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 .
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: “cooling indoor unit” and “heating indoor unit” used throughout the claims, wherein “cooling” and “heating” are the associated functions, “unit” is the generic placeholder, and “indoor” simply indicates the location of the unit.
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, “cooling indoor unit” and “heating indoor unit” have been interpreted according to arrangements illustrated in Fig. 9 and corresponding discussions in the specification, and equivalents thereof.
Recitations of “indoor unit” and “outdoor unit” alone without the “heating” or “cooling” modifier have NOT been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) since, without the associated functional modifier, they do not meet the three-pronged test for such interpretation.
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 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 1-20 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.
The intended metes and bounds of the limitation “hydraulic device absorption outdoor unit heat quantity,” used throughout the claims, are unclear. The “hydraulic device” and “outdoor unit” are two completely different components as designated by reference numerals 4 and 1, respectively. Accordingly, it is unclear what part of the system “hydraulic device absorption outdoor unit heat quantity” refers to. The specification does not appear to clarify this issue. Appropriate clarification/correction are required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract process without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites the abstract steps of:
determining a condenser heating capacity and an evaporator cooling capacity based on the outdoor unit data, the indoor unit data, and the hydraulic device data;
determining a heating indoor unit heating capacity and a cooling indoor unit cooling capacity based on a hydraulic device heat absorption value, the condenser heating capacity, and the evaporator cooling capacity; and
determining an operational capacity of the heat recovery multi-split air conditioner based on the heating indoor unit heating capacity, the cooling indoor unit cooling capacity, and the hydraulic device absorption outdoor unit heat quantity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
acquiring hydraulic device data of a heat recovery multi-split air conditioner and determining hydraulic device absorption outdoor unit heat quantity based on the hydraulic device data;
acquiring outdoor unit data and indoor unit data of the heat recovery multi-split air conditioner;
constitute insignificant pre-solution activity related to data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g) for guidance).
Claims 2-7 simply recite further acquiring and determining steps, and thus are also non-statutory for analogous reasons as set forth for claim 1.
Similarly, claim 8 recites the same abstract steps of:
determining a condenser heating capacity and an evaporator cooling capacity based on the outdoor unit data, the indoor unit data, and the hydraulic device data;
determining a heating indoor unit heating capacity and a cooling indoor unit cooling capacity based on a hydraulic device heat absorption value, the condenser heating capacity, and the evaporator cooling capacity; and
determining an operational capacity of the heat recovery multi-split air conditioner based on the heating indoor unit heating capacity, the cooling indoor unit cooling capacity, and the hydraulic device absorption outdoor unit heat quantity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
A memory, processor, and computer program for carrying out the control steps are simply generic recitations at a high degree of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(d) for guidance).
Also again,
acquiring hydraulic device data of a heat recovery multi-split air conditioner and determining hydraulic device absorption outdoor unit heat quantity based on the hydraulic device data;
acquiring outdoor unit data and indoor unit data of the heat recovery multi-split air conditioner;
constitute insignificant pre-solution activity related to data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g) for guidance).
Claims 9-14 simply recite further acquiring and determining steps, and thus are also non-statutory for analogous reasons as set forth for claim 8.
Similarly, claim 15 recites the same abstract steps of:
determining a condenser heating capacity and an evaporator cooling capacity based on the outdoor unit data, the indoor unit data, and the hydraulic device data;
determining a heating indoor unit heating capacity and a cooling indoor unit cooling capacity based on a hydraulic device heat absorption value, the condenser heating capacity, and the evaporator cooling capacity; and
determining an operational capacity of the heat recovery multi-split air conditioner based on the heating indoor unit heating capacity, the cooling indoor unit cooling capacity, and the hydraulic device absorption outdoor unit heat quantity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
A computer readable storage medium having a program stored thereon for carrying out the control steps are simply generic recitations at a high degree of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(d) for guidance). (Also, see below regarding “computer readable storage medium” itself being non-statutory” since it does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.)
Also again,
acquiring hydraulic device data of a heat recovery multi-split air conditioner and determining hydraulic device absorption outdoor unit heat quantity based on the hydraulic device data;
acquiring outdoor unit data and indoor unit data of the heat recovery multi-split air conditioner;
constitute insignificant pre-solution activity related to data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g) for guidance).
Claims 16-20 simply recite further acquiring and determining steps, and thus are also non-statutory for analogous reasons as set forth for claim 15.
Claims 15-20 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do 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….”
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 /FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights