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 Species 6 (Fig. 32-36), subspecies F (magnetic field modulator is a rotary drive), subspecies I.1 (heat exchangers use air), subspecies K (the apparatus is an air conditioner), and subspecies N (magnetocaloric apparatus) in the reply filed on 6/26/2025 without traverse is acknowledged. Claims 4-16 and 17-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species or subspecies, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Note that the elected species has no disclosure that the magnetic working substances of the third magnetic refrigerators have wider operating temperature ranges than the magnetic working substances of the fourth magnetic refrigerators and therefore claims 17-25 have been withdrawn.
Examiner Request
The applicant is requested to provide line numbers to each claim in all future claim submissions to aide in examination and communication with the applicant about claim recitations. The applicant is thanked for aiding examination.
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) 1-3 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 1, the recitation, “a solid refrigerant substance configured to have a caloric effect on an external energy” is indefinite since the disclosed solid refrigerant has a caloric effect itself in response to an input of energy, but does not provide any caloric effect “on” any external energy. For example, in the disclosed and elected magnetocaloric refrigeration apparatus, the magnetocaloric material (M) has a temperature response to a magnetic field (para. 50-54) and therefore there is no effect on an external energy as claimed and it is entirely unclear what the recitation includes and excludes. Further the recitation is indefinite for being unclear what is and is not an external energy.
The recitations, “through the solid refrigerator” and “bypass the solid refrigerator” is/are indefinite for being unclear since the claim recites a plurality of solid refrigerators and therefore it is unclear which solid refrigerator is being referenced in the present recitation.
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.
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:
Induction section - pg. pub. para. 303 interpreted as a magnetic field modulator, the elected induction section being a rotary drive magnetic field modulator
Conveying mechanism - pg. pub. para. 268 interpreted as a pump.
Bypass mechanism - pg. pub. para. 222 interpreted as at least a conduit and valve.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morimoto (US 2012/0285179). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 1, Morimoto teaches a solid-state refrigeration apparatus (see whole disclosure), comprising:
a plurality of solid refrigerators (11, 12) each including:
a solid refrigerant substance (magnetocaloric effect material, para. 40, 46) configured to have a caloric effect (para. 46) and an induction section (at least 52, 42, 55, 45, 54, 44, para. 72-77) configured to cause the solid refrigerant substance (magnetocaloric material) to produce the caloric effect (para. 48, 63);
a heating medium circuit (see fluid paths 15, 16, and paths within device associated with 57, 58, 47, 48; and at least 90a, 90b, 91, 94; para. 54, 55, 65, 80, 82; hereafter fluid paths as identified) with the plurality of solid refrigerators (11, 12) connected thereto; and
a conveying mechanism (pump 30; para. 48) configured to convey a heating medium (heat transport medium, para. 48) in the heating medium circuit (fluid paths as identified),
the heating medium circuit (fluid paths as identified) including
a first channel (at least part of path 48 to 57) in which the solid refrigerators (11, 12) are connected in series (see Fig. 1-3) and through which the heating medium (heat transport medium) conveyed by the conveying mechanism (30) is supplied to a first heat exchange section (4),
a second channel (at least part of path 58 to 47) in which the solid refrigerators (11, 12) are connected in series (see Fig. 1-3) and through which the heating medium (heat transport medium) conveyed by the conveying mechanism is supplied to a second heat exchange section (3), and
at least one bypass mechanism (at least 90a, 90b, 91, 94) connected to at least one of the first channel (at least part of path 48 to 57) and the second channel (at least part of path 58 to 47), the at least one bypass mechanism (at least 90a, 90b, 91, 94) being configured to switch between an action of making the heating medium flow (heat transport medium) through the solid refrigerators (11, 12) and an action of making the heating medium (heat transport medium) bypass the solid refrigerators (11, 12).
In regard to claim 2, Morimoto teaches that the at least one bypass mechanism (at least 90a, 90b, 91, 94) is connected to both of the first channel (at least part of path 48 to 57) and the second channel (at least part of path 58 to 47) and corresponds to each of the solid refrigerators (11, 12).
In regard to claim 3, Morimoto teaches that the plurality of solid refrigerators (11, 12) is a plurality of magnetic refrigerators (para. 46, 52) each including a magnetic working substance (magnetocaloric effect element) as the solid refrigerant substance (magnetocaloric effect material, para. 40, 46) and a magnetic field modulator (at least 52, 42, 55, 45, 54, 44) as the induction section (at least 52, 42, 55, 45, 54, 44, para. 72-77) configured to apply a magnetic field variation (para. 72-77) to the magnetic working substance (magnetocaloric effect material).
