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 .
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 18 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 18 recites the limitation "the support structure" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been considered as --the structure--.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 9-10, 12-16, 18-19, 22-26, 28 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano (US 2005/0092012), Ramirez (US 2015/0013354), and further in view of Park (US 2007/0214826).
Regarding claim 1, Hirano discloses a refrigeration system comprising:
a conditioned space (16);
an air plenum structure (enclosed space within erecting panels 19 including condenser fan 33A) positioned outside of a top surface of the conditioned space (16, refer to fig. 7); and
a refrigeration circuit (refer to fig. 6) configured to receive a refrigerant, wherein the refrigeration circuit comprises:
a compressor-condenser assembly (30) comprising:
a compressor (32) configured to be coupled to the refrigeration circuit; and
a condenser (33) configured to be coupled to the refrigeration circuit,
wherein at least a portion of the compressor-condenser assembly (30) is enveloped within the air plenum structure (erecting panels 19) such that the compressor-condenser assembly is thermally isolated from an ambient environment of the conditioned space (by means of a thermally insulated unit base 38 mounted over openings 21 to substantially thermally seal the interior of the conditioned space as can be seen from par. 66, and fig. 7).
While Hirano discloses the refrigeration system comprising the refrigeration circuit configured to receive the refrigerant, Hirano fails to explicitly disclose a walk-in refrigeration system including the conditioned space configured to receive a user therein, and the refrigeration circuit configured to receive an A3 refrigerant having a Global Warming Potential (GWP) value less than 10.
However, Ramirez teaches a walk-in refrigeration system (refer to fig. 1), comprising a conditioned space configured to receive a user therein (refer to par. 26, wherein the walk-in freezer includes a freezer box 100) and a refrigeration circuit configured to receive an A3 refrigerant having a Global Warming Potential (GWP) value less than 10 (refer to par. 26, wherein a refrigerant that evaporates at near ambient temperature, such as Isobutane, may be used to cool the freezer (Isobutane is an A3 refrigerant haven a GWP of 3)).
One having ordinary skill in the art of refrigeration would recognize that a walk-in refrigeration system provides superior bulk storage, enhanced temperature stability for food preservation, and greater energy efficiency for high-volume needs, and an A3 refrigerant having a GWP value less than 10 is environmentally friendly, and provides high energy efficiency, leading to lower operating costs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hirano such that the refrigeration system is a walk-in refrigeration system including the conditioned space configured to receive a user therein, and the refrigeration circuit configured to receive an A3 refrigerant having a Global Warming Potential (GWP) value less than 10, in order to provide superior bulk storage, enhanced temperature stability for food preservation, and greater energy efficiency for high-volume needs, and to provide an environmentally friendly refrigerant that provides high energy efficiency, leading to lower operating costs in view of the teachings by Ramirez along with the knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill in the art of refrigeration.
While Hirano as modified discloses the air plenum structure positioned outside of the top surface of the conditioned space and including a condenser fan (33A), Hirano as modified fails to explicitly disclose at least one plenum input in fluid communication with an external environment of the air plenum structure, at least one plenum output in fluid communication with the external environment of the air plenum structure, and the condenser fan being an exhaust fan coupled to the at least one plenum output, wherein the exhaust fan is configured to force heated air within the air plenum structure to the external environment.
However, Park further teaches that it is known in the art of refrigeration, to provide a refrigeration system including a compressor-condenser assembly (compressor 317 and condenser 316) enveloped within an air plenum structure (refer to fig. 1), the air plenum structure comprising at least one plenum input (refer to par. 28, wherein the plenum input includes inlet 320 located to allow external air to be introduced) in fluid communication with an external environment of the air plenum structure, at least one plenum output (including outlet 321) in fluid communication with the external environment of the air plenum structure, and an exhaust fan (322) coupled to the at least one plenum output (including outlet 321), wherein the exhaust fan (322) is configured to force heated air within the air plenum structure to the external environment, in order to cool the assembly (refer to par. 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Hirano by providing an air plenum as taught by Park including at least one plenum input in fluid communication with an external environment of the air plenum structure, at least one plenum output in fluid communication with the external environment of the air plenum structure, and wherein the condenser fan is an exhaust fan coupled to the at least one plenum output, wherein the exhaust fan is configured to force heated air within the air plenum structure to the external environment, in order to guide and cool the assembly.
Regarding claim 3, Hirano as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Hirano as modified discloses wherein the air plenum structure (enclosed space within erecting panels 19) is configured to entirely envelop the compressor-condenser assembly (refer to fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4, Hirano as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Hirano as modified discloses wherein the compressor-condenser assembly (30) is configured to be positioned at the top surface of the conditioned space (16), and the air plenum structure (19) is configured to be attached to the top surface (refer to fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5, Hirano as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 4. Further, Hirano as modified discloses an evaporator (36) positioned within the conditioned space (16).
Regarding claim 7, Hirano as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 4. Further, Hirano as modified discloses wherein the attachment between the air plenum structure (19) and the top surface is configured to substantially seal the compressor-condenser assembly within the air plenum structure (refer to fig. 7).
Regarding claim 9, Hirano as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Hirano as modified discloses wherein the external environment of the air plenum structure (19) is thermally isolated from the ambient environment of the conditioned space (by means of thermally insulated body 10 surrounding the ambient environment of the conditioned space as can be seen from par. 64, and fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Hirano as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Hirano as modified discloses wherein the air plenum structure defines a first air plenum input and a second air plenum input (refer to fig. 5, wherein the air plenum structure defines a first air plenum input in relation with condenser fan 33A of conditioned space 16, and a second air plenum input in relation with condenser fan 33A of conditioned space 15) each of which are in fluid communication with the external environment of the air plenum structure.
Regarding claim 12, Hirano as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Hirano as modified discloses wherein a temperature within the air plenum structure (19) is greater than a temperature of the external environment (in the instant case, the temperature within the air plenum structure is capable of being greater than a temperature of the external environment due to the heat generated by the compressor as a natural consequence of compressing gas).
Regarding claim 13, Hirano as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Hirano as modified discloses wherein, in an operational configuration in which the refrigeration system is installed in a structure (refer to fig. 7), the compressor-condenser assembly (30) is thermally isolated from the ambient environment of the conditioned space via at least a portion of the structure (refer to thermally insulated unit base 38 mounted over openings 21 to substantially thermally seal an interior of the conditioned space).
Regarding claim 14, Hirano as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 13. Further, Hirano as modified discloses wherein the portion of the structure defines: a first surface (refer to fig. 7 below) proximate the conditioned space (16); and a second surface (refer to fig. 7 below) opposite the first surface proximate the compressor-condenser assembly (30).
PNG
media_image1.png
388
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Hirano as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 13. Further, Hirano as modified discloses wherein the portion of the structure (thermally insulated unit base 38) comprises an exterior wall of the structure (refer to fig. 7, wherein said structure forms a top wall of the structure).
Regarding claim 16, Hirano as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 15. Further, Hirano as modified discloses wherein the exterior wall defines: a first surface (refer to annotated fig. 7 above) proximate the conditioned space (16); and a second surface (refer to annotated fig. 7 above) opposite the first surface proximate the compressor-condenser assembly (30).
Regarding claim 18, Hirano as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 13. Further, Hirano as modified discloses wherein the
structure defines one or more openings (refer to fig. 7 below) configured to at least partially receive a fluid line set therein (refer to fig. 7 below), wherein the fluid line set is configured to provide fluid communication between compressor-condenser assembly (30) and the conditioned space (16) through the structure (38).
PNG
media_image2.png
330
652
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Hirano as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Hirano as modified discloses (refer to fig. 6) wherein: the condenser (33) further comprises a condenser output communicably coupled to a first end of a capillary tube (35); and the compressor further comprises a compressor input and a compressor output (refer to fig. 6).
Regarding claim 23, Hirano as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 22. Further, Hirano as modified discloses an evaporator (36) comprising an evaporator input and an evaporator output (refer to fig. 6 below), wherein the evaporator input is communicably coupled to a second end of the capillary tube (35) and the evaporator output is communicably coupled to a first end of a suction line, wherein at least a portion (40B) of the suction line and at least a portion (40A) of the capillary tube are thermally coupled (by means of heat exchanging device 40).
PNG
media_image3.png
294
637
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Hirano as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 22. Further, Hirano as modified discloses wherein the compressor input is communicably coupled to a second end of the suction line (by means of section 40B as can be seen from fig. 6).
Regarding claim 25, Hirano as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 22. Further, Hirano as modified discloses wherein the compressor output (output from compressor 32, fig. 6) is communicably coupled to the condenser (33).
Regarding claim 26, Hirano as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 23. Further, Hirano as modified discloses wherein the
portion (40B) of the suction line and the portion (40A) of the capillary tube are adjacent
or coupled to a heat exchanger (by heat exchanging device 40 as can be seen from fig. 6).
Regarding claim 28, Hirano as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed
above in the rejection of claim 21. Further, Hirano as modified discloses wherein the
condenser output (output of condenser 33) is communicably coupled to the capillary
tube (35).
Regarding claim 31, Hirano as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed
above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Hirano as modified discloses wherein the conditioned space comprises an entryway configured to allow the user to enter the conditioned space (including door 504 as taught by Ramirez).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano (US 2005/0092012), Ramirez (US 2015/0013354), Park (US 2007/0214826), and further in view of Iovanel (US 2021/0003328).
Regarding claim 6, Hirano as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed
above in the rejection of claim 4. Further, Hirano as modified discloses the air plenum
structure attached to the top surface of the conditioned space, but Hirano as modified
fails to explicitly disclose the air plenum structure is removably attached to the top
surface of the conditioned space.
However, Iovanel teaches a modular refrigeration system, comprising an air plenum structure (50) being removable attached (refer to paras. 54 and 56, wherein enclosure 50 includes removable panels that facilitate installation) to a top surface of a conditioned space (20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Hirano such that the air plenum structure is removably attached to the top surface of the conditioned space in view of the teachings of Iovanel, in order to facilitate installation.
Claim(s) 20-21 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano (US 2005/0092012), Ramirez (US 2015/0013354), Park (US 2007/0214826), and further in view of Morrison (US 5,057,968).
Regarding claim 20, Hirano as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Hirano as modified discloses the compressor-condenser assembly, but fails to explicitly disclose a first disconnect fitting coupling the compressor input to the refrigeration circuit, and a second disconnect fitting coupling the condenser output to the refrigeration circuit.
However, Morrison further teaches that it is known in the art of refrigeration, to provide a cooling system (refer to fig. 9) including a first disconnect fitting (108) coupling a compressor input (from compressor 110) to a refrigeration circuit, and a second disconnect fitting (116) coupling a condenser output (from condenser 112) to a refrigeration circuit.
One having ordinary skill in the art of refrigeration would recognize that by providing a first disconnect fitting coupling the compressor input to the refrigeration circuit and a second disconnect fitting coupling the condenser output to the refrigeration circuit, it will simplify installation, maintenance, and repair, therefore, simplifying the connection process of the refrigeration system.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Hirano by providing a first disconnect fitting coupling the compressor input to the refrigeration circuit, and a second disconnect fitting coupling the condenser output to the refrigeration circuit, in order to simplify the connection process of the refrigeration system in view of the teachings by Morrison along with the knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill in the art of refrigeration.
Regarding claim 21, Hirano as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 20. Further, Hirano as modified discloses the first and the second disconnect fittings (refer to quick disconnect fittings 108 and 116 as taught by Morrison), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the first and the second disconnect fittings is a double shut-off quick disconnect fitting.
