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 .
The claims received 3/6/2026 are entered. Claims 4 and 10-13 are withdrawn. Claim 5 is cancelled. Claims 14-15 are new.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4 and 10-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/27/2023.
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.
The term “expansion mechanism” of is not interpreted under §112f as the term is understood in the art to cover a broad class of structures that takes its name from the function performed, i.e. expansion. A term is not required to denote a specific structure of precise physical structure in order to avoid application of 35 U.S.C. §112(f). MPEP 2181(I)(A).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 2 lack a colon after “the first unit includes” and “the first unit further includes”, respectively. 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, and 14-15 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.
Claims 1 and 2 each recite “the adsorbent circulates in the first unit together with the refrigerant” however dependent claims 6-9, 14, and 15 all include a separator that separates the refrigerant and absorbent within the first unit. Thus the circulation together is not within the entirety of the first unit but rather a subset thereof. Because the claims limitations are incongruent the scope is not clear.
Claims 1 and 2 each recite “the adsorbent circulates in the first unit together with the refrigerant”. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). It is unclear whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the step to occur, or whether infringement occurs when the step actually occurs. MPEP 2173.05(p) II.
The examiner notes in other instances the claims use phrases such as “that” and “in which” to distinguish that the element is configured to perform some function rather than setting forth the function. Note that claims 7-9 depend from claim 6 which recites “that” within “separator that separates”.
Claims 3, 14, and 15 recite “has not yet been” however the refrigeration cycle apparatus is a cycle in a closed loop form. The refrigerant has previously been compressed by the repeating closed loop cycle thus the phrase is not being used consistent with its accepted meaning. The examiner suggests using phrases such as “upstream” and “downstream” to denote relative position within the cycle.
Claims depending from a rejected claim are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feldman (WO96/35079).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Feldman discloses a refrigeration cycle apparatus comprising:
a first unit (170 of figure 9) configuring a refrigeration cycle in which a refrigerant circulates; and
an adsorbent (“hydride particles” discussed throughout the disclosure) that adsorbs and desorbs the refrigerant circulating in the first unit, wherein
the adsorbent adsorbs and desorbs the refrigerant in accordance with a change in a pressure of the refrigerant circulating in the first unit (high and low pressure units shown in the figures),
the adsorbent is powder (abstract, 25:4, 28:27 all state the hydride is in powder form),
the adsorbent circulates in the first unit together with the refrigerant (page 21, line 25 to page 23, line 2),
the first unit includes:
a compressor (175) that compresses the refrigerant,
an expansion mechanism (180) that decompresses the refrigerant,
a first heat exchanger (174) in which the refrigerant compressed by the compressor is adsorbed by the adsorbent, and
a second heat exchanger (173) in which the refrigerant decompressed by the expansion mechanism (180) is desorbed from the adsorbent.
Regarding claim 3, Feldman discloses the refrigeration cycle apparatus according to claim 2, wherein
the first unit further includes
a high-pressure region in which the refrigerant that has been compressed by the compressor and that has not yet been decompressed by the expansion mechanism flows (region between compressor 175 outlet and expansion valve 180 inlet), and
a low-pressure region in which the refrigerant that has been decompressed by the expansion mechanism and that has not yet been compressed by the compressor flows (region between expansion mechanism 180 outlet and compressor 175 inlet), and
the adsorbent adsorbs the refrigerant in the high-pressure region and desorbs the refrigerant in the low-pressure region (21:25 to 23:2).
Regarding claim 6, Feldman discloses the refrigeration cycle apparatus according to claim 3, further comprising:
a separator that separates the refrigerant circulating in the first unit and the adsorbent circulating in the first unit from each other, wherein
after being separated from the refrigerant by the separator, the adsorbent merges with the refrigerant compressed by the compressor or the refrigerant decompressed by the expansion mechanism.
PNG
media_image1.png
417
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Feldman the refrigeration cycle apparatus according to claim 6, wherein
the separator (identified in annotated figure above) separates the refrigerant in the low-pressure region and the adsorbent from each other, and
the refrigeration cycle apparatus further comprises a pressurizer (176) that pressurizes the adsorbent separated from the refrigerant by the separator.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schukey (US 5,121,606).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Schukey discloses (refer to figure 4 unless otherwise noted) a refrigeration cycle apparatus comprising:
a first unit (circuit of figure 4) configuring a refrigeration cycle in which a refrigerant circulates; and
an adsorbent (“metal powder” 2:47-58) that adsorbs and desorbs the refrigerant circulating in the first unit, wherein
the adsorbent adsorbs and desorbs the refrigerant in accordance with a change in a pressure of the refrigerant circulating in the first unit,
the adsorbent is powder (“metal powder” 2:47-58),
the first unit includes:
a compressor (1) that compresses the refrigerant,
an expansion mechanism (5) that decompresses the refrigerant,
a first heat exchanger (7) in which the refrigerant compressed by the compressor is adsorbed by the adsorbent, and
a second heat exchanger (2) in which the refrigerant decompressed by the expansion mechanism is desorbed from the adsorbent.
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 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, 6-7, 9 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebrovic (US 9,885,002) in view of Feldman (WO96/35079) or Schukey (US 5,121,606).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Rebrovic discloses (references are made to figure 3 unless otherwise noted) a refrigeration cycle apparatus comprising:
a first unit (100) configuring a refrigeration cycle in which a refrigerant circulates; and
an adsorbent (2:44-45) that adsorbs and desorbs the refrigerant circulating in the first unit, wherein
the adsorbent adsorbs and desorbs the refrigerant in accordance with a change in a pressure of the refrigerant circulating in the first unit (1:33-40),
the adsorbent circulates in the first unit together with the refrigerant,
the first unit includes:
a compressor (112) that compresses the refrigerant,
an expansion mechanism (118) that decompresses the refrigerant,
a first heat exchanger (114) in which the refrigerant compressed by the compressor is adsorbed by the adsorbent, and
a second heat exchanger (120) in which the refrigerant decompressed by the expansion mechanism (118) from the adsorbent.
Rebrovic lacks that the adsorbent is powder. Feldman discloses utilizing a powder adsorbent that circulates within the unit (pages 23-24). Schukey discloses a powder adsorbent that circulates within the unit (“metal powder” 2:47-58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Rebrovic with a powder adsorbent in order to take advantage of the hydrogen/metal hydride refrigerant/adsorbent pairing, provide a high rate of heat exchange, and utilize widely available materials.
Regarding claim 3, Rebrovic discloses the refrigeration cycle apparatus according to claim 2, wherein
the first unit further includes
a high-pressure region in which the refrigerant that has been compressed by the compressor and that has not yet been decompressed by the expansion mechanism flows (circuit from 112 to 118), and
a low-pressure region in which the refrigerant that has been decompressed by the expansion mechanism and that has not yet been compressed by the compressor flows (circuit from 118 to 112), and
the adsorbent adsorbs the refrigerant in the high-pressure region and desorbs the refrigerant in the low-pressure region.
Regarding claim 6, Rebrovic discloses the refrigeration cycle apparatus according to claim 3, further comprising:
a separator (121 or 113) that separates the refrigerant circulating in the first unit and the adsorbent circulating in the first unit from each other, wherein
after being separated from the refrigerant by the separator, the adsorbent merges with the refrigerant compressed by the compressor or the refrigerant decompressed by the expansion mechanism (refrigerant and co-fluid merge in 172).
Regarding claim 7, Rebrovic the refrigeration cycle apparatus according to claim 6, wherein
the separator (121) separates the refrigerant in the low-pressure region and the adsorbent from each other, and
the refrigeration cycle apparatus further comprises a pressurizer (111) that pressurizes the adsorbent separated from the refrigerant by the separator.
Regarding claim 9, Rebrovic discloses the refrigeration cycle apparatus according to claim 6, but lacks centrifugal separation.
In the previous office action on the merits the Examiner took Official Notice that centrifugal separation is old and well known. In his subsequent reply to this office action, the applicant did not traverse Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice with regard to these elements. Therefore the Official Notice statements by the Examiner regarding these elements are now taken as admitted prior art by Applicant. See MPEP §2144.03(C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Rebrovic with centrifugal separation in order to enhance separation of the fluid.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Rebrovic further discloses the first unit further includes a high-pressure region in which the refrigerant that has been compressed by the compressor and that has not yet been decompressed by the expansion mechanism flows, and a separator (113) that separates the refrigerant in the high-pressure region and the adsorbent from each other.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scaringe et al (US 5,582,020) in view of Feldman (WO96/35079) or Schukey (US 5,121,606).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Scaringe discloses (references are made to figures 2 or 3 in the alternative) a refrigeration cycle apparatus comprising:
a first unit configuring a refrigeration cycle in which a refrigerant circulates; and
an adsorbent (1:36-40) that adsorbs and desorbs the refrigerant circulating in the first unit, wherein
the adsorbent adsorbs and desorbs the refrigerant in accordance with a change in a pressure of the refrigerant circulating in the first unit,
the adsorbent circulates in the first unit together with the refrigerant,
the first unit comprises:
a compressor (“vapor compressor”) that compresses the refrigerant,
an expansion mechanism (throttling valve”) that decompresses the refrigerant,
a first heat exchanger (“adsorber”) in which the refrigerant compressed by the compressor is adsorbed by the adsorbent, and
a second heat exchanger (“generator”) in which the refrigerant decompressed by the expansion mechanism is desorbed from the adsorbent.
Regarding the adsorbent as a powder Scaringe discloses the use of metal hydrides in a liquid carrier (table 1 at column 9), but does not explicitly state that the metal hydride is in powder form. Feldman discloses utilizing a powder adsorbent that circulates within the unit (pages 23-24). Schukey discloses a powder adsorbent that circulates within the unit (“metal powder” 2:47-58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Scaringe with a powder adsorbent in order to take advantage of the hydrogen/metal hydride refrigerant/adsorbent pairing, provide a high rate of heat exchange, and utilize widely available materials.
Regarding claim 3, Scaringe discloses the refrigeration cycle apparatus according to claim 2, wherein
the first unit further includes
a high-pressure region (from compressor outlet to throttle inlet) in which the refrigerant that has been compressed by the compressor and that has not yet been decompressed by the expansion mechanism flows, and
a low-pressure region (from throttle outlet to compressor inlet) in which the refrigerant that has been decompressed by the expansion mechanism and that has not yet been compressed by the compressor flows, and
the adsorbent adsorbs the refrigerant in the high-pressure region and desorbs the refrigerant in the low-pressure region.
Regarding claim 6, Scaringe discloses the refrigeration cycle apparatus according to claim 3, further comprising:
a separator (as shown in figure 2 the mixture separates at the generator) that separates the refrigerant circulating in the first unit and the adsorbent circulating in the first unit from each other, wherein
after being separated from the refrigerant by the separator, the adsorbent merges with the refrigerant compressed by the compressor or the refrigerant decompressed by the expansion mechanism (as shown in figure 2 the adsorbent and refrigerant mix after compression).
Regarding claim 7, Scaringe discloses the refrigeration cycle apparatus according to claim 6, wherein
the separator separates the refrigerant in the low-pressure region and the adsorbent from each other (the generator is in the low pressure region), and
the refrigeration cycle apparatus further comprises a pressurizer (“liquid pump”) that pressurizes the adsorbent separated from the refrigerant by the separator.
Regarding claim 9, Scaringe discloses the refrigeration cycle apparatus according to claim 6, but lacks centrifugal separation.
In the previous office action on the merits the Examiner took Official Notice that centrifugal separation is old and well known. In his subsequent reply to this office action, the applicant did not traverse Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice with regard to these elements. Therefore the Official Notice statements by the Examiner regarding these elements are now taken as admitted prior art by Applicant. See MPEP §2144.03(C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Scaringe with centrifugal separation in order to enhance separation of the fluid.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. As well as addressing the issues raised under §112(b) above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 8 describes that the separator separates refrigerant and adsorbent from each other in the high pressure region and a depressurizer that depressurizes the adsorbent. This is in addition to the expansion mechanism of claim 3.
While it is known to place a depressurizer and expansion mechanism in parallel, e.g. Yamanaka et al US 6,321,564 figure 13, the instant claim provides that the depressurizer depressurizes the adsorbent while the expansion mechanism decompresses refrigerant and further includes a separator to separate the adsorbent from the refrigerant. Moreover this is in the high pressure region where the adsorbent has adsorbed the refrigerant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding Feldman, applicant makes particular arguments against figures 10 and 15. Figure 9 is relied upon above.
Regarding Schukey, applicant argues that the adsorption and desorption are opposite of the instant invention. In response, the claim does not make this distinction. As the cycle is a closed loop the refrigerant being adsorbed has been previously compressed. The refrigerant being desorbed has been previously decompressed. In other words the refrigerant is repeatedly undergoing compression and decompression during its use within the cycle.
Regarding Rebrovic and Scaringe applicant argues that said references do not utilize powder adsorbent. Feldman and Schukey are provided who both utilize a powder adsorbent that circulates through the heat pump.
Further regarding a powder a liquid suspension with powder is regarded as including powder in distinction from a solution in which a powder would be dissolved.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lugosch (US 9,612,043) – compression-adsorption heat cycle
Spauschus et al (US 6,073,454) – reduced pressure CO2 refrigeration system
Scaringe et al (US 5,826,436) – additive for improving vapor compression cycle
Bergmann et al (US 4,967,566) solution cycle
Mucic (US 4,918,945) binary solution circuit
Radermacher (US 4,724,679) non-azeotropic working fluid mixtures
Baker (US 2,307,380) solution cycle
Tanaka et al (US 2024/0019178) solution cycle
Samkhan (US 10,712,057) – centrifugal separation
Satheesh “Performance investigations of a single-stage metal hydride heat pump”
Lambert et al “A review of Solid-Vapor Adsorption heat pumps”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights