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 .
The claims received 6/15/2026 are entered. Claims 14-20 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/15/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figure 3 illustrates heat exchanger 118 on a downstream side of eductor 108. Figures 1 and 2 provide heat exchanger 118 on an upstream side of the eductor. Figure 3 is presumed to be in error. Moreover there is no discussion of the arrangement of heat exchanger 118 being downstream of the eductor within the disclosure.
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 “bypass valve system” and “a liquid ring vacuum pump” 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.
Claims 2-6, 9, 11, and 13 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.
Claim 2 is not clear. It is not clear if “characterized by” is intended to mean that the fluid pump is a variable flow rate pump. If so, it should be clearly stated. Moreover “operational demands” are not defined and are unclear.
Claim 3 recites “synthetic refrigerant” this meaning is unclear. It could refer to either a final product composition or a means of achieving a product.
Claim 4 recites “ensuring consistent evaporation” is not clear.
Claim 5 recites “specifically configured” in regard to use with a CO2 refrigerant. The means of specific configuration are not clear. Moreover “facilitated by a cooling effect of the evaporated fluid” is not clear.
Claim 6 recites “a control unit programmed to monitor and adjust”. However of the following elements only the pump may be directly adjusted. Thus the meaning of the claim is not clear.
Claim 9 recites “a liquid ring vacuum pump” however as disclosed a liquid ring vacuum pump is an alternative to an eductor (discussed in [00169] of the specification). As the eductor is provided in claim 1 it is unclear the meaning of the liquid ring vacuum pump in claim 9.
Claim 11 recites the maintenance of a vacuum. A single claims both an apparatus and method steps of using that apparatus is indefinite. MPEP 2173.05(p). It is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates a system that allows the steps set forth or whether infringement occurs when the steps are actually performed.
Claim 13 recites “multiple modes”. The specification describes “The control unit 1060 may be programmed with multiple operational modes to accommodate varying cooling requirements and environmental conditions. These modes may include standard operation, energy-saving mode, maximum cooling capacity mode, and maintenance mode.” [00333]. However the modes themselves are not described thus the modes are unclear.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kowalski et al (US 5,239,837).
Regarding claim 1, Kowalski discloses a refrigeration system, comprising:
a tank (82) for storing a fluid supply;
a fluid pump (24) fluidly coupled to the tank, configured to circulate fluid from the tank;
an eductor (30) in fluid communication with the fluid pump, the eductor being operative to create a vacuum by utilizing a flow of fluid from the fluid pump;
a vacuum chamber (22 or 26; the evaporator 22 or boiler 26 are under vacuum, relative to other parts of the system, due to the suction provided by 30) fluidly connected to the eductor, wherein the vacuum chamber is structured to facilitate evaporation of the fluid under vacuum conditions to absorb heat from a refrigerant (“waste fluid from engine”);
a heat exchanger (interface surface within 22 or 42 of 30) in thermal communication with the vacuum chamber, the heat exchanger being configured to transfer heat from the refrigerant to the evaporated fluid; and
a condenser (32) fluidly connected to the tank, the condenser being configured to condense the evaporated fluid and to discharge the heat absorbed from the refrigerant.
Regarding claim 3, Kowalski discloses the fluid is a synthetic refrigerant (4:51-55).
Regarding claim 5, Kowalski discloses the heat exchanger is specifically configured for use with a CO2 refrigerant in a subcritical state, facilitated by a cooling effect of the evaporated fluid (the heat exchanger is capable of use with CO2 refrigerant).
Regarding claim 8, Kowalski discloses the system is configured to operate as a high stage in a cascade refrigeration system with a secondary refrigerant circuit (circuit of “fluid to cooling coil” or “waste heat input” of figure 6 are secondary refrigerant circuits).
Regarding claim 10, Kowalski discloses the heat exchanger is adapted to facilitate heat exchange between the evaporated fluid and a secondary refrigerant in a cascade refrigeration cycle (circuit of “fluid to cooling coil” or “waste heat input” of figure 6 are secondary refrigerant circuits).
Regarding claim 11, Kowalski discloses the system maintains substantially uniform vacuum levels throughout the vacuum chamber (there is no particular pressure rise or loss mechanism to adjust pressure within the chamber thus the chamber is at substantially uniform vacuum level).
Regarding claim 12, Kowalski discloses a bypass valve system (“CV” and 14) for selectively isolating components of the system during maintenance operations (said valves are capable of isolating components).
Regarding claim 13, Kowalski discloses the system is configurable to operate in multiple modes to accommodate varying environmental conditions and cooling load requirements (7:40 to 8:26).
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, 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) 2, 4, 6, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalski et al (US 5,239,837).
Regarding claim 2, Kowalski disclose the fluid pump but is silent concerning a variable flow rate. The examiner takes official notice that variable flow rate pumps are old and well known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Kowalski with a variable flow rate pump in order to adjust system capacity to match demand.
Regarding claim 4, Kowalski discloses the refrigeration system of claim 1, but lacks a float. The examiner takes official notice that floats for evaporators and boilers are old and well known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Kowalski with a float at 22 or 26 in order to prevent a dry out condition of the heat exchangers.
Regarding claim 6, Kowalski discloses a control unit (8:5-8) but is silent concerning control programming. The examiner takes official notice that monitoring pressure and temperature and controlling the speed of a variable speed pump are all old and well known controls. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Kowalski with the programming to control pump flow rate in response to pressure and temperature of the vacuum chamber and condenser in order to adjust system capacity to match demand.
Regarding claim 7, Kowalski discloses the refrigeration system of claim 1, but lacks a vapor separation tank. The examiner takes official notice that vapor separation tanks are old and well known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Kowalski with a vapor separation tank in order to prevent liquid suction at the eductor.
Regarding claim 9, Kowalski discloses the refrigeration system of claim 1, but lacks a liquid ring vacuum pump. The examiner takes official notice that liquid ring vacuum pumps are old and well known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Kowalski with a liquid ring vacuum pump which are low friction type pumps in order to maintain a low pressure within the vacuum chamber which controls the temperature of evaporation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stalcup (US 2,106,362) jet type refrigeration cycle
Gielda et al (US 2012/0312379) jet type refrigeration cycle
Elsherbini et al (US 11,300,327) cascade refrigeration system
Lowi, Jr. (US 4,342,200) waste heat driven jet type heat pump
Garris, Jr. (US 5,647,221) ejector cycle with turbine alternative
Weber (US 7,607,475) vacuum pump 51 to control chamber pressure
Kniffler et al (US 10,830,500) CO2 cycle
Kniffler et al (US 11,137,172) cascade arrangement
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