However, it appears that the compressor-condenser assembly of Hirano would operate equally well with at least one of the quick disconnect fittings being a double shut-off quick disconnect fitting. Applicant simply indicates that the terms “quick-disconnector,” “quick connectors,” “quick-disconnect,” “quick connect,” “quick release couplings,” “quick disconnect fittings,” “disconnect fittings,” “multiple line quick disconnector,” or multiple line quick disconnect,” are broad terms, and are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art (and is not to be limited to a special or customized meaning), and refers without limitation to snap type (ball latching), non-latching, single shut-off, double shut-off, or dry break couplings operable by one or two hands. In one example, the quick disconnect fittings of the present disclosure include shut-off valves within both the internal and external ends so as to retain pressure in the components in fluid communication via the quick disconnect fittings. By way of example, quick disconnect fittings described herein may be used as an attachment mechanism for an example compressor-condenser assembly such that the pressure within the fluid lines in fluid communication with (e.g., communicably coupled with) the compressor-condenser assembly is maintained (see par. 78 of Applicant’s Specification as filed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to cause at least one of the first and the second disconnect fittings to be a double shut-off quick disconnect fitting because this feature appears to be an arbitrary design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Hirano.
Regarding claim 27, Hirano as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 22. Further, Hirano as modified discloses wherein the compressor input is communicably coupled to the suction line, but fails to explicitly disclose via a first disconnect fitting.
However, Morrison further teaches that it is known in the art of refrigeration, to provide a cooling system (refer to fig. 9) including a compressor input coupled via a first disconnect fitting (108).
One having ordinary skill in the art of refrigeration would recognize that by providing the compressor input communicably coupled via a first disconnect fitting, it will simplify installation, maintenance, and repair, therefore, simplifying the connection process of the refrigeration system.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Hirano such that the
compressor input is communicably coupled to the suction line via a first disconnect
fitting, in order to simplify the connection process of the refrigeration system in view of
the teachings by Morrison along with the knowledge generally available to one having
ordinary skill in the art of refrigeration.
Claim(s) 19 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano (US 2005/0092012), Ramirez (US 2015/0013354), Park (US 2007/0214826), and further in view of Wyatt (US 2017/0183210).
Regarding claims 19 and 30, Hirano as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Hirano as modified discloses the refrigeration system, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the compressor-condenser assembly and the refrigeration circuit comprise a full charge of the A3 refrigerant; the refrigeration system comprising a maximum charge of 5.3 ounces (150 grams) of the A3 refrigerant per compressor.
However, Wyatt further teaches that it is known in the art of refrigeration, to provide a cooling system including a refrigeration module, wherein in the case of an A3 refrigerant such as R290 (Propane), a maximum refrigerant charge of 150 grams is set on all refrigerating equipment, in order to obtain a reduction in the cooling system, whilst maintaining the cooling output (refer to par. 63) (in the instant case, a “full charge” of refrigerant is considered to be a precise quantity of refrigerant to maintain the system’s designed cooling/heating capacity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Hirano such the compressor-condenser assembly and the refrigeration circuit comprise a full charge of the A3 refrigerant; the refrigeration system comprising a maximum charge of 5.3 ounces (150 grams) of the A3 refrigerant per compressor in view of the teachings by Wyatt, in order to obtain a reduction in the cooling system, whilst maintaining the cooling output.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp.7-11, filed on 12/23/2025, with respect to claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 12-16, 18-28 and 30-31 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 12-16, 18-28 and 30 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly amended claims.
Applicant argues in page 9 of the remarks that the claimed invention is directed to a walk-in refrigeration system specifically configured to use an A3 refrigerant (e.g. propane), which imposes distinct design, safety, and regulatory requirements that are not present in a system such as Hirano; Hirano cannot be simply modified to have an A3 refrigerant. This argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Hirano cannot be simply modified to have an A3 refrigerant incorporated in its system, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
For at least the reasons disclosed above, claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 12-16, 18-28 and 30-31 remain rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANA M VAZQUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/ANA M VAZQUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763