DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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 .
Response to Amendment
The response filed 1 July 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moran (U.S. Patent 10,337,776) in view of Baatz (U.S. Patent Publication 2011/0220527).
Regarding claim 1, Moran discloses a vapor cycle refrigeration system 100, comprising:
a closed loop refrigerant piping 114/116 for circulating a refrigerant (Col. 3 ln 54-Col. 4 ln 9); and
a housing 104 with an internal space 130;
wherein an entirety of the closed loop refrigerant piping is accommodated within the housing (FIG. 3) such that leakage of the closed loop refrigerant piping leads into the internal space instead of an atmosphere surrounding the housing (FIG. 3; Col. 3 ln 37-Col. 6 ln 55).
Moran is silent regarding the housing being hermetically sealed.
However, Baatz teaches a closable compartment 1, specifically an aircraft galley, that is hermetically sealed (by closure member 6) (FIG. 1; Paragraph 1, 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Moran by hermetically sealing the housing, as taught by Baatz, for the purpose of preventing the contents of the housing from escaping the housing and effecting the surrounding area.
Regarding claim 5, Moran, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Moran further discloses the housing comprises at least one wall 120 which comprises an inner surface defining the internal space and an outer surface contacting the atmosphere surrounding the housing (FIG. 3), and
wherein at least a portion of the closed loop refrigerant piping is integrated in the at least one wall (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Moran, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Moran further discloses the housing comprises a pressure sensor 150 configured to detect a pressure in the internal space, or a change in a pressure in the internal space, or both (FIG. 3; Col. 6 ln 20-55).
Regarding claim 8, Moran, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Moran/Baatz further discloses an aircraft galley unit 104 comprising:
the vapor cycle refrigeration system according to claim 1 (Moran FIG. 3; Col. 3 ln 37-Col. 6 ln 55; Baatz FIG. 1; Paragraph 1, 22).
Regarding claim 9, Moran, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 8.
Moran/Baatz further discloses an aircraft galley 104 comprising:
the aircraft galley unit according to claim 8 (Moran FIG. 3; Col. 3 ln 37-Col. 6 ln 55; Baatz FIG. 1; Paragraph 1, 22).
Regarding claim 10, Moran, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Moran/Baatz further discloses an aircraft 106 comprising:
the aircraft galley unit according to claim 1 (Moran FIG. 3; Col. 3 ln 37-Col. 6 ln 55; Baatz FIG. 1; Paragraph 1, 22).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moran in view of Baatz in further view of Halavais (U.S. Patent 4,566,291).
Regarding claim 2, Moran, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Moran is silent regarding the internal space comprises an inert gas.
However, Halavais teaches it is well known to use helium, neon, and argon, all inert gases (Col. 2 ln 4-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Moran by using inert gas as the refrigerant, as taught by Halavais, for the purpose of using a known gas to achieve the desired outcome of cooling the system.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moran in view of Baatz in further view of Oswald (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0047657).
Regarding claim 3, Moran, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Moran is silent regarding the housing comprises a pressure relieve unit for relieving pressure from the internal space to the atmosphere surrounding the housing.
However, Oswald teaches the housing 102 comprises a pressure relieve unit 116 for relieving pressure from the internal space to the atmosphere surrounding the housing (FIG. 4; Paragraph 50, 62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Moran by adding a pressure relieve unit for relieving pressure from the internal space to the atmosphere surrounding the housing, as taught by Oswald, for the purpose of providing a means for preventing the pressure within the housing from building to an undesired level.
Regarding claim 4, Moran, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 3.
Moran/Oswald further teaches the pressure relieve unit comprises a filter cartridge 111 for capturing refrigerant from the internal space upon pressure relief (Paragraph 50).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moran in view of Baatz in further view of Vaisman (U.S. Patent 11,644,221).
Regarding claim 7, Moran, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Moran is silent regarding the closed loop refrigerant piping comprises a flammable refrigerant, or a toxic refrigerant, or both.
However, Vaisman teaches the closed loop refrigerant piping comprises a flammable refrigerant, or a toxic refrigerant, or both (Col. 53 ln 58-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Moran by utilizing refrigerant that is either a flammable refrigerant, or a toxic refrigerant, or both, as taught by Vaisman, for the purpose of using a known refrigerant capable of achieving the desired outcome.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Moran and Baatz is improper as Baatz does not teach an entire duct system within the hermetically sealed housing. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Moran discloses a system for holding galley carts within the galley of an aircraft. Moran is silent regarding the housing being hermetically sealed. With regards to the housing disclosed in Moran, the galley 104 defines one or more cart compartments 102. When applying the teachings of Baatz, one of ordinary skill in the art would be inclined to take the teaching of hermetically sealing a compartment within which an item is kept and applying it to the galley, and more specifically the cart compartment, so as to seal in the contents of the galley/cart compartment. In so doing, the hermetic seal encloses the contents of the cart compartment. Once hermetically sealed to the outside of the compartment, there is no means by which a leak would escape to the outside of the compartment. While Moran discloses a series of pipes, the focus must be on the compartment which is the component being modified. The compartment of Moran modified by Baatz meets the limitations as set forth in the claim language. Accordingly, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the portion of the system that is not hermetically sealed would be located at the opening through which the carts are placed within the cart compartments within the galley. It is well known that a duct system is hermetically sealed at the ends of the ducts, or the system would be unable to function as intended. The only location where a hermetic seal is absent is at the opening through which the carts are placed within the cart compartments within the galley. The teachings of Baatz are understood to one of ordinary skill in the art to be applied to the opening through which the carts are placed with the compartment. Furthermore, the plane itself is a hermetically sealed environment. Any venting of air through the ducts stays within the plane itself and does not escape to the atmosphere (outside the plane) surrounding the housing.
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 CHRISTOPHER D BALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00-3:00.
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, Craig M Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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 D BALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/MICHAEL R REID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights