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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 9-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/4/26.
Applicant's election with traverse of restriction in the reply filed on 2/4/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the cited prior art does not teach the claim all of claim 1. This is not found persuasive because of the following reasons. First additional art was found (see the rejection below) which further shows that the claims in current form lack the required single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. Second, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the total amount of heat supplied by the heat exchanger- it is notes this phrase or limitation does not occur in claim 1, it merely requires controlling the ratio which is extremely broad because inherently when controlling one in any form/reason you control the ration between the two) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 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 heat recovery system” in claims 1 and 3 (and depending claims).
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “system ” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “heat recovery”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim. Note this is identified as “a municipal heating system” in claim 3, as shown below this is merely cascading one 112(f) into another, and does not provide any further structure.
“a municipal heating system” in claims 3.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “system ” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “municipal heating”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
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. A review of the specification and drawing found no specified corresponding structure for either of these limitations, thus any structure that would clearly act as described will be considered to read on them. Examiner notes that the specification does state in paragraph 0053 and 0105 (PGPub) identifies the heat recovery system including a municipal heating system. This is merely describing one 112(f) with another 112(f) which provides no further structure or detail for either.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 due to 112(f) issues above
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For claims 1 and 3 as described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed function of “heat recovery system”. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function as claimed because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the broad terms “heat recovery system”, are not defined nor specifically shown with sufficient structure in applicant’s claims or specification. The lack of definition of the term “heat recovery system” within the specification and the specification does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed functions in all possible claimed structures. A review of the specification and drawing found no specific description or drawing of the claimed structure of any significant detail. Examiner notes that the specification does state in paragraph 0053 and 0105 (PGPub) identifies the heat recovery system including a municipal heating system. This is merely describing one 112(f) with another 112(f) which provides no further structure or detail for either.
For claim 3 as described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed function of “municipal heating system”. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function as claimed because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the broad terms “municipal heating system”, are not defined nor specifically shown with sufficient structure in applicant’s claims or specification. The lack of definition of the term “municipal heating system” within the specification and the specification does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed functions in all possible claimed structures. A review of the specification and drawing found no specific description or drawing of the claimed structure of any significant detail.
Note that claims 2-8 are rejected for dependence from one of the above rejected claims.
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 1-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 3 includes the limitation “heat recovery system” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function for all claimed structures and various claimed structures are indefinite and unclear. The specification is devoid of adequate structure description to perform the claimed function of all claimed possible structures. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to exchange heat. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. A review of the specification and drawing found no described or shown structure thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the term “heat recovery system”. Examiner notes that the specification does state in paragraph 0053 and 0105 (PGPub) identifies the heat recovery system including a municipal heating system. This is merely describing one 112(f) with another 112(f) which provides no further structure or detail for either. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 3 includes the limitation “municipal heating system” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function for all claimed structures and various claimed structures are indefinite and unclear. The specification is devoid of adequate structure description to perform the claimed function of all claimed possible structures. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to exchange heat. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. A review of the specification and drawing found no described or shown structure thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the term “municipal heating system”. Examiner notes that the specification does state in paragraph 0053 and 0105 (PGPub) identifies the heat recovery system including a municipal heating system. This is merely describing one 112(f) with another 112(f) which provides no further structure or detail for either. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For each of these the Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35
U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Note that claims 2-8 are rejected for dependence from one of the above rejected claims.
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 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoho, Sr. et al. (U.S. Patent 7,340,912) in view of Kriege et al. (U.S. Patent 4,457,358) and Oki (U.S. PGPub 2014/0190204).
Regarding claim 1, Yoho teaches a heat dissipation system (fig. 1), the heat dissipation system comprising a first heat exchanger (element 22), a second heat exchanger (elements 44/36/38 and connecting elements), wherein the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger form a first cooling circuit with a cooling medium outlet (element 14) and a cooling medium inlet (element 16), to enable a cooling medium to sequentially flow through the cooling medium outlet, the first heat exchanger, the second heat exchanger, and the cooling medium inlet, and the first heat exchanger is further configured to perform primary cooling on the cooling medium (per fig. 1); wherein the second heat exchanger and the third heat exchanger form a second cooling circuit (per fig. 1-2 arrows connecting the elements claimed of each), to enable the second heat exchanger to perform secondary cooling on the cooling medium in the first cooling circuit through a cooling medium in the second cooling circuit (per fig. 1).
Yoho does not teach the third heat exchanger is connected to a heat recovery system, to enable the third heat exchanger to transfer heat absorbed by the cooling medium in the second cooling circuit to the heat recovery system (element 28). Kriege teaches the heat exchanger to transfer heat absorbed by the cooling medium in the second cooling circuit to the heat recovery system (element 28, per fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Yoho to include the hot water system of Kriege as claimed as part of/connected to the third heat exchanger, the motivation would be to provide supplemental heating (col. 3, ln 61-Col. 4, ln 25).
Yoho does not teach the heat dissipation system is for a data center or wherein a first controller is connected to the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger, and is configured to control a heat exchange ratio of the first heat exchanger to the second heat exchanger.