Claim(s) 1, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe (US 2014/0311165). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 1, Watanabe teaches a solid-state refrigeration apparatus (see whole disclosure), comprising:
a plurality of solid refrigerators (12; para. 71) each including:
a solid refrigerant substance (magnetocaloric material, para. 37) configured to have a caloric effect (para. 37) and an induction section (13) configured to cause the solid refrigerant substance (magnetocaloric material) to produce the caloric effect (para. para. 37);
a heating medium circuit (see fluid paths between 16, 17; hereafter fluid paths as identified) with the plurality of solid refrigerators (12) connected thereto; and
a conveying mechanism (41, 42; para. 41) configured to convey a heating medium (medium, para. 41) in the heating medium circuit (fluid paths as identified),
the heating medium circuit (fluid paths as identified) including
a first channel (at least part of path from 17 to 16, through 859a) in which the solid refrigerators (12) are connected in series (see figures) and through which the heating medium (medium) conveyed by the conveying mechanism (41, 42) is supplied to a first heat exchange section (16),
a second channel (at least part of path from 16 to 17 through 859b) in which the solid refrigerators (12) are connected in series (see Figures) and through which the heating medium (medium) conveyed by the conveying mechanism (41, 42) is supplied to a second heat exchange section (17), and
at least one bypass mechanism (at least 1027, 1028) connected to the first channel (at least part of path from 17 to 16), the at least one bypass mechanism (at least 1027, 1028) being configured to switch between an action of making the heating medium flow (medium) through the solid refrigerators (12) and action of making the heating medium (medium) bypass the solid refrigerators (12; para. 126).
In regard to claim 3, Watanabe teaches that the plurality of solid refrigerators (12) is a plurality of magnetic refrigerators (para. 90) each including a magnetic working substance (magnetocaloric element) as the solid refrigerant substance (magnetocaloric material, para. 37) and a magnetic field modulator (13) as the induction section (13) configured to apply a magnetic field variation (para. 39) to the magnetic working substance (magnetocaloric material).
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barve (US 2008/0314048). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 1, Barve teaches a solid-state refrigeration apparatus (see whole disclosure), comprising:
a plurality of solid refrigerators (52-60) each including:
a solid refrigerant substance (magnetocaloric effect material, para. 18) configured to have a caloric effect (para. 18) and an induction section (14) configured to cause the solid refrigerant substance (magnetocaloric material) to produce the caloric effect (para. 18, 39);
a heating medium circuit (see fluid paths between 70 and 72) with the plurality of solid refrigerators (52-60) connected thereto; and
a conveying mechanism (implicit fluid moving pump; para. 4, 21; hereafter fluid mover) configured to convey a heating medium (fluid medium, para. 26) in the heating medium circuit (fluid paths as identified),
the heating medium circuit (fluid paths between 70 and 72) including
a first channel (see path from 70 to 72) in which the solid refrigerators (52-60) are connected in series (see Fig. 4) and through which the heating medium (fluid medium) conveyed by the conveying mechanism (fluid mover) is supplied to a first heat exchange section (72),
a second channel (fluid path from 72 to 70) in which the solid refrigerators (52-60) are connected in series (Fig. 4) and through which the heating medium (fluid medium) conveyed by the conveying mechanism (fluid mover) is supplied to a second heat exchange section (70), and
at least one bypass mechanism (74, 76, 78, 80, 82, 84 and lines thereof) connected to at least one of the first channel (fluid path from 70 to 72) and the second channel (fluid path from 72 to 70), the at least one bypass mechanism (74, 76, 78, 80, 82, 84 and lines thereof) being configured to switch between an action of making the heating medium flow (fluid medium) through the solid refrigerators (52-60) and an action of making the heating medium (fluid medium) bypass the solid refrigerators (52-60).
In regard to claim 2, Barve teaches that the at least one bypass mechanism (74, 76, 78, 80, 82, 84 and lines thereof) is connected to both of the first channel (fluid path from 70-72) and the second channel (fluid path from 72 to 70) and corresponds to each of the solid refrigerators (52-60).
In regard to claim 3, Barve teaches that the plurality of solid refrigerators (52-60) is a plurality of magnetic refrigerators (para. 25-26) each including a magnetic working substance (magnetocaloric material) as the solid refrigerant substance (magnetocaloric material, para. 25-26, 4) and a magnetic field modulator (14) as the induction section (14) configured to apply a magnetic field variation (para. 18) to the magnetic working substance (magnetocaloric material).
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barve (US 2008/0314048) in view of Morimoto (US 2012/0285179). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
Supposing only for the sake of argument that Barve does not sufficiently teach a pump. It is noted that moving fluid with a pump is routine and ordinary as taught by Morimoto (para. 30). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ a pump to move the fluid of Barve for the purpose of obtaining the desired fluid movement with a structure that is well understood, inexpensive, and easily to employ.
Conclusion
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
September 3, 2025