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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-14, 16-18, and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 18 November 2025.
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.
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:
“a compression unit” in claim 1, line 2, identified simple as a “pump” in fig. 2 and ¶ 79 (as numbered in US Publication No. 2024/0295350 A1 of the instant disclosure), or as the particular structure of nonelected claim 8 in at least in ¶ 61 and 79 and equivalents thereof. As the compression device of claim 8 was not elected in the response filed 18 November 2025 and in order to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the “compression unit” has been specifically interpreted as a pump and equivalents thereof in the examination of the elected 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.
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 Objections
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Throughout the claims, the phrases “high pressure” and “low pressure” are used both with and without hyphenation. For example, in line 3 of claim 1, “high pressure” is presented without a hyphen, in line 11 of claim 1, “low-pressure” is hyphenated, while in line 2 of claim 5, “high-pressure” is hyphenated and in line 3 of claim 5, “low pressure” is not. At least one of these terms appears in each of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 21 and these claims should be reviewed to ensure that terminology is applied consistently.
In line 7 of claim 2, the word “and” should be inserted at the end of the line.
In line 2 of claim 5, the word “and” should be replaced with “which” or with a comma, and the word “being” should be replaced with “is”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
As discussed above with regard to the claims, the terms “low pressure” and “high pressure” are inconsistently hyphenated throughout the specification. The specification should be reviewed and revised to ensure that terminology is applied consistently.
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 20-23 and 26 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.
In line 9 of claim 20, the recitation of “the compressor” in the teaching of “conveying the discharged refrigerant vapor to an intake of the compressor” lacks antecedent basis because the claim includes no previous recitation of a compressor. Although claim 20 teaches in line 2 a step of “compressing a gaseous refrigerant”, there is no teaching that this compressing is caused by a compressor. As such, it is not clear whether “the compressor” is particularly required to be a component used in compressing the gaseous refrigerant in the compressing step or if it is an additional component or may have some other relation to the other components taught for use in the method. For this reason, the scope of claim 20 with regard to “the compressor” cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
In line 7 of claim 22, the recitation of “the carbon dioxide” lacks antecedent basis. As neither claim 22 nor claim 20 from which it depends teaches this carbon dioxide so that it cannot be determined what location or substance of “the carbon dioxide” is or is not required by the claim. For this reason, the scope of claim 22 with regard to “the carbon dioxide” cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
For purposes of examination, claim 22 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and “the carbon dioxide” has been interpreted as referring to the “gaseous refrigerant” of claim 20, line 2 based on the teaching in lines 6-7 of claim 22 of “the compressing step” and the teaching in claim 20 of this step including compressing “a gaseous refrigerant”. In addition, claim 22 has been interpreted as further requiring that the gaseous refrigerant is carbon dioxide by this recitation.
Claims 21, 23, and 26 are rejected as depending upon a base claim which has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
PNG
media_image1.png
306
382
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 10 2009 041 459 A to Wessler. An English translation of Wessler has been provided with this Office Action and citations to specific passages and paragraphs of this reference are directed to this translation rather than to the German-language original document.
Wessler teaches limitations from claim 20 in fig. 1, shown above, a method of air conditioning, comprising:
compressing a gaseous refrigerant (a carbon dioxide refrigerant, compressed using a compressor A as taught in ¶ 17);
storing the compressed refrigerant (in a high-pressure reservoir E as taught in ¶ 17);
expanding a volume of the compressed refrigerant with an expansion valve or expander (the expansion valve G, taught in ¶ 18 to expand refrigerant released from the reservoir E by solenoid valves D and F);
evaporating the refrigerant with an evaporator (H) and thereby causing the refrigerant to absorb heat from a surrounding environment (as heat Qzu as shown in fig. 1);
collecting discharged refrigerant vapor from the evaporator (H, in a reservoir I as taught in ¶¶ 17 and 18); and
conveying the discharged refrigerant vapor to an intake of the compressor (A), and repeating each of the previous steps (as taught in ¶¶ 17 and 18).