Oki teaches a similar system with a precooler being used for a data center (para. 004). It also teaches a first controller (element 50) is connected to the first heat exchanger (element 30) and the second heat exchanger (element 24), and is configured to control a heat exchange ratio of the first heat exchanger to the second heat exchanger (per fig. 4, this is a ratio of cooling form each). It would have been obvious to modify Yoho to be applied to a data center with the control of the heat exchange of the tow exchangers as taught, the motivation would be to improve the cooling performance and reduce power consumption for a data center (para. 0004).
Regarding claim 2, Yoho teaches the second heat exchanger comprises an evaporator (element 24), a compressor (element 36), a condenser (element 38), and a throttle valve (fig. 1, valve before the evaporator, not that such a refrigeration system inherently requires such an element),the second cooling circuit comprises a third cooling circuit and a fourth cooling circuit, the third cooling circuit being formed by a series connection of the evaporator, the compressor, the condenser, and the throttle valve(per fig. 1), and the fourth cooling circuit being formed by the condenser and the third heat exchanger (per fig. 1).
Kriege further teaches a first controller is connected to the compressor and/or the throttle valve of the second heat exchanger (col. 3, ln 30-34). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to use the same controller for the compressor and the heat exchanger ratio of Oki in Yoho, the motivation would be to modulate the system (Col. 3, ln 30-34) and make such integral is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (V).
Regarding claim 3, Krieger taught the applied heat recovery system of claim 1 comprises a municipal heating system; and a cooling medium in the fourth cooling circuit is water (per fig. 1). Thus reading on the same motivation of claim1.
Regarding claim 5, Yoho and Kriege teach the second cooling circuit further comprises a cooling tower (respective element 46 and 2). Kriege further teaches selectively choosing either a first or second path between the cooling tower and the third heat exchanger (per fig. 1-3) as claimed. Thus reading on the same motivation of claim1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoho, Sr. et al. (U.S. Patent 7,340,912) in view of Kriege et al. (U.S. Patent 4,457,358) and Oki (U.S. PGPub 2014/0190204), and further view of Reytblat (U.S. PGPub 2015/0143834).
Regarding claim 4, Yoho (in combination with application of a data center of Oki) teaches the cooling medium outlet of the data center is an air outlet (per fig. 1); the cooling medium inlet of the data center is an air inlet (per fig. 1); the first heat exchanger is an air-to-air heat exchanger comprising a heat dissipation fan (element 20).
Yoho does not teach the first controller is connected to the heat dissipation fan of the air-to-air heat exchanger.
Reytblat teaches the first controller is connected to the heat dissipation fan of the air-to-air heat exchanger (para. 0162). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the previously applied controller to further include the control of Reytblat, the motivation would be to meet the desired volume of return air (para. 0162).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoho, Sr. et al. (U.S. Patent 7,340,912) in view of Kriege et al. (U.S. Patent 4,457,358) and Oki (U.S. PGPub 2014/0190204), and further view of Penev (U.S. PGPub 2015/0143834).
Regarding claim 6 and 7, Yoho does not teach a second controller; and a temperature sensor provided at an outlet of the third heat exchanger in the second cooling circuit, the second controller being connected to the temperature sensor, wherein the second controller is configured to control, based on a temperature of the cooling medium in the second cooling circuit that is detected by the temperature sensor, the third heat exchanger to turn on the first flow path or the second flow path; and the second controller is configured to: control, when the temperature of the cooling medium in the second cooling circuit that is detected by the temperature sensor is smaller than a first predetermined threshold, the third heat exchanger to turn on the second flow path; and control, when the temperature of the cooling medium in the second cooling circuit that is detected by the temperature sensor is greater than or equal to a second predetermined threshold, the third heat exchanger to turn on the first flow path, the second predetermined threshold being greater than or equal to the first predetermined threshold
Penev teaches a controller using a temperature reading indicative of a temperature of the heated water (element 68) at an outlet of the heat exchanger. It would have been obvious at the time of filing to control the direction flow as claimed based upon such a sensor in the combination of Yoho made above as claimed, it is noted that the combination of Yoho for claim 1 would include all the paths and valving required for the flows claimed, Peney would merely add the probe and reading for changing the flow as claimed. The motivation would be to heat only to needed levels for either safety or efficiency.
Examiner notes the use of a second controller here is obvious as it is mere duplication of parts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to , since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. In re Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. MPEP 2144.04 (VI) B. and/or It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to split controllers at places, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (V) B.
Regarding claim 8, Yoho does not teach the second cooling circuit further comprises a three-way valve, the first flow path sequentially passing through the third heat exchanger, a port A of the three-way valve, a port B of the three-way valve, the cooling tower, and the second heat exchanger, and the second flow path sequentially passing through the third heat exchanger, the port A of the three-way valve, a port C of the three-way valve, and the second heat exchanger.
Kriege detaches the piping as claimed minus the stated three way valve (it includes a tee instead with valves in the various lines instead. The use of three way valves instead of line valves is well-known in the art (see Penev element 72). Thus it would have bene obvious to replace one or more valves in lines with a three way valve that results in the same flow taught by the prior art, such would be motivated by either reduced part cost or ease of maintenance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL M ATTEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8-5 and Friday 8-10 and 2-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson 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.
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763