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 .
Response to Amendment
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks/Amendments filed on 27 February, 2026. The amendments have been entered.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 18-34 are pending.
Claims 1-17 have been previously cancelled.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 18-21 are allowable. The restriction requirement between species, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 4 May, 2023, has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of 4 May, 2023 is fully withdrawn. Claims 22-34, directed to different species, are no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claim(s) requires all the limitations of an allowable claim.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 22, 25, and 33-34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 22 recites, “the separator gas outlet having a fluid connection to the compressor inlet through which low pressure, low temperature enters the compressor”, which appears to include an error (e.g., missing word). It appears the recitation should be directed to the entry of low pressure, low temperature inlet gas to the compressor from the separator gas outlet, and thereby, it is suggested the recitation be corrected to - - the separator gas outlet having a fluid connection to the compressor inlet through which low pressure, low temperature inlet gas enters the compressor - -.
Claim 25 recites, “wherein the gas-liquid separator”, which appears to include a typographical error. It is suggested, for consistency of the claim language, the recitation be amended to – wherein the liquid-gas separator - -.
Claim 33 recites, “the return line of the second grid”, “the return line of the first grid”, “the supply line of the first grid”, and “the supply line of the second grid”, which should, for consistency of the claim language, be amended to - - the return line- -, - -the return line- -, - -the supply line - -, and - - the supply line - -.
Claim 34 recites, “the return line of the second grid”, “the return line of the first grid”, “the supply line of the first grid”, “the supply line of the second grid”, “the separator” which should, for consistency of the claim language, be amended to - - the return line- -, - -the return line- -, - -the supply line - -, - - the supply line - -, and - - the gas-liquid separator - -.
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 26-30 and 33-34 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 26 recites, “wherein the compressor outlet is fluidly connected to the second condenser optionally being a spray condenser via a heat exchanger arranged on a wall of the evaporator or in the evaporator chamber of the evaporator”, which renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether or not the second condenser is required to include a spray condenser. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, it is being interpreted that the second condenser is not required to be a spray condenser.
Claim 27 recites:
"the first expander" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear if the two or more expanders includes the initial expander required by claim 18 (claim 27 directly depends from claim 18) or if the two or more expanders are directed to additional expanders to the initial expander required by claim 18. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as a first expander of the two or more expanders, in addition to the two or more expanders including the expander initially set forth by claim 18.
“the exhaust flow” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as an exhaust flow “from the evaporator”.
“the second expander” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Again, it is unclear if the two or more expanders includes the initial expander required by claim 18 (claim 27 directly depends from claim 18) or if the two or more expanders are directed to additional expanders to the initial expander required by claim 18. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as a second expander of the two or more expanders, in addition to the two or more expanders including the expander initially set forth by claim 18.
“the exhaust flow” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as an exhaust flow “from the first expander”.
Claims 28-29 depend from rejected claim 27, and thereby, are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the recitation of the same limitations and/or dependency therefrom.
Claim 29 recites “the compressor”, which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if “the compressor” of claim 29 is directed to the compressor set forth in claim 28 or the compressor set forth in claim 18 (claim 29 depends from each). For examination purposes, it is being construed “the compressor” of claim 29 is directed to the compressor of claim 28, but clarification of “the compressor” of claim 29 is suggested.
Claim 30 recites:
“one or more expanders are arranged in parallel”, the claim sets for the scenario of a single expander. It is unclear how one expander is arranged in parallel. Is the scenario of one expander to be arranged in parallel to another structure not recited by the claim limitation? For examination purposes, it is being construed, in the scenario where there is one expander, the expander is arranged in parallel to any of the other structures required by the claimed invention set forth by claim 30.
"the first compressor" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear if the respective compressors arranged in series includes the initial compressor required by claim 18 (claim 30 directly depends from claim 18) or if the respective compressors arranged in series are directed to additional compressors to the initial compressor required by claim 18. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as a first compressor of the respective compressors, in addition to the respective compressors including the compressor initially set forth by claim 18.
"the second compressor" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear if the respective compressors arranged in series includes the initial compressor required by claim 18 (claim 30 directly depends from claim 18) or if the respective compressors arranged in series are directed to additional compressors to the initial compressor required by claim 18. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as a second compressor of the respective compressors, in addition to the respective compressors including the compressor initially set forth by claim 18.
Claim 33 recites:
“the first liquid inlet line” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as a first liquid inlet line.
“the first liquid outlet of the evaporator” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as a first liquid outlet of the evaporator.
“the liquid outlet line from the first condenser” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, in addition to it being unclear if “the liquid outlet line from the first condenser” is the same or different to “a first liquid outlet line” of the first condenser outlet. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as a liquid outlet line from the first condenser, in light of the first condenser, 51, including multiple outlets.
Claim 34 recites:
“the liquid inlet line” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as a liquid inlet line.
“the evaporator liquid outlet” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as an evaporator liquid outlet.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-25 and 31-32 are allowable over the prior art
Claims 26-30 and 33-34 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, when considered as a whole, alone or in combination, fails to reasonably disclose, teach, and/or otherwise suggest the requirements of the claimed invention as set forth within independent claims 18 and 32, and the dependents thereof. The closest prior art of record is ATALLA (US 2018/0306068 A1 – published 25 October, 2018), however, ATALLA is not directed to “wherein only water is received by the evaporation chamber from the external water source through the water inlet line and the evaporator inlet” (claims 18 and 32). While, the application of water within a heat pump apparatus is known within the ordinary skill of the art (US 2009/0266096 A1 – published 29 October, 2009, as an example), ATALLA is directed to the use of a combination of ammonia and water (par. 163-164), such that changing the working medium to only water would necessarily change the manner of operation based on the workability of only water within the system of ATALLA (par. 182-183). See MPEP § 2143.01 – VI. If the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813, 123 USPQ 349, 352 (CCPA 1959). Further, absent some teaching, motivation, or suggestion to modify the prior art to include only water, a prima facie case of obviousness cannot be established. As such, the prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious, absent impermissible hindsight reasoning, the claimed invention as set forth.
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 JENNA M MARONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM to 4PM, EST.
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.
/JENNA M MARONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 3/19/2026
JENNA M. MARONEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763