezer enclosure 90 between 32 F and 35 F for approximately 90 minutes”, para. 0049) (to clarify, when the air temperature is above the temperature range the refrigeration system will necessarily be activated to maintain the desired temperature).
Per claim 15, Iovanel, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Iovanel, as modified, teaches the heating element but fails to explicitly teach wherein the heating element comprises a resistance heater.
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that heating elements comprising resistance heaters are old and well known for easily controllable heaters. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a resistance heater in order to advantageously provide an easily controllable heater.
Per claim 16, Iovanel, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Iovanel, as modified, teaches a circulating fan (20C).
Per claim 17, Iovanel, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 16. Further, Iovanel, as modified, teaches wherein the circulating fan (20C) is communicably coupled to the heating circuit (20D) and the refrigeration circuit (20E) (see figure 6).
Per claim 18, Iovanel, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 16. Further, Iovanel, as modified, teaches wherein the circulating fan (20C) is configured to direct heated air away from the heating element (20D) and into the conditioned space unit (40; see figure 3 showing the fan directing the heated air away the system (after passing through the evaporator) and into the conditioned space unit).
Per claim 19, Iovanel, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Iovanel, as modified, teaches wherein a component (50) of the refrigeration system is installed in an outdoor environment (see figure 11).
Per claim 20, Iovanel, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Iovanel, as modified, teaches wherein a component (50) is exposed to an ambient environment (see figure 11).
Per claim 21, Iovanel, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Iovanel, as modified, teaches wherein the heating element (20D) is positioned within the conditioned space unit (see figures 2 and 3 showing the heating element 20D inside element 10 and see figure 10 showing element 10 inside the conditioned space unit 40)
Per claim 22, Iovanel, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Iovanel, as modified, wherein the ambient temperature is below an exterior temperature but fails to explicitly teach wherein the ambient temperature is at or below a freezing point of water.
However, Wilkinson teaches a conditioned space unit (100) positioned in an ambient environment (“walk-in freezer”, para. 0028), wherein the ambient environment is below a freezing point of water (“walk-in freezer”, para. 0028) for rapid chilling and freezing products in the conditioned space unit (para. 0028). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide an ambient environment below a freezing point of water, as taught by Wilkinson in the invention of Iovanel, as modified, in order to advantageously rapidly chill and freeze product in a conditioned space unit (para. 0028).
Per claim 23, Iovanel, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Iovanel, as modified, teaches a refrigerant (inherent) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the refrigerant comprises an A3 refrigerant.
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that A3 refrigerant is old and well known natural refrigerants. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide A3 in order to advantageously use a natural refrigerant, thereby having a more environmentally friendly refrigeration system.
Per claim 24, Iovanel, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 23. Further, Iovanel, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the refrigeration circuit further comprises a maximum charge of 5.3 ounces of the A3 refrigerant per compressor.
However, one skilled that the charge amount in a refrigeration system is directly related to the optimal performance of the refrigeration system. Therefore the charge is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that as the charge is adjusted the performance of the refrigeration system will be adjusted. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. A3 refrigerant was disclosed in the prior art by Iovanel, as modified, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable value of A3 by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the charge of A3 disclosed by Iovanel, as modified, being a maximum of 5.3 ounces.
Per claim 25, Iovanel , as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Iovanel, as modified, teaches a refrigerant (inherent) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the refrigerant comprises propane.
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that propane is old and well known natural refrigerants. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide propane in order to advantageously use a natural refrigerant, thereby having a more environmentally friendly refrigeration system.
Per claim 26, Iovanel, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Iovanel, as modified, teaches wherein the controller (30) is coupled to a source of power (inherent).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iovanel (US 20120291466) in view of Wilkinson (US 20250155187) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Morrison et al. (US 20240025235).
Per claim 11, Iovanel, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Iovanel, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to activate the at least one heating element based on determining that a temperature of the conditioned space unit is below a minimum value of the set temperature range.
However, Morrison teaches a cooling system wherein a controller (107,129,145) is configured to activate a heating element (“electric heater bar”, para. 0133) based on determining that a temperature of a conditioned space unit is below a minimum value of a set temperature range (“if the temperature in the climate controlled space decreases below the absolute low temperature threshold value, e.g., on a cold day, the heater bar can be used to raise the temperature in the climate controlled space to avoid spoilage, e.g., due to freezing”, para. 0133) for preventing spoilage of products stored in the cooled space (para. 0133). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a controller configured to activate a heating element based on determining that a temperature of a conditioned space unit is below a minimum value of a set temperature range, as taught by Morrison in the invention of Iovanel, as modified, in order to advantageously prevent spoilage of products stored in the cooled space (para. 0133).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iovanel (US 20120291466) in view of Wilkinson (US 20250155187) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Larson et al. (US 20230023638).
Per claim 13, Iovanel, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Iovanel, as modified, teaches the controller but fails to explicitly teach wherein the controller comprises an ignition-proof material.
However, Larson teaches a cooling system wherein a controller comprises an ignition-proof material (“The controller 104 may be any ignition-proof electronic controller”, para. 0023). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a controller having an ignition-proof material, as taught by Larson in the invention of Iovanel, as modified, in order to advantageously prevent damage to the controller during a fire.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iovanel (US 20120291466) in view of Wilkinson (US 20250155187) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Choi et al. (US 20120103008).
Per claim 14, Iovanel, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Iovanel, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the heating circuit comprises at least one ignition-proof component.
However, Choi teaches a cooling system wherein a heating circuit (200) comprises an ignition-proof component (220; “the heater-mounting part 220 has insulation properties and fire retardancy”, para. 0081) for reducing the possibility of fire in the system (para. 0081). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a heating circuit comprising an ignition-proof component, as taught by Choi in the invention of Iovanel, as modified, in order to advantageously reduce the possibility of fire in the system (para. 0081).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Liu et al. (CN 110529930) teaches a refrigeration system including a heater circuit.
Wang (CN 112113270) teaches a refrigeration system including a heater circuit.
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