Wessler teaches limitations from claim 22, the method of claim 20, further comprising performing one or more of the following steps:
performing the compressing and storing steps at nighttime, and performing the expanding, evaporating, collecting, and conveying steps during daytime (as taught in ¶ 15, “The decisive advantage is that the environmentally friendly refrigerant CO.sub.2 can be used very efficiently in terms of energy, if the air conditioning system is "charged" at relatively low temperatures at night and will release its cooling capacity during the day at high temperatures.”);…
performing the expanding, evaporating, and collecting steps without investment of electricity (as no component used in these steps is taught to consume electricity and as taught in ¶ 5 “The charging of the air conditioning system is parallel to the charging of the battery at the charging station via the mains through an electrically driven compressor, for the cooling operation is then no additional energy to apply while driving.”)
Wessler teaches limitations from claim 23, the method of claim 20, wherein the refrigerant is carbon dioxide (as taught in ¶ 17), and further comprising performing the compressing step in a subcritical process and/or.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wessler. An English translation of Wessler has been provided with this Office Action and citations to specific passages and paragraphs of this reference are directed to this translation rather than to the German-language original document.
Wessler teaches limitations from claim 1 in fig. 1, shown above, an air conditioning system, comprising:
a compression unit (A, equivalent to the pump discussed above regarding the interpretation of the claim under 35 U.S.C 112(f)) configured to compress a gaseous refrigerant (a carbon dioxide refrigerant as taught in ¶ 17);
a high pressure condensing tank (E) connected to an outlet of the compression unit (A, through the condenser B and a check valve C) and configured to store the compressed refrigerant (as taught in ¶ 17, once the refrigerant has been condensed in the condenser B, it is stored in the reservoir E);
an expander or expansion valve (expansion/throttle valve G) in fluid communication with an outlet of the [condensing tank] (through the control valve F), for releasing the compressed refrigerant from the [high pressure condensing tank] (E) while expanding a volume of the compressed refrigerant (as taught in ¶ 18);
an evaporator (H) in fluid communication with an outlet of the expander or expansion valve (G) for causing the refrigerant to absorb heat from a surrounding environment (as heat Qzu as shown in fig. 1);
a storage tank (I) for collecting discharged refrigerant vapor from the evaporator (E, as taught in ¶¶ 17 and 18); and
a conduit (on which solenoid valve J is disposed) for conveying the refrigerant vapor from the [low-pressure storage tank] to an intake of the compression unit (A, through solenoid valve J as taught in ¶¶ 17-18).
Wessler does not teach the system including “a plurality of high pressure condensing tanks” and “a plurality of low-pressure storage tanks”. MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale states in subsection (VI)(B) that “the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed would have found it to be a matter of obvious design choice to provide the system of Wessler with a plurality of instances of the storage tanks (E) and (I) in practicing the system of Wessler in order to increase the amount of refrigerant the system may store and thus increase the amount of cooling which may be provided by this pre-compressed refrigerant before operation of the compressor is required, for example in an installation in a vehicle with a larger volume passenger cabin.
Wessler as modified above teaches limitations from claim 5 in fig. 1, shown above, the air conditioning system of claim 1, wherein the refrigerant is carbon dioxide (as taught in ¶ 17) and being liquid in the plurality of high-pressure condensing tanks (Wessler teaches “The liquefied CO.sub.2 then enters the high-pressure reservoir E.” this reservoir duplicated as a plurality of such reservoirs as discussed in the above rejection of claim 1) and is gaseous in the plurality of low pressure storage tanks (having evaporated in the evaporator H before entering reservoir I, this reservoir being duplicated as a plurality of such reservoirs as discussed in the above rejection of claim 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
450
476
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wessler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chinese Publication No. 110715541 A to Chen et al. An English translation of Chen has been provided with this Office Action and citations to specific passages and paragraphs of this reference are directed to this translation rather than to the Chinese-language original document.
Regarding claim 2, Wessler teaches in a refrigeration cycle air conditioning system for an electric vehicle in which compressed and condensed refrigerant is stored in a reservoir (E) during a charging operation performed at night and is later released to be evaporated in a cooling operation without expending electrical charge before being collected in another reservoir (I). Wessler does not teach this system comprising a recuperator between the high pressure reservoir and the expansion valve to cool incoming condensed refrigerant with outgoing expanded refrigerant. Chen teaches in fig. 1, shown above, a refrigeration cycle air conditioning system in which compressed refrigerant is stored in storage tank (3) and released through an electric valve (24) to an expander (7). Chen further teaches in their claim 1 a pre-heater heat exchanger (4) the cold side of which communicates with refrigerant flowing from the tank (3) to cool this refrigerant with a separate refrigerant in a regenerator circuit which rejects heat to expanded refrigerant at a heater (16) downstream of the expander (7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Wessler with the regenerator circuit of Chen in order to allow residual cooling capacity of the refrigerant exiting the evaporator of Wessler to be captured and used for precooling of refrigerant in or from the high-pressure storage reservoir, thus improving the cooling efficiency of the system.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wessler as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2006/0059945 A1 to Chordia et al.
Wessler as modified above teaches limitations from claim 5 in fig. 1, shown above, the air conditioning system of claim 5, wherein the carbon dioxide is … is gaseous in the plurality of low-pressure storage tanks (having evaporated in the evaporator H before entering reservoir I, this reservoir being duplicated as a plurality of such reservoirs as discussed in the above rejection of claim 1).
Wessler does not teach the refrigerant stored in the high pressure reservoir being in a supercritical plasma state. Chordia teaches in ¶ 23 and in claim 8, a carbon dioxide refrigeration cycle system operating in a supercritical state and in which a vessel is provided for storing excess refrigerant in a supercritical state. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Wessler with the supercritical refrigerant storage taught by Chordia in order to allow the cooling system to operate in a transcritical regime as taught in ¶ 7 of Chordia, providing improved performance as described by Chordia.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wessler as applied to claim 20 above.
Regarding claim 21, Wessler teaches in a refrigeration cycle air conditioning system for an electric vehicle in which compressed and condensed refrigerant is stored in a reservoir (E) during a charging operation performed at night and is later released to be evaporated in a cooling operation without expending electrical charge before being collected in another reservoir (I). Wessler does not teach the system including “a plurality of high pressure condensing tanks” and “a plurality of low-pressure storage tanks”. MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale states in subsection (VI)(B) that “the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed would have found it to be a matter of obvious design choice to provide the system of Wessler with a plurality of instances of the storage tanks (E) and (I) in practicing the system of Wessler in order to increase the amount of refrigerant the system may store and thus increase the amount of cooling which may be provided by this pre-compressed refrigerant before operation of the compressor is required, for example in an installation in a vehicle with a larger volume passenger cabin.
PNG
media_image3.png
588
498
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wessler as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2017/0174049 A1 to He et al.
Regarding claim 26, Wessler teaches in a refrigeration cycle air conditioning system for an electric vehicle in which compressed and condensed refrigerant is stored in a reservoir (E) during a charging operation performed at night and is later released to be evaporated in a cooling operation without expending electrical charge before being collected in another reservoir (I). Wessler does not teach the expansion device (a throttle valve G) being an expander used to capture work form the expansion of the fluid for use by a fluid pump in compressing the refrigerant in the compression step. He teaches in fig. 1, shown above, and ¶¶ 28 and 33, a refrigeration cycle air conditioning system in which a compressor (12) includes (18 and 20) driven to compress refrigerant using work provided by a common shaft (14) which is turned by an expander (50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Wessler with the expander and compressor shaft of He in order to improve the efficiency of the system by allowing the energy of expansion to be used in the continued operation of the system rather than lost as waste heat to the ambient.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C COMINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)270-5054. 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.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763