DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 16-27, 35-37), species B (motor 15 is reversed), subspecies B’, subspecies X, subspecies P2, subspecies N2, subspecies 41 with traverse in the reply filed on 5/6/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 19, 20, 23, 24, 28-33, 36, 38 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, species, or subspecies, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. It is noted that claims 24 and 36 is/are additionally withdrawn as the elected species B (reverses the motor 15) and subspecies 4 reverses the other motor (see 14) and therefore as both motors are reversed, the working fluid does not circulate in the first direction. Further, claim 19 is withdrawn since the elected species only has the plurality of rotary compressors recited in claim 16 and does not have another set of “one or more compressors” as recited in claim 19. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/6/2025.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that UEDA does not teach all of the limitations of the “specific operational method”. This is not found persuasive because the lack of unity only has to demonstrate that the common features do not make a contribution over the prior art. The lack of unity does do this and does not require a showing of a controller as this is not common between the groups. Further, the prior art rejection below shows that the features of claim 16 are obvious over the prior art and therefore do not make contribution over the prior art and therefore the groups and species lack unity. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 19. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: pg. pub. para. 72 appears to incorrectly identify the reference number of a turbine. Also element 15 is not properly bolded in pg. pub. para. 52
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 16-18, 25-27, 35, 37 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 16, the recitation “a low-temperature refrigeration at a temperature” (line 5-6) is indefinite for being inconsistent with later recitations of a refrigeration device and it is unclear if the present recitation is unintentional error or not.
The recitation, “low temperature” (line 5-6) is indefinite since “low” is a relative term and it is not clear what temperature makes a device a low temperature refrigeration device or what part of the device must have the low temperature.
The recitation, “the flow” (line 11) is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “of user fluid” (line 13) is indefinite since user fluid has already been introduced and the recitation should properly reference the user fluid.
The recitation, “cooling exchange” (line 13) is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis and it appears errantly attempting to claim the cooling exchanger.
The recitation, “a flow of user fluid” (line 15) is indefinite since user fluid has already been introduced and the recitation should properly reference the user fluid and as the flow has already been introduced and should be properly referenced.
The recitation, “a first cooling mode” (line 16) is indefinite since the claim already introduces a first operating mode earlier in the claim and it is unclear if this is the previously recited first operating mode or some other mode.
The recitation, “of at least one compressor” (line 25) is indefinite since the compressors have already been introduced and the present reintroduction creates confusion as there is no other compressor disclosed as presently recited. Rather the recitation should be --of at least one of the compressors--.
The recitation, “and in the second operating mode, at least one motor to the shaft of which a turbine is coupled” (line 28) is indefinite since the claim already introduces a motor that rotates with the shaft (see line 25) and already introduced a turbine “that rotates conjointly with a shaft” (line 24-25) and there is no other drive motor coupled with the turbine and therefore the reintroduction is unclear and indeterminate.
The recitation, “is set in rotation in the opposite direction” (line 1, page 4) is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis for “the opposite direction”.
The recitation, “in an opposite direction of rotation” (line 2, page 4) is indefinite for reintroducing opposite. It is not understood why the previous recitation does not recite
--is set in rotation in an opposite direction-- and why the present recitation is not --in the opposite direction of rotation--.
In regard to claim 18, the recitation, “a flow of user fluid” (line 7) is indefinite for improperly reintroducing user fluid and it is not clear why the recitation is not -- a flow of the user fluid--.
In regard to claim 25, the recitation, “a motor set in rotation in the opposite direction” (line 6-7) is indefinite for improperly reintroducing the motor already introduced in claim 16.
In regard to claim 26, the recitation, “a flow of user fluid” (line 10) is indefinite for improperly reintroducing what was already claimed in claim 16 it is unclear if this flow is the same flow of claim 16 or not and unclear if this is the same user fluid already introduced in claim 16 or not.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
All of the claims have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, and it is considered that none of the claim recitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except for the following:
mechanism for cooling: is interpreted as a path in an indirect heat exchanger
mechanism for heating: is interpreted as a path in an indirect heat exchangers
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 16-18, 25, 26, 35, 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda (2018/0087809) in view of Atkinson (US 5121610) and Rouveyre (EP 1482588). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
In regard to claim 16, Ueda teaches a method for refrigeration and/or liquefaction of a flow of user fluid, said method comprising:
providing a cooling and/or liquefaction system (see figures) that comprises a refrigeration device (see figure and identifications below) at a temperature of between minus 100 degrees centigrade and minus 273 degrees centigrade (fully capable thereof, para. 87-89),
the refrigeration device comprising: a working circuit (see circuit for refrigerant) forming a loop (see refrigerant loops back to compressors) and containing a working fluid (refrigerant, para. 80), the working circuit forming a cycle that comprises, in series:
a mechanism for compressing the working fluid (compressors),
a mechanism for cooling the working fluid (path for cooling in 30),
a mechanism for expanding the working fluid (turbine T), and
a mechanism for heating the working fluid (path for heating in 30),
the refrigeration device comprising a cooling exchanger (12) intended to extract heat from a flow (34) of user fluid (fluid from 36; para. 87) by heat exchange with the working fluid (refrigerant) circulating in the working circuit, the system comprising a duct (path in 12) for the circulation of said flow (34) of the user fluid in the cooling exchanger (12);
operating the refrigeration device in a first operating mode (cooling operation) of the cooling exchanger (12) while the flow of the user fluid is made to circulate in the cooling exchanger (12; para. 87);
wherein: the compression mechanism (compressors) comprises a plurality of rotary compressors (C1-C3) and at least two drive motors (M1, M2) that each comprise a rotary drive shaft (78; para. 115); the compressors (C1-C3) are driven in rotation by the respective rotary shaft(s) (78);
the mechanism for expanding (turbine T) the working fluid (refrigerant) comprises at least one rotary turbine (T) that rotates conjointly with a shaft (connected to C2) of one (M1) of the drive motors (M1, M2) of at least one (C2) of the compressors (C1-C3); and
in the first operating mode, the rotary shafts (78) of the drive motors (M1, M2) rotate in respective first directions of rotation (inherent to rotate in a direction) and the working fluid (refrigerant) circulates in the working circuit in a first direction of circulation (direction of refrigerant flow for cooling).
Ueda teaches most of the claimed steps but does not explicitly teach performing a cleaning step after performance of said step of operating the refrigeration device in the first operating mode, cleaning away solidified impurities in the cooling exchanger during the cleaning step during which the refrigeration device is operated in a second operating mode in which the working gas circulates in the working circuit but in which the cooling of the cooling exchanger is decreased compared with the first operating mode, in the second operating mode, the one drive motor that is coupled to the turbine is set in rotation in an opposite direction such that its rotation shaft rotates in the opposite direction of rotation to the first direction of rotation.
However, it is known to operate cycles in reverse to provide heating as taught by Atkinson. Atkinson teaches a refrigeration device having a compressor (14), a motor (32), a turbine (26), a heat absorption heat exchanger (12) and a heat rejection heat exchanger (18) and further teaches that the refrigeration device can be operated in a cooling mode (see figure 1) and operated in a heating mode in reverse (see figure 6).
In addition, Rouveyre teaches operating a compressor (2) and expander (6) in one direction in a first mode of operation and then operating the compressor (2) and expander (6) in an opposite direction to effect removal of an contaminant (para. 30, 31, 32, 35).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Ueda by operating both of the motors in reverse after first providing cooling to provide immediate and high amounts of heating to the cooling heat exchanger to provide the ability to defrost the cooling heat exchanger quickly and efficiently.
In regard to claim 17, Ueda, as modified, teaches that during the cleaning step, the refrigeration device effects heating of the cooling heat exchanger (12) (per the reversal as discussed above).
In regard to claim 18, Ueda, as modified, does not explicitly teach that during the cleaning step, a flow of the user fluid is made to circulate in the cooling exchanger (12) and is heated thereby. However, in view of the desire to add heat to the cooling heat exchanger, providing the user fluid would help in providing heat load to the cooling heat exchanger and therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to circulate the user fluid to the cooling heat exchanger (12) to assist with removing the impurities from the cooling heat exchanger (12) more quickly.
In regard to claim 25, Ueda, as modified, does not explicitly teach that the reverse speed is with a speed of 1%-60% of a nominal speed of the motor. However, in view of the context of Ueda, wherein the first mode requires substantial amounts of cooling to reach the low temperatures targeted for normal cooling operation, and in view of the desire to obtain heating at a minimum of operational cost, therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify operate the heating rotation speed of the motors at a speed of 1% to 60% of the nominal speed of the motor in order to obtain the heating at a low operational cost.
In regard to claim 26, Ueda teaches that the flow of the user fluid (para. 87) is made to circulate in the cooling exchanger (12) by being pumped (see 38) from a tank (36) of the user fluid, and in that the user fluid that has undergone heat exchange with the cooling exchanger (12) is returned into the tank (36).
In regard to claim 35, Ueda, as modified, teaches that the reversing the rotation of said motors (M1, M2) causes the turbine (T) to impart energy to the working fluid (in view of the teachings of Atkinson and Rouveyre), thereby increasing a temperature of the working fluid upstream of or within the cooling exchanger (12).
In regard to claim 37, Ueda, as modified, teaches that during the second operating mode (reversed motor operation), there is a decreased cooling that results in a temperature at the cooling exchanger (12) sufficient to melt, dislodge, or sublimate the solidified impurities (being as impurities were only solidified by cryogenic temperatures and heating should provide much higher temperature refrigerant to the cooling heat exchanger).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda (2018/0087809) in view of Atkinson (US 5121610) and Rouveyre (EP 1482588) and further in view of Bernhardt (US 2019/0257475).
Ueda, as modified, teaches most of the claim limitations but does not specifically teach that the user fluid is natural gas. However, it is routine and ordinary to provide cooling to a user fluid being natural gas as taught by Bernhardt. Bernhardt teaches a tank (4) of natural gas (para. 85, 45) and teaches circulating the natural gas to a cooling heat exchanger (in 10) for the purpose of preserving the natural gas and preventing unwanted evaporation and loss of the natural gas. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the cooling of Ueda to cool natural gas from a tank as taught by Bernhardt for the purpose of providing the operational benefits of Ueda to natural gas cooling and to preserve natural gas and prevent natural gas from being lost by vaporization and venting.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the 892 form and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
JFPIII
June 5, 2025
Prosecution Insights