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 .
The claims received 3/4/2026 are entered. Claim 7 is cancelled.
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.
The following limitation(s) is/are 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 means or a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the means or generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
“separating component” includes the generic/nonce term “component” coupled with the function of “separating”. A return to the specification provides for a membrane. Therefor the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof.
“movement mechanism” includes the generic/nonce term “mechanism” coupled with the function of “increase a pressure of the purge gas”. A return to the specification provides a compressor. Therefor the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kujak et al (US 2013/0283832) in view of Heiden et al (US 6,564,564).
Regarding claim 1, Kujak discloses a refrigeration system comprising:
a vapor compression loop (10);
a purge system (20) in communication with the vapor compression loop, the purge system comprising at least one separator (shown in figure 3) for separating contaminants from a purge gas provided from the vapor compression loop to the separator, wherein the at least one separator includes an elongated separating component (68) having a first end, a second, opposite end, and including a longitudinal axis extending between the first end and the second end and arranged radially inward from an outer periphery of the separating component ([0051] and as shown in figure 3 the separating component 68 is radially inward of the separating component in order to create volume 74), the separating component being arranged such that the longitudinal axis is in a vertical orientation.
Kujak discloses a compressor (42) but lacks that it is upstream of the separator. Heiden discloses a refrigeration system (13) including a purge system (10) including a compressor (52) arranged upstream from a separator (60) relative to a flow of the purge gas. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Kujak with the upstream compressor as taught by Heiden in order to provide a motivating force for removal of non-condensable gases.
Regarding claim 2, Kujak further discloses a manifold (20a and 20b), an end of the at least one separator being fluidly connected to the manifold and extending at an angle to the manifold.
Regarding claim 3, Kujak discloses the at least one separator further comprises: a housing (32) having a hollow interio
Regarding claim 6, Kujak and Heiden disclose the compressor (52 provided by Heiden upstream of the separator) operable to increase a pressure of the purge gas, wherein the pressure of the purge gas at an outlet of the compressor moves the contaminants through the separator.
Regarding claim 8, Kujak discloses the separator has a refrigerant outlet, the refrigeration system further comprising a valve (38) arranged downstream from and in fluid communication with the refrigerant outlet.
Regarding claim 15, Kujak discloses a method of operating a purge system comprising:
circulating a refrigerant through a vapor compression loop (10);
receiving a purge gas from the vapor compression loop at the purge system (20), the purge gas including the refrigerant and contaminants and flowing in a first direction; and separating the contaminants from the purge gas within a separator (32), the separator having a separating component (68) defining an internal flow path extending in a second direction arranged at an angle relative to the first direction, wherein the separating component has a first end, a second end, and a longitudinal axis extending between the first end and the second end (longitudinal axis of figures 3 and 4 and is generally in the vertical direction) and arranged radially inward from an outer periphery of the separating component (radial separation shown in figures 3 and 4 provides for space 74), the longitudinal axis having a vertical orientation, and separating the contaminants from the purge gas further comprises separating the purge gas into a liquid and a vapor within the separator (liquid line 84 separates liquid and gas components).
Kujak discloses a compressor (42) but lacks that it is upstream of the separator. Heiden discloses a refrigeration system (13) including a purge system (10) including a compressor (52) arranged upstream from a separator (60) relative to a flow of the purge gas. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Kujak with the upstream compressor as taught by Heiden in order to provide a motivating force for removal of non-condensable gases.
Regarding claim 16, Kujak discloses pressurizing at least a portion of the refrigerant within the purge gas upstream from the separator (refrigerant system is pressurized by compressor 18 upstream of the condenser 12 to which the separator is attached).
Regarding claim 17, Kujak discloses pressurizing at least the portion of the refrigerant within the purge gas occurs as the purge gas moves through a conduit coupling a movement mechanism to the separator (refrigerant system is pressurized by compressor 18 upstream of the condenser 12 to which the separator is attached).
Regarding claim 18, Kujak discloses pressurizing the purge gas via a movement mechanism to form a pressurized purge gas (refrigerant system is pressurized by compressor 18 upstream of the condenser 12 to which the separator is attached).
Regarding claim 19, Kujak discloses returning the refrigerant of the purge gas to the vapor compression loop (via 62 and 20b).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kujak et al (US 2013/0283832), in view of Heiden et al (US 6,564,564), and in view of Oka et al (US 2024/0125527) or Stark et al (US 9,987,568).
Regarding claim 4, Kujak discloses the refrigeration system of claim 3, wherein the purge gas further comprises a refrigerant and the separating component includes a separator tube having at least one membrane including a porous surface (68).
Kujak lacks that the contaminants, but not the refrigerant passes through the membrane. As explained at [0056] the “environmentally-suitable chiller refrigerant” also diffuses through the cores 68. Oka discloses an air purging device for a refrigerant circuit which allows contaminants but not refrigerant to pass through the membrane (as shown in at least figures 2 and 3, air, which is the contaminant, is able passes through the membrane but the refrigerant gas is not able to pass). Stark discloses an air purging device for a refrigerant circuit which allows contaminants but not refrigerant to pass through the membrane (2:32-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Kujak with the membrane of Oka or Stark in order to prevent, or at least reduce, refrigerant from exiting the system during purge. Such a modification provides the advantage of using the purging arrangement in refrigerant systems having less environmentally suitable refrigerants which may not be purgeable to the environment.
Regarding claim 5, Kujak discloses a first end of the separator tube is sealed (with plate 72) and a second, opposite end of the separator tube, is open (plurality of openings including at least 76/62).
Claim(s) 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kujak et al (US 2013/0283832) in view of Oka et al (US 2024/0125527) or Stark et al (US 9,987,568).
Regarding claim 9, Kujak discloses a separator system for removing contamination from a fluid of a heat pump (10), the separator comprising:
a manifold (20a and 20b) having an inlet and an outlet defining a first flow path;
at least one separator (20) fluidly connected to the manifold, the at least one separator including a cylindrical separating component (32) having a hollow interior arranged at a center thereof, wherein the hollow interior of the separating component defines a second flow path (shown in figure 4) extending at an angle (extension is at some angle) to the first flow path, between a first end of the separating component and a fluid outlet (connected to 38) arranged at an opposite, second end of the separating component, contaminants, can flow through the separating component to the second flow path ([0045]);
wherein the second flow path has a vertical orientation (figures 3 and 4 show vertical orientation) and the first end of the separating component is vertically offset from the first flow path such that only a portion of the purge gas provided to the inlet of the manifold contacts a surface of the separating component (as shown in figure 1 the separating component within 20 is vertically offset from the flow path within 12).
Kujak lacks that the contaminants, but not the refrigerant passes through the membrane. As explained at [0056] the “environmentally-suitable chiller refrigerant” also diffuses through the cores 68. Oka discloses an air purging device for a refrigerant circuit which allows contaminants but not refrigerant to pass through the membrane (as shown in at least figures 2 and 3, air, which is the contaminant, is able passes through the membrane but the refrigerant gas is not able to pass). Stark discloses an air purging device for a refrigerant circuit which allows contaminants but not refrigerant to pass through the membrane (2:32-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Kujak with the membrane of Oka or Stark in order to prevent, or at least reduce, refrigerant from exiting the system during purge. Such a modification provides the advantage of using the purging arrangement in refrigerant systems having less environmentally suitable refrigerants which may not be purgeable to the environment.
Regarding claim 10, Kujak discloses the at least one separator further comprises: a housing (32) having a hollow interior, a first end, and a second end, the first end of the housing is fluidly coupled to the manifold (20a and 20b) and the fluid outlet being formed at the second end of the housing (connected to solenoid 38); and the at least one separating component (68) being mounted within the hollow interior, wherein the at least one separating component is fluidly coupled to the fluid outlet.
Regarding claim 11, Kujak discloses the first end of the separating component is sealed (with sealing gasket 54) and the second opposite end of the separating component is open (open due to opening of 38).
Regarding claims 12-14, Kujak as modified by Oka or Stark discloses the separating component includes:
at least one membrane including a porous surface through which gas, but not refrigerant passes (2:50-53 of Stark);
a separator tube (tube shape provided by Kujak and Oka); and
a sieving material (the materials of Oka and Stark act as sieves and thus their material is a sieve material).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or rendered moot by the new grounds of rejection.
The examiner agrees that Stark lacks the compressor arranged upstream of the separator. Heiden has been provided above to teach this feature. US5664424 and US5062273 have been added to the record, both references teach providing a purge compressor upstream of a separator for a refrigeration system.
Applicant argues at page 9, in regard to claim 9, that the membrane of Kujak is not arranged to separate refrigerant vapor. However this is the feature for which Oka and/or Stark are relied upon.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Furthermore, per MPEP 2141.03, a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton, thus would be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Oka et al (US 2024/0125527) air purge device with manifold and parallel separators.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 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 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799