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 .
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 “wherein the condenser and the energy transfer device are part of a second closed loop through which the cooling fluid is configured to circulate in claim 7” 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.
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 9 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.
Claim 9 recite “the cooling tower being arranged in fluid communication with the condenser and a fan operable to move another fluid across the cooling tower to remove heat from the cooling fluid”. However, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are. It is unclear to the Examiner if the another fluid is an airflow or a cooling fluid? Clarity is advised.
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.
Claims 1, 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Silva et al (US 20210262705 A1, hereinafter Silva).
Regarding claim 1, Silva teaches a chiller system (chiller system 5) comprising: a compressor (compressor 12), a condenser (condenser 16), an expansion device (expansion valve 18), and an evaporator (evaporator 14) operably coupled to form a closed fluid loop (figure 1b) having a fluid circulating therethrough (refrigerant R, paragraph 0033); a flow of a cooling fluid (fluid F1, figure 1b) arranged in a heat transfer relationship with the fluid at the condenser (with the refrigerant R of condenser 16, figure 1b); and an energy transfer device (heat exchanger 38) located downstream from the condenser (as shown on figure 1b) relative to the flow of the cooling fluid (downstream of fluid F1, figure 1b), the energy transfer device (heat exchanger 38) being arranged in fluid communication with a third fluid (fluid F2, figure 1b), wherein at least a portion of the heat from the fluid is transferred to the third fluid at the energy transfer device (as described in paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 4, Silva teaches wherein the energy transfer device (heat exchanger 38) is a heat exchanger (heat exchanger 38), the cooling fluid (fluid F1, figure 1b) and the third fluid (fluid F2, figure 1b) being arranged in a heat transfer relationship at the heat exchanger (as described in paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 13, it is noted that although the preamble of claim 13 is directed towards a method, the structure of the combined teachings discloses all the structure being provided in the method steps, thus the method is also anticipated by the combined teachings. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious 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 or obviously perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva et al (US 20210262705 A1, hereinafter Silva) in view of Donovan et al (US 10921042 B2, hereinafter Donovan).
Regarding claim 2, Silva teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the energy transfer device is a thermal storage device containing a phase change material.
However, Donovan teaches wherein the energy transfer device (TES unit 220) is a thermal storage device containing a phase change material (TES unit comprises a material selected from the group consisting of a phase change material, chilled water, chilled coolant, or two-phase mixture of water and ice, col 2 lines 20-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system in the teachings of Silva to include wherein the energy transfer device is a thermal storage device containing a phase change material in view of the teachings of Donovan in order to yield the predictable result of maximizing heat rejection, target a specific heat duty, or provide a specific amount of sub-cooling at the outlet of TES unit.
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach wherein the phase change material is selected from ice, wax, and salt (TES unit comprises a material selected from the group consisting of a phase change material, chilled water, chilled coolant, or two-phase mixture of water and ice, col 2 lines 20-23 of Donovan).
Claims 5-6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva et al (US 20210262705 A1, hereinafter Silva) in view of Che et al (US 20260126199 A1, hereinafter Che).
Regarding claim 5, Silva teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach further comprising a bypass conduit arranged in parallel with the energy transfer device.
However, Che teaches further comprising a bypass conduit (bypass portion 56a) arranged in parallel (figure 1) with the energy transfer device (thermal storage device 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system in the teachings of Silva to include further comprising a bypass conduit arranged in parallel with the energy transfer device in view of the teachings of Che in order to yield the predictable result of actuating the valve to bypass the refrigerant around the thermal storage device.
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach further comprising a valve (bypass valve 94 of Che) operable to control a flow of the cooling fluid (paragraph 0069) through the bypass conduit (bypass portion 56a of Che) to achieve a demanded temperature downstream from the energy transfer device (when the output from the temperature sensor 92 indicates that the temperature of the phase change material is above a second threshold, the valve 94 again may be actuated to bypass the refrigerant around the thermal storage device 100 (e.g., via the bypass portion 56a), paragraph 0069 of Che).
Regarding claim 17, it is noted that although the preamble of claim 17 is directed towards a method, the structure of the combined teachings discloses all the structure being provided in the method steps, thus the method is also rendered obvious by the combined teachings. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious 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 or obviously perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Claims 7-8 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva et al (US 20210262705 A1, hereinafter Silva) in view of Kopko (WO 2021011564 A1, hereinafter Kopko).
Regarding claim 7, Silva teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the condenser and the energy transfer device are part of a second closed loop through which the cooling fluid is configured to circulate.
However, Kopko teaches wherein the condenser (condenser 118) and the energy transfer device (heat exchanger 126) are part of a second closed loop (second refrigerant circuit 104) through which the cooling fluid (second refrigerant 115) is configured to circulate (as shown on figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system in the teachings of Silva to include further comprising a bypass conduit arranged in parallel with the energy transfer device in view of the teachings of Kopko in order to yield the predictable result of providing a system configured to circulate a respective refrigerant.
Further, it is understood, claim 7 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach further comprising a pump for moving the cooling fluid through the second closed loop (pumps, and/or any other components that enable the respective refrigerants to be directed therethrough, paragraph 0032 of Kopko).
Regarding claim 14, it is noted that although the preamble of claim 14 is directed towards a method, the structure of the combined teachings discloses all the structure being provided in the method steps, thus the method is also rendered obvious by the combined teachings. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious 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 or obviously perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach further comprising further cooling the cooling fluid (cooling the second refrigerant 115, paragraph 0035 of Kopko) provided at the outlet of the energy transfer device (heat exchanger 126 of Kopko) prior to returning the cooling fluid to the condenser (condenser 118 of Kopko).
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva et al (US 20210262705 A1, hereinafter Silva) in view of Liu et al (US 20200248938 A1, hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 9, Silva teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach further comprising a cooling tower containing the cooling fluid, the cooling tower being arranged in fluid communication with the condenser and a fan operable to move another fluid across the cooling tower to remove heat from the cooling fluid.
However, Liu teaches further comprising a cooling tower (heat exchanger 84) containing the cooling fluid (fluid loop 62), the cooling tower being arranged in fluid communication with the condenser (sub cooler 52, figure 2) and a fan (fan 86) operable to move another fluid across the cooling tower to remove heat from the cooling fluid (as described in paragraph 0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system in the teachings of Silva to include further comprising a cooling tower containing the cooling fluid, the cooling tower being arranged in fluid communication with the condenser and a fan operable to move another fluid across the cooling tower to remove heat from the cooling fluid in view of the teachings of Liu in order to yield the predictable result of driving a respective airflow across the heat exchanger.
Further, it is understood, claim 9 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…operable to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 16, it is noted that although the preamble of claim 16 is directed towards a method, the structure of the combined teachings discloses all the structure being provided in the method steps, thus the method is also rendered obvious by the combined teachings. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious 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 or obviously perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Claims 10-12 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva et al (US 20210262705 A1, hereinafter Silva) in view of Yanik et al (US 20100242532 A1, hereinafter Yanik).
Regarding claims 10, Silva teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach further comprising a component for further heating the third fluid arranged at a location downstream from an outlet of the energy transfer device.
However, Yanik teaches further comprising a component (water heater 89) for further heating the third fluid (water, paragraph 0044) arranged at a location downstream from an outlet of the energy transfer device (heat exchanger 60, corresponding to heat exchanger 38 of Silva).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system in the teachings of Silva to include further comprising a component for further heating the third fluid arranged at a location downstream from an outlet of the energy transfer device in view of the teachings of Yanik in order to yield the predictable result of providing heat to device when chiller is operating in the third mode of operation.
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach wherein the third fluid is water (water, paragraph 0044 of Yanik) and the downstream component is a water heater (water heater 89 of Yanik).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach wherein the chiller system (chiller 84 of Yanik) is a water-cooled chiller system (as described in paragraph 0022 of Yanik).
Regarding claims 18-19, it is noted that although the preamble of claims 18-19 is directed towards a method, the structure of the combined teachings discloses all the structure being provided in the method steps, thus the method is also rendered obvious by the combined teachings. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious 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 or obviously perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIO DELEON whose telephone number is (571)272-8687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/DARIO ANTONIO DELEON/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights