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Claims 9-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species B and C, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/01/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A with respect to claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 06/01/2026 is acknowledged.
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: "a control part configured to calculate… and control" in claim 1.
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.
The “control part” is sufficiently described in the specification as a microprocessor (see page 9, specification).
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 4-8 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 4 describes the refrigerant compression ratio (X) as equal to an addition of multiple factors that are multiplied by their respective coefficients, without listing/providing numerical values for all the coefficients A, B, C, D and E. Applicant’s original disclosure does not mention the numerical values for any of the claimed coefficients A, B, C, D and E for which the claimed formula 1 (of claim 4) would be true or would allow the refrigerant compression ratio (X) to be equal to the addition of multiples of the plurality of factors. Applicant has not disclosed exact numerical values or ranges for which the formula could accurately calculate the refrigerant compression ratio (X) based on compressor rpm, outside air temperature, air flow rate, and inside air temperature. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4-8 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. In claim 4, formula 1 requires the refrigerant compression ratio (X) to be equal to an addition of multiple factors that are multiplied by their respective coefficients; however, the original disclosure (specification) does list the numerical values for all the coefficients A, B, C, D and E, for which the formula 1 would be true. Applicant has also not provided any guidance in the disclosure regarding obtaining the numerical values of coefficients A, B, C, D and E and one of skill in the art would not be able to obtain the values of the coefficients without conducting all of the experiments necessary to determine the values or range of the coefficients for which formula 1 successfully calculates the refrigerant compression ratio (X, see pages 10-14, specification). In addition, the formula 1 (of claim 4) includes “E” as the experimental constant, which is multiplied with just the variable “recirculated inside air temperature;” however, the specification describes the constant “E” as error correcting factor for compressor rpm, outside temperature, air flow rate and inside air temperature. Because claim 4 and original disclosure seem to describe the polynomial, for refrigerant compression ratio (X), erroneously, one of skill in the art would not feel confident regarding the applicant having possession of the claimed invention or regarding the disclosure successfully enabling a skilled person to make and/or use the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-8 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 claim 4, the limitation, “refrigerant compressor ratio equal to plurality of factors multiplied by their respective coefficients” is confusing because the formula for refrigerant compression ratio (X) does not include the numeral values of the coefficients A, B, C, D and E, for which the equation holds true. Applicant has not provided the values of the coefficients for which the refrigerant compression ratio (X) is equal to the addition of plurality of factors multiplied by their respective coefficients (see pages 10-14, specification). In addition, the examiner points out that by not listing the numerical values of the coefficients, the claim assumes that all numerical values are applicable to the coefficients. For examination purposes, one of skill in the art would not be able to discern the metes and bounds of claims 4-8 due to undefined relationship between refrigerant compression ratio (X) and compressor speed, outside air temperature, airflow rate, inside air temperature, and experimental value of error constant. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5-8 are also rejected by virtue of being dependent upon the rejected base claim.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu (US 2021/0309076 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Zhu discloses a vehicular heat management system (see abstract and fig. 1), comprising:
a refrigerant circulation line (refrigerant circuit RFCY, see fig. 1 and paragraph 33) including a compressor (compressor 1), a high pressure side heat exchanger (heat exchanger 2),an outdoor heat exchanger (outdoor heat exchanger 4, paragraph 33), a plurality of expansion valves (expansion valves 3 and 5, see fig. 1) arranged on the heat pump type refrigerant circulation line (see fig. 1 and paragraph 33), and a low pressure side heat exchanger (heat exchanger 6); and a control part (control unit 20 with microprocessor circuit 40) configured to calculate an optimal control value (opening degree of expansion valve 5 calculated and controlled by control unit 20, see fig. 3 and paragraph 33) by arithmetically processing real-time information on one or more factors (processing input signals from input sensor group 30, including outside air temperature Tam, recirculated indoor air temperature Tr, see paragraph 58 and fig. 3) affecting a temperature and a pressure of a refrigerant circulating along the refrigerant circulation line (outside air temperature, indoor air temperature and set temperatures affect the temperature and pressure of refrigerant being circulated because refrigeration system of fig. 1, operates to reach the indoor set temperature value Tset by regulating temperature and pressure of refrigerant by operation of compressor and refrigeration circuit), through the use of a pre-stored calculation formula (see prestored calculation formula for establishing opening degree of expansion valve, figs. 3-4 and paragraphs 38, 58-59), and control at least one of the expansion valves based on the calculated optimal control value (control expansion valve 5 to set an increased or decreased opening degree of the valve, see paragraphs 37-38, 40, and fig. 3-4).
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.
Claims 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 2021/0309076 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Fujimoto (US 2015/0047381 A1).
In regards to claim 2, Zhu teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the factors affecting the temperature and the pressure of the refrigerant include a compressor rotational speed (rpm) (compressor operating at a speed discharges high temperature and pressure refrigerant, see paragraph 40), an outside air temperature (Tam, see fig. 3), an outdoor heat exchanger air flow rate (large amount of air flowing across outdoor heat exchanger 4 to conditioner cabin space of a vehicle, see paragraphs 38-40, where the amount of air passing through heat exchanger 4 affects the temperature and pressure of refrigerant passing through the refrigerant circuit), and a recirculated inside air temperature (indoor temperature Tr, see fig. 3), and
the control part is configured to calculate the optimal control value by arithmetically processing information on the outside air temperature (Tam), and the recirculated inside air temperature (Tr), through the use of the pre-stored calculation formula, and control at least one of the expansion valves based on the calculated optimal control value (opening degrees of expansion valves 3 and 5 calculated/determined and controlled based on outside air temperature Tam and inside air temperature Tr, see figs. 3-4 and paragraphs 37-38, 40, 58-59).
However, Zhu does not explicitly teach controlling expansion valve based on compressor speed and air flow rate.
Fujimoto discloses a heat management system (abstract and fig. 1), comprising: a compressor (30), expansion valves (32, 48), outdoor air temperature sensor (69), indoor air temperature sensor (71), and a controller (100) configured to calculate and control an operating degree of the expansion valve (see paragraph 13) based on compressor rotation speed (rotation speed N of compressor 30, see paragraphs 16, 19-21, 33; Also see opening degree of expansion valve adjusted based on changing rotation speed N of the compressor 30, paragraphs 76-77) and air flow rate (opening degree of the expansion valve 32 adjusted based on rotation speed of the fan 36, see paragraphs 23, 32) through the use of the pre-stored calculation formula (see figs. 2-4 and paragraphs 76-77).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reprogrammed the controller of Zhu to calculate the optimal control value by arithmetically processing information on the compressor rpm, and outdoor heat exchanger air flow rate, through the use of the pre-stored calculation formula, and control at least one of the expansion valves based on the calculated optimal control value based on the teachings of Fujimoto for the advantage of performing energy saving operation while ensuring quality of indoor environment by utilizing a quantity of air flow relative to the temperature of the air for cooling/heating purposes and adjusting the compressor speed and opening of the expansion valves relative to each other and the amount of cooling/heating required to produce a comfortable indoor environment.
In regards to claim 3, Zhu as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2 and further discloses that the expansion valves include a heat pump mode expansion valve (expansion valve EXV 3) configured to depressurize and expand a refrigerant flowing from the high pressure side heat exchanger (2) to the outdoor heat exchanger (4) in a heat pump mode (see fig. 1 and paragraphs 37-38), and the control part is configured to control an opening degree of the heat pump mode expansion valve (see expansion valve EXV 3 controlled per mathematical function, paragraph 38) based on the calculated optimal control value in the heat pump mode (see paragraph 38, 58-60, and figs. 3-4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERAJ A SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-3027. The examiner can normally be reached on M-R 9:00-1:00 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 on 571-270-7740. 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.
/MERAJ A SHAIKH/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights