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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2 March 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “sorption dehumidification unit” and “control unit” used throughout the claims.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
For the record:
It is noted that the previous examiner indicated that these limitations would not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), however that determination appears incorrect.
“Sorption dehumidification unit” has been interpreted according to the corresponding structure associated with referenced numeral 2 as described in the specification and shown in drawings, and equivalents thereof.
The specification fails to describe the corresponding structure of “control unit” as required under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). See corresponding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b),
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim limitation “control unit,” which is interpreted under 35 U.S.C., is recited throughout the claims. However, since the specification fails to describe the corresponding structure as required under that statute, Applicant has failed to demonstrated full possession of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention at the effective filing date of the application.
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 limitation “control unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 11 does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a computer program per se is not eligible subject matter (see MPEP 2106.03.I.).
Claim 12 does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a computer-readable storage medium can be interpreted to include transitory signals, which are not eligible subject matter (see MPEP 2106.03.I.). The claim should be amended to read: “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium….”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10, 13-14, and 16-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The Examiner accepts Applicants arguments set forth in the response filed 2 March 2026 as follows:
Kagawa fails to disclose or suggest at least an intermediate fluid circuit with a cooling fluid, the intermediate fluid circuit being arranged to cool process air in a process air cooling heat exchanger before inlet of the process air into a sorption dehumidifier unit, the intermediate fluid circuit comprising a fluid pump and a main conduit arranged to conduct the cooling fluid through the process air cooling heat exchanger and through the evaporator of the heat pump, the intermediate fluid circuit further comprising a flow control system arranged to control the flow of the cooling fluid in the intermediate fluid circuit, and a control unit for controlling the flow control system so that a cooling fluid temperature dependent parameter value (T1) in the intermediate fluid circuit upstream of the process air cooling heat exchanger-becomes substantially equal to a given set-point cooling fluid temperature dependent parameter value (Tlset) so that the process air, before inlet of the process air into the sorption dehumidifier unit, is cooled to a temperature value (T2) corresponding to the cooling fluid temperature dependent
parameter value (T1), with the process air cooling heat exchanger being dimensioned to cool the process air upstream of a process air inlet of the sorption dehumidifier unit such that the temperature value (T2) is a constant value regardless of the properties of the process air entering the process air cooling heat exchanger, and the control unit being configured to adjust the flow of the cooling fluid based on a comparison of an actual detected value of the cooling fluid temperature dependent parameter value (T1) relative to the set-point cooling fluid temperature dependent parameter value (Tlset) to stabilize the process air temperature value (T2) at the constant value, as is recited in independent Claim 1.
Nor does Kagawa disclose or suggest at least an intermediate fluid circuit with a cooling fluid, the intermediate fluid circuit being arranged to cool process air in a process air cooling heat exchanger before inlet of the process air into a sorption dehumidifier unit, the intermediate fluid circuit comprising a fluid pump and a main conduit arranged to conduct the cooling fluid through the process air cooling heat exchanger and through the evaporator of the heat pump, the intermediate fluid circuit further comprising a flow control system arranged to control the flow of the cooling fluid in the intermediate fluid circuit, and a control unit for controlling the flow control system so that a cooling fluid temperature dependent parameter value (T1) in the intermediate fluid circuit upstream of the process air cooling heat exchanger-becomes substantially equal to a given set-point cooling fluid temperature dependent parameter value (Tlset) so that the process air, before inlet of the process air into the sorption dehumidifier unit, is cooled to a temperature value (T2) corresponding to the cooling fluid temperature dependent parameter value (T1), with the process air cooling heat exchanger being dimensioned to cool the process air upstream of a process air inlet of the sorption dehumidifier unit such that the temperature value (T2) is a constant value regardless of the properties of the process air entering the process air cooling heat exchanger, and the control unit being configured to adjust the flow of the cooling fluid based on a comparison of an actual detected value of the cooling fluid temperature dependent parameter value (T1) detected by measuring equipment arranged in the main conduit upstream of the process air cooling heat exchanger relative to the given set-point cooling fluid temperature dependent parameter value (Tlset) to stabilize the process air temperature (T2) at the constant value, as is recited in independent Claim 16.
Thus, Kagawa fails to disclose or suggest important features of the present invention recited in independent Claims 1 and 16.
The air handler unit (AHU) in Dempster et al. is in communication with a building automation system (BAS) and includes one or more smart valves that operate to meter an amount of water that flows through a coil in the AHU. In the embodiment of Fig. 3, a single coil AHU system 100 having a BAS 102 that does not directly control a smart valve 104 includes a fan or blower 106, a water return line 110, and a water supply line 112. The smart valve 104 includes a processor 114 that receives information from an air temperature sensor 116 in the air stream downstream of the coil 118 and information from a water return (WR) temperature sensor 120, and may also receive information from a water supply (WS) temperature sensor 122. The WR and WS temperature sensors 120, 122 operate to provide water temperature values to the smart valve 104, and in turn the smart valve 104 determines a temperature differential between the supply and return lines 110, 112. The processor 114 determines a valve position of the smart valve 104. Temperature sensors 120 and 122 of Dempster et al. measure water temperature, and
those measurements are used to control the position of smart valve 104, but the smart valve also requires input from air temperature sensor 116, that is, input of air temperature data from the air stream. The Office Action once more suggests that "Dempster is evidence that control of heat exchange between two-fluids in a two-fluid heat exchanger is configured to be carried out on the basis of upstream first fluid temperature, downstream first fluid temperature, upstream second fluid temperature, and/or downstream second fluid temperature. Selecting one parameter over another or selecting a combination of parameters for the purpose of controlling a heat transfer in a heat exchanger is obvious based on the current record." The Office Action further argues that "[s]election from among a limited, identified number of solutions (in this case, controlling flow through a two-fluid heat exchanger on the basis of one or more of: upstream first fluid temperature, downstream first fluid temperature, upstream second fluid temperature, and/or downstream second fluid temperature) has been held to be obvious." However, one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Dempster et al. as teaching the option of using any one or any combination of sensors in order to control heat transfer. Dempster et al. clearly requires the use of plural sensors as well as the specific use of an air temperature sensor in conjunction with water temperature sensors. Dempster et al. fails to remedy the deficiencies of Kagawa noted above with respect to independent Claims 1 and 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’ arguments are deemed persuasive as discussed regarding the reasons for indicating allowable subject matter set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 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 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.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763