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 .
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 learning device” in claims 8 and 9;
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.
After reviewing the specification, the learning device appears to be drawn a computer installed in a server room (per Specification pg. 14, lines 8-15), or known equivalents.
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 1-2, 4-7, 11-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FOR1 (JP2012172919A – provided by Applicant in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, FOR1 teaches a refrigeration cycle device (see Title) comprising:
a heat exchanger (16, Fig. 1, see Description) having a plurality of refrigerant flow paths including a first refrigerant flow path and a second refrigerant flow path (16, Fig. 1);
a plurality of flow rate adjusters that adjust flow rates of a refrigerant flowing through the respective refrigerant flow paths (21, 40, Fig. 6, see Description); and
a controller (see Description which notes controls being performed which implies a controller), wherein the controller adjusts the flow rates of the refrigerant flowing through the refrigerant flow paths by controlling opening degrees of the flow rate adjusters (see Description, “When energy saving control is performed, the refrigerant supplied from the high-pressure liquid receiver 13 to the first cooling coil system 36a or the second cooling coil system 36b by turning on / off the expansion valve 14 or the electromagnetic valve 21”), and
controls the opening degrees of the respective flow rate adjusters based on a first value that is a value representing overall efficiency of a refrigeration cycle (this limitation is not required as the claim is claimed in the alternative) or a second value that is a value representing overall efficiency of the heat exchanger (see Description, “the electromagnetic valve 21, respectively, and the electromagnetic valve 21 is turned on / off. As a result, the refrigerant to each of the cooling coil systems 36a, 36b, 36c can be stopped and the number of the refrigerants can be controlled to perform an energy saving operation” the energy saving is analogous to efficiency).
Regarding claim 2, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 1, wherein the first value includes an electric power consumption value of a compressor that compresses the refrigerant or a pressure value of the refrigerant flowing through the heat exchanger (the first value is not required as claim 1 is claimed in the alternative and FOR1 teaches the second value).
Regarding claim 4, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 2, wherein the first value or the second value further includes a temperature of air that exchanges heat with the refrigerant in the heat exchanger (the claim is not required as the limitation can be drawn to either the first or second value, and since FOR1 teaches the second value, and the second value is not positively recited the claim is not required as it is claimed in the alternative).
Regarding claim 5, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 2, wherein the first value or the second value further includes a rotation speed of a fan that generates a flow of air that exchanges heat with the refrigerant in the heat exchanger (the claim is not required as the limitation can be drawn to either the first or second value, and since FOR1 teaches the second value, and the second value is not positively recited the claim is not required as it is claimed in the alternative).
Regarding claim 6, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 2, wherein the first value or the second value further includes a rotation speed of the compressor (the claim is not required as the limitation can be drawn to either the first or second value, and since FOR1 teaches the second value, and the second value is not positively recited the claim is not required as it is claimed in the alternative).
Regarding claim 7, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 2, wherein the first value or the second value further includes an opening degree of an expansion valve that adjusts the flow rate of the refrigerant (the claim is not required as the limitation can be drawn to either the first or second value, and since FOR1 teaches the second value, and the second value is not positively recited the claim is not required as it is claimed in the alternative).
Regarding claim 11, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 3, wherein the first value or the second value further includes a temperature of air that exchanges heat with the refrigerant in the heat exchanger (the claim is not required as the limitation can be drawn to either the first or second value, and since FOR1 teaches the second value, and the second value is not positively recited the claim is not required as it is claimed in the alternative).
Regarding claim 12, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 3, wherein the first value or the second value further includes a rotation speed of a fan that generates a flow of air that exchanges heat with the refrigerant in the heat exchanger (the claim is not required as the limitation can be drawn to either the first or second value, and since FOR1 teaches the second value, and the second value is not positively recited the claim is not required as it is claimed in the alternative).
Regarding claim 13, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 4, wherein the first value or the second value further includes a rotation speed of a fan that generates a flow of air that exchanges heat with the refrigerant in the heat exchanger (the claim is not required as the limitation can be drawn to either the first or second value, and since FOR1 teaches the second value, and the second value is not positively recited the claim is not required as it is claimed in the alternative).
Regarding claim 14, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 3, wherein the first value or the second value further includes a rotation speed of the compressor (the claim is not required as the limitation can be drawn to either the first or second value, and since FOR1 teaches the second value, and the second value is not positively recited the claim is not required as it is claimed in the alternative).
Regarding claim 15, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 4, wherein the first value or the second value further includes a rotation speed of the compressor (the claim is not required as the limitation can be drawn to either the first or second value, and since FOR1 teaches the second value, and the second value is not positively recited the claim is not required as it is claimed in the alternative).
Regarding claim 16, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 5, wherein the first value or the second value further includes a rotation speed of the compressor (the claim is not required as the limitation can be drawn to either the first or second value, and since FOR1 teaches the second value, and the second value is not positively recited the claim is not required as it is claimed in the alternative).
Regarding claim 17, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 3, wherein the first value or the second value further includes an opening degree of an expansion valve that adjusts the flow rate of the refrigerant (the claim is not required as the limitation can be drawn to either the first or second value, and since FOR1 teaches the second value, and the second value is not positively recited the claim is not required as it is claimed in the alternative).
Regarding claim 18, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 4, wherein the first value or the second value further includes an opening degree of an expansion valve that adjusts the flow rate of the refrigerant (the claim is not required as the limitation can be drawn to either the first or second value, and since FOR1 teaches the second value, and the second value is not positively recited the claim is not required as it is claimed in the alternative).
Regarding claim 19, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 5, wherein the first value or the second value further includes an opening degree of an expansion valve that adjusts the flow rate of the refrigerant (the claim is not required as the limitation can be drawn to either the first or second value, and since FOR1 teaches the second value, and the second value is not positively recited the claim is not required as it is claimed in the alternative).
Regarding claim 20, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 6, wherein the first value or the second value further includes an opening degree of an expansion valve that adjusts the flow rate of the refrigerant (the claim is not required as the limitation can be drawn to either the first or second value, and since FOR1 teaches the second value, and the second value is not positively recited the claim is not required as it is claimed in the alternative).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FOR1 in view of Ochiai (US 2018/0051922).
Regarding claim 3, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 1, but does not teach the second value includes an outlet temperature of the heat exchanger, after the refrigerant that has flowed out of the first refrigerant flow path and the refrigerant that has flowed out of the second refrigerant flow path have joined each other.
Ochiai teaches a refrigeration cycle apparatus (Ochiai, Title) which teaches computing the efficiency of the heat exchanger based on the outlet refrigerant temperature of the heat exchanger (Ochiai, paragraph [0189]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 with determining the efficiency of the heat exchanger based on the outlet temperature of the heat exchanger, as taught by Ochiai, in order to assess how using the outlet temperature impacts the desired optimization of the system.
Regarding claim 10, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 2, but does not teach the second value includes an outlet temperature of the heat exchanger, after the refrigerant that has flowed out of the first refrigerant flow path and the refrigerant that has flowed out of the second refrigerant flow path have joined each other.
Ochiai teaches a refrigeration cycle apparatus (Ochiai, Title) which teaches computing the efficiency of the heat exchanger based on the outlet refrigerant temperature of the heat exchanger (Ochiai, paragraph [0189]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 with determining the efficiency of the heat exchanger based on the outlet temperature of the heat exchanger, as taught by Ochiai, in order to assess how using the outlet temperature impacts the desired optimization of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is FOR1 (JP2012172919A) in view of Yoshimi (US 2022/0268503).
The prior art of record when considered as a whole, either alone or in combination, does not anticipate or render obvious:
Regarding claim 8:
a learning device that associates with each other and learns a combination of the opening degrees of the plurality of flow rate adjusters and the first value or the second value when the opening degrees of the plurality of flow rate adjusters correspond to the combination of the opening degrees, wherein the learning device classifies the combination of the opening degrees in accordance with a level of a heat exchange capability of the heat exchanger, the level of the heat exchange capability being estimated from the first value or the second value, and the controller controls the opening degrees of the respective flow rate adjusters by using the combination of the opening degrees classified, by the learning device, into a class at which the heat exchange capability of the heat exchanger is higher than a predetermined value.
Regarding claim 9:
a learning device that associates with each other and learns a combination of the opening degrees of the plurality of flow rate adjusters and the first value or the second value when the opening degrees of the plurality of flow rate adjusters correspond to the combination of the opening degrees, wherein the learning device calculates the combination of the opening degrees, the combination improving the heat exchange capability of the heat exchanger, the heat exchange capability being estimated from the first value or the second value, and the controller controls the opening degrees of the respective flow rate adjusters by using the combination of the opening degrees calculated by the learning device.
In the Examiner’s opinion, it would not be obvious to further modify the prior art structures to arrive at the claimed invention, absent impermissible hindsight. Therefore, rendering independent claim 1, with dependent claims therefrom are considered allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAEL N BABAA whose telephone number is (571)270-3272. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 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, 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.
/NAEL N BABAA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763