DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 19 June 2026. Claims 1-6 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 4, 5 and newly added claim 6. The examiner also notes that claims 1 and 4 do not possess the correct status identifiers and should read –(currently amended)— in place of the status identifier of “(original)”.
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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 4 recites “control valve with a degree of opening, wherein” in line 3. Examiner recommends amending to –control valve with a degree of opening, and wherein—
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
Claim 5 recites “a control device” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to control the degree of opening of the control valve. According to the specification the control device includes the refrigerator control circuit [0025] and equivalents thereof.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherbeck (U.S. 20160238265) in view of Frangineas (U.S. 20210146150).
Regarding Claim 1, Sherbeck teaches a magnetic field generating apparatus [0044]—generates an electromagnetic field when energized, comprising: a compressor [Fig. 1, element 110], a condenser [Fig. 1, element 120], an expansion valve [Fig. 1, element 160], and an evaporator [Fig. 1, element 130], which are connected in such a manner as to circulate a cooling fluid therethrough [0021], wherein the evaporator includes a coil formed by being wound into a solenoid [0021], the coil having a plurality of through-holes where the cooling fluid flows [Fig. 1, element 155] and [0025]—TES and evaporator coil forming a thermosyphon,
and the coil and the capacitor are cooled with the cooling fluid [0062]—reference to Farad capacitor used for frequency of actuation and actuation force.
Sherbeck is silent on the coil is electrically connected to a resonant circuit including a capacitor that causes the coil to resonate, the coil receives an alternating current from the resonant circuit to generate a magnetic field. Frangineas teaches the coil is electrically connected to a resonant circuit including a capacitor that causes the coil to resonate [0060], the coil receives an alternating current from the resonant circuit to generate a magnetic field [0059-0060] and [0062].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to electrically connect the resonant circuit using an alternating current as taught by Frangineas to generate a magnetic field as suggested by Sherbeck as Sherbeck discusses coils creating magnetic fields [0046] with Frangineas because Frangineas teaches generation of a continuous time varying magnetic field [0089].
Regarding Claim 3, Sherbeck further teaches comprising a circulation circuit configured to be capable of passing the cooling fluid through cooling parts of the coil and the capacitor in parallel [0026]—describes the thermosyphon configuration with circulation of the refrigerant without a mechanical pump and [0062]—describes the coils powered by a transformer with a capacitor.
Regarding Claim 4, Sherbeck further teaches wherein a path for passing the cooling fluid through the capacitor is provided with a control valve with a degree of opening [0062], wherein the degree of opening is controlled [0062], independently of the expansion valve [0027]—reference to a throttle valve that is used to control the rate of circulation of refrigerant.
Regarding Claim 6, Sherbeck is silent on further comprising a power supply circuit electrically connected to the resonant circuit and configured to supply power to the resonant circuit. Frangineas teaches further comprising a power supply circuit electrically connected to the resonant circuit and configured to supply power to the resonant circuit [0057] and [0065].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a power supply and circuit as taught by Frangineas to power the electronic circuits as suggested by Sherbeck as Sherbeck discusses retrofitting and scalability considerations [0003] with Frangineas because Frangineas teaches the power supply being separate and independent [0057].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherbeck (U.S. 20160238265) in view of Frangineas (U.S. 20210146150) and in even further view of Marchitto (U.S. 20110077451).
Regarding Claim 2, Sherbeck and Frangineas are silent on wherein a hydrofluorocarbon-based refrigerant, a hydrofluoroolefin-based refrigerant, a single refrigerant of carbon dioxide, or a mixed refrigerant thereof is used as the cooling fluid. Marchitto teaches wherein a hydrofluorocarbon-based refrigerant, a hydrofluoroolefin-based refrigerant, a single refrigerant of carbon dioxide [0059]—reference to the use of gas such as carbon dioxide used for the purpose of cooling, or a mixed refrigerant thereof is used as the cooling fluid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use carbon dioxide as a means of cooling fluid as taught by Marchitto to cool the magnetic field generating device as suggested by Sherbeck and Frangineas, as Sherbeck discusses the need to develop a cooling system that is easily added, cost effective and scalable [0003] and Frangineas which discloses the use of a coolant [0054] with Marchitto because Marchitto teaches the need for the fluid to maintain an ambient temperature [0059].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherbeck (U.S. 20160238265) in view of Frangineas (U.S. 20210146150) and in further view of Garside (U.S. 20150196221).
Regarding Claim 5, Sherbeck and Frangineas are silent on comprising a control device configured to control the degree of opening of the control valve in such a manner that the capacitor is at a predetermined temperature. Garside teaches comprising a control device configured to control the degree of opening of the control valve in such a manner that the capacitor is at a predetermined temperature [0122]—describes a rotary valve being controlled by the system controller also shown in Fig. 3 step 202.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a valve to control the temperature via a valve mechanism and controller as taught by Garside to control the temperature of the refrigerant as suggested by Sherbeck and Frangineas, as Sherbeck discusses the decreases and increases of the refrigerant in the cooling coil [0023] and Frangineas which discloses the use of a radiator to control temperature of the coolant [0058] with Garside because Garside teaches the use of thermal links to cool the apparatus when necessary [0159].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 June 2026 with respect to the drawing, specification and abstract objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 19 June 2026 with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 19 June 2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed 21 September 2025 with respect to the rejection of
claims 1, 3, and 4 under 35 U.S.C.102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive, however, new rejections are presented above in light of the amendments for claims 1, 3, and 4. Regarding claim 1, applicant contends that Sherbeck does not teach the amended limitations of “electrically connected to a resonant circuit including a capacitor that causes the coil to resonate, the coil receives an alternating current from the resonant circuit to generate a magnetic field,”. Examiner agrees with this assertion and presents the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing Sherbeck in view of Frangineas. Applicant also contends that Sherbeck does not teach the evaporator includes a coil. Examiner notes that the relied upon reference of paragraph [0021] makes reference to an evaporator coil which is interpreted as the evaporator including a coil. For clarification, the references to paragraphs [0044] and [0062] include teachings regarding generation of electromagnetic fields and capacitors, respectively. In view of the foregoing, the rejection of this limitation citing Sherbeck is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/B.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights