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 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.
The following limitation(s) is/are 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 means or a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the means or generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Although the phrase “expansion device” combines the nonce term “device” with the function of “expansion” the phrase is not interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) as it is considered to have sufficiently definite meaning in the art corresponding to a structure. MPEP 2181
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the refrigerant conduit is affixed to an exterior surface of the phase change evaporator housing” of claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [0038] recites “stion principles and systems”; the meaning of “stion” is unclear.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 7-9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 9 recite “the expansion device” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 8 recites “a fan” which lacks antecedent basis to the same in claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James (US 6,067,815) in view of Beyne et al (“Experimental investigation of solidification in metal foam enhanced phase change material” 2017).
Regarding claim 25, James discloses an evaporator (130) for a refrigeration system comprising a compressor (211), a condenser (212) and an expansion valve (4:63), the evaporator (130) comprising a refrigerant conduit (160) in thermal contact with the phase change material.
James lacks an open cell heat conductive metal foam and a phase change material embedded within the cells of the open cell heat conductive metal foam. Beyne an open cell heat conductive metal foam and a phase change material embedded within the cells of the open cell heat conductive metal foam. It would have been obvious to have provided James with an open cell heat conductive foam having PCM embedded within the cells thereof in order to enhance heat transfer.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, 15-16, 19-20, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James (US 6,067,815), in view of Beyne et al (“Experimental investigation of solidification in metal foam enhanced phase change material” 2017), and in further view of Negishi (US 4,951,481).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, James discloses a refrigeration system, comprising:
a refrigeration compartment (110);
a phase change evaporator (130) in thermal contact with the refrigeration compartment, the phase change evaporator comprising a housing containing a phase change material (155) and a refrigerant conduit (160), the refrigerant conduit containing a refrigerant fluid;
a compressor (211) and a condenser (212) in refrigerant fluid communication with the refrigerant conduit of the phase change evaporator.
James lacks an open cell heat conductive metal foam and a phase change material embedded within the cells of the open cell heat conductive metal foam. Beyne an open cell heat conductive metal foam and a phase change material embedded within the cells of the open cell heat conductive metal foam. It would have been obvious to have provided James with an open cell heat conductive foam having PCM embedded within the cells thereof in order to enhance heat transfer.
James lacks a fan as claimed. Negishi discloses a fan (13) designated for enforced heat transfer between the phase change evaporator (24) and the refrigeration compartment air. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided James with a fan as taught by Negishi in order to enhance heat transfer.
Regarding claim 2, James as modified discloses the refrigeration system of claim 1, but is silent concerning a specific target temperature and a phase change temperature. The examiner takes official notice that refrigerators and freezers are known to have target temperatures (e.g. 1-3°C and -18°C). The examiner also takes official notice that it is known to provide a PCM’s phase change temperature to near a target temperature, e.g. within 5°C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided James with target temperatures for the refrigerator and freezer spaces in order to maintain food safe temperatures and moreover to have provided the PCM composition to have a phase change temperature within 5°C of said target temperature in order to utilize the high capacity of phase transformation to remove heat from the storage space.
Regarding claims 3 and 20, James as modified discloses the refrigeration system of claim 1, wherein the refrigeration system is a freezer/refrigerator comprising a freezer refrigeration compartment with a freezer phase change evaporator (130) and a fresh food refrigeration compartment with a fresh food phase change evaporator (170), the freezer phase change evaporator in the freezer refrigeration compartment having a freezer phase change material in the open cell heat conductive metal foam of the freezer phase change evaporator, and the fresh food compartment having a fresh food phase change material in the open cell heat conductive metal foam of the fresh food phase change evaporator (both evaporators 130 and 170 modified as consistent with the discussion at claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, James as modified discloses the refrigeration system of claim 3, wherein the freezer refrigeration compartment comprises a fan designated for heat transfer between the freezer phase change evaporator and the freezer refrigeration compartment, and the fresh food compartment comprises a fan designated for heat transfer between the fresh food phase change evaporator and the fresh food compartment (both chambers provided with a fan consistent with the discussion at claim 1).
Regarding claims 5 and 23, James as modified discloses the refrigeration system of claim 3, but is silent concerning a specific target temperature and a phase change temperature for the fresh oof and freezer compartments. Though James does state the units are maintained in order to maintain target temperatures (4:38-42). The examiner takes official notice that refrigerators and freezers are known to have target temperatures (e.g. 1-3°C and -18°C). The examiner also takes official notice that it is known to provide a PCM’s phase change temperature to near a target temperature, e.g. within 5°C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided James with target temperatures for the refrigerator and freezer spaces in order to maintain food safe temperatures and moreover to have provided the PCM composition to have a phase change temperature within 5°C of said target temperature in order to utilize the high capacity of phase transformation to remove heat from the storage space.
Regarding claim 6, James discloses the refrigeration system of claim 3, wherein the freezer phase change evaporator comprises a freezer refrigerant conduit (160) and the fresh food phase change evaporator comprises a fresh food refrigerant conduit (195), and wherein circulating refrigerant passes first through the freezer refrigerant conduit and then through the fresh food refrigerant conduit (the refrigerant cycle is a closed loop, refrigerant passes through both evaporators in repeated sequence).
Regarding claim 10, James discloses the refrigeration system of claim 1, wherein the refrigerant conduit is provided within the evaporator unit housing (shown in at least figures 7 and 8).
Regarding claim 15, James as modified discloses the refrigeration system of claim 1, but is silent concerning the refrigerant type. The examiner takes official notice that HFO-1234ze and HFO-1234yf are both old and well known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided James with HFO-1234ze or HFO-1234yf as the refrigerant in order to utilize their characteristics, e.g. low GWP.
Regarding claim 19, James as modified discloses the method of claim 16, but lacks a temperature sensor for monitoring the temperature within the refrigeration compartment. Negishi discloses the step of monitoring the temperature in the refrigeration compartment with a temperature sensor (3:14-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided James with the temperature sensor of Negishi in order to monitor the system and provided control, e.g. operate the fan based on compartment temperature.
Regarding claim 24, James discloses the method of claim 20, wherein the freezer phase change evaporator comprises a freezer refrigerant conduit (160) and the fresh food phase change evaporator comprises a fresh food refrigerant conduit (195), and comprising the step of circulating refrigerant first through the freezer refrigerant conduit and then through the fresh food refrigerant conduit during the active cooling cycle (the cycle performs repeatedly thus over time circulation through one conduit occurs both before and after circulation through the other).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James (US 6,067,815), in view of Beyne et al (“Experimental investigation of solidification in metal foam enhanced phase change material” 2017), in view of Negishi (US 4,951,481), and in further view of Kim et al (US 6,758,053).
Regarding claim 7, James as modified discloses the refrigeration system of claim 3, comprising a three-way control valve (220/230), the three-way valve configured to switch operation between a plurality of modes.
James lacks the modes as claimed. Kim discloses a three-way control valve (308), the three-way valve configured to switch operation between a plurality of modes, wherein in the first mode of operation, refrigerant flows through the refrigerant conduit of the freezer phase change evaporator (206) and the three-way valve into the refrigerant conduit of the fresh foo phase change evaporator (208), and in the second mode of operation, refrigerant flows form the expansion device (302/304) into the three-way valve (308) and then into the refrigerant conduit of the fresh food phase change evaporator (208) providing an individually controllable flow of refrigerant through either the refresh food phase change evaporator or both of the freezer phase change evaporator and the refresh food phase change evaporator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided James with the series arranged evaporators having a bypass as taught by Kim in order to allow simultaneous cooling of the evaporators.
Claim(s) 8 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James (US 6,067,815), in view of Beyne et al (“Experimental investigation of solidification in metal foam enhanced phase change material” 2017), in view of Negishi (US 4,951,481), and in further view of Laing (US 3,747,364).
Regarding claims 8, 17, and 18, James as modified discloses the refrigeration system of claim 1, including a processor (figures 9 and 10 provide for executed processes)but is silent concerning monitoring the time of day for off-peak hours, and operating the compressor only during off-peak hours. Laing discloses a storage refrigerator/freezer utilizing a PCM wherein the system operates the compressor only during off-peak hours (“The invention provides, as a special further instance of its application, the combination of the storage bodies with a refrigeration plant, whose rating is such that the refrigeration effect required in the course of a day can be produced basically during the off-peak night time period. This has the advantage that the "charging" takes place only during the cool hours of night, in which the Carnot efficiency is better than during the day, so that during normal operation less energy is consumed.” 3:7-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided James with monitoring off-peak times such that the compressor operates only during off-peak times in order to increase efficiency.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James (US 6,067,815), in view of Beyne et al (“Experimental investigation of solidification in metal foam enhanced phase change material” 2017), in view of Negishi (US 4,951,481), in view of Laing (US 3,747,364), and in further view of Raufeisen et al (US 3,756,037).
Regarding claim 9, James as modified discloses the refrigeration system of claim 8, but lacks an array of defrosting heaters.
Raufeisen discloses eutectic refrigeration plates for a storage refrigerator/freezing including an array of defrosting heaters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the hot gas defrosting of James for the electrical defrosting of Raufeisen in order to allow for defrosting of smaller portions of the system while others remain operating/cooling.
James discloses the processor connects to the compressor (compressor control steps shown in figure 9) is silent concerning the processor connecting to the condenser, the expansion valve, a fan, and defrosting heaters array in the refrigeration system. The examiner takes official notice that it is known to connect a processor to system components, whether to receive data from, provide instruction to, or both. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the processor of James in connection with the recited elements in order to enhance monitoring/control of the system.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James (US 6,067,815), in view of Beyne et al (“Experimental investigation of solidification in metal foam enhanced phase change material” 2017), in view of Negishi (US 4,951,481), and in further view of Jeong et al (US 10,782,060).
Regarding claim 11, James as modified discloses the refrigeration system of claim 1, but lacks the refrigerant conduit is affixed to an exterior surface of the PCM. Jeong discloses a PCM refrigerator/freezer wherein the refrigerant conduit (14; figure 6) is affixed to an exterior surface of the phase change evaporator housing as an alternative to the refrigerant conduit (24 of figure 11) being embedded within the PCM. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided James with the exterior surface mounted refrigeration conduit in order to form panels having a lower quantity of PCM and/or to simplify manufacture.
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James (US 6,067,815), in view of Beyne et al (“Experimental investigation of solidification in metal foam enhanced phase change material” 2017), in view of Negishi (US 4,951,481), and in further view of Raufeisen et al (US 3,756,037).
Regarding claim 12, James as modified discloses the refrigeration system of claim 8, but lacks an array of defrosting heaters.
Raufeisen discloses eutectic refrigeration plates for a storage refrigerator/freezing including an array of defrosting heaters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the hot gas defrosting of James for the electrical defrosting of Raufeisen within the refrigeration compartment in order to allow for defrosting of smaller portions of the system while others remain operating/cooling.
Regarding claim 14, James as modified discloses the refrigeration system of claim 12, wherein the defrosting heater array is affixed to an exterior surface of the phase change evaporator housing (shown in figure 2 of Raufeisen the heater 24 and 26 passes through the exterior surface of the PCM evaporator and is affixed thereto).
Claim(s) 13 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James (US 6,067,815), in view of Beyne et al (“Experimental investigation of solidification in metal foam enhanced phase change material” 2017), in view of Negishi (US 4,951,481), in view of Raufeisen et al (US 3,756,037), and in further view of Lim et al (US 8,405,009).
Regarding claim 13, James as modified discloses the refrigeration system of claim 12, but lacks polyimide. Lim discloses defrosting heater arrays comprises polyimide heater arrays (15:5-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided James with polyimide in order to protect the electric heater.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, James as modified discloses the method of claim 20 but lacks a defrost heater array at the freezer and fresh food PCM evaporators as claimed.
Raufeisen discloses eutectic refrigeration plates for a storage refrigerator/freezing including an array of defrosting heaters; wherein the defrosting heater array is affixed to an exterior surface of the phase change evaporator housing (shown in figure 2 of Raufeisen the heater 24 and 26 passes through the exterior surface of the PCM evaporator and is affixed thereto). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the hot gas defrosting of James for the electrical defrosting of Raufeisen within the refrigeration compartment in order to allow for defrosting of smaller portions of the system while others remain operating/cooling.
Lim discloses defrosting heater arrays comprises polyimide heater arrays (15:5-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided James with polyimide in order to protect the electric heater.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Van Halsema (US 12,560,367) metal foam PCM evaporator
Jeong et al (US 6,935,127) plural evaporator control valve
Chu et al (US 6,397,618) metal foam PCM evaporator
Okamura et al (US 6,003,320) metal foam PCM
Muffly (US 2,844,945) plural evaporator control valve
Youn et al (US 2007/0151289) plural evaporator control valve
Youn et al (US 2007/0068193) plural evaporator control valve
Nooli et al (US 12,135,161) defrosting plate evaporator
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights