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 Objections
Claims 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim itself fails to end in a period, and the font of the claim is difficult to read. 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:
“mode determination part”, “reference level determination part”, “leak determination part”, and “leak notification part” in claims 1 and 7.
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 § 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 1-8 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.
Considering claim 1, the language of “mode determination part”, “reference level determination part”, “leak determination part”, and “leak notification part”, have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because “part” is used as a generic placeholder, each “part” is modified by a function, but each “part” description lacks sufficient modifying structure for achieving the specific functions. In accordance with MPEP 2181(II)(A), the corresponding structure, reflecting the means-plus-function elements, must be disclosed in the specification in a way that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what structure would perform the recited functions. However, a review of the specification finds no mention of any corresponding structure. At best, [0020] and [0066], of the specification, discuss a controller including the “mode determination part”, the “reference level determination part” and the “leak determination part”. It is unclear how each “part” is included in the controller as Applicant has not described these parts as being hardware, software or a combination thereof, as an example of how a controller might include these parts. Furthermore, there is no corresponding structure or mention to the “leak notification part” being included with a controller or described in any structural manner. As reflected in MPEP 2181(IV), “a mere restatement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function would also likely fail to provide adequate written description”. Therefore, the claimed subject matter lacks adequate disclosure to show Applicant had possession of the claimed invention prior to filing. Therefore, the claimed subject matter lacks adequate disclosure to show Applicant had possession of the claimed invention prior to filing.
Considering claim 7, the language of “level measurement means” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). In accordance with MPEP 2181(II)(A), the corresponding structure, reflecting the means-plus-function elements, must be disclosed in the specification in a way that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what structure would perform the recited functions. However, a review of the specification finds no mention of any corresponding structure. As reflected in MPEP 2181(IV), “a mere restatement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function would also likely fail to provide adequate written description”. Therefore, the claimed subject matter lacks adequate disclosure to show Applicant had possession of the claimed invention prior to filing.
Claims 2-6 and 8 are also rejected, based on all of their dependency on claim 1.
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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Considering claim 1, limitations “mode determination part”, “reference level determination part”, “leak determination part”, and “leak notification part” invoke 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. A review of the disclosure finds no structure that is defined as preforming these functions. 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.
Considering claim 7, limitation “level measurement means” invoke 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. A review of the disclosure finds no structure that is defined as preforming these functions. 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.
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;
(b) 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
(c) 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 (35 U.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:
(a) 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.
Claims 2-6 and 8 are also rejected, based on their dependency on claim 1.
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, 3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shi et al. (US 2019/0323917 A1).
Considering claim 1, Shi discloses a leak detection method, comprising the steps of:
- determining, by a mode determination part in a mode determination step, an operating mode of a cooling system on the basis of information received from the cooling system (Figures 1-4; [0035], [0045]; [0053]; [0063], in heating mode – yes/no, in cooling mode - yes/no);
- determining, by a reference level determination part in a reference level determination step, a reference level in a cooling water storage tank in the operating mode determined in the mode determination step ([0042-43]; [0045]; [0051-52]; [0063]; [0070]; Claims 7 and 12);
- determining, by a leak determination part in a leak determination step, whether a leak has occurred by comparing the reference level determined in the reference level determination step and a cooling water level in the cooling water storage tank measured in real time ([0051-52]; [0063]; Claim 12); and
- providing, by a leak notification part in a notification step, leak information to a set terminal when it is determined that the leak has occurred in the leak determination step ([0037]; [0055]).
Considering claim 3, Shi discloses that the reference level determination step comprises the steps of:
PNG
media_image1.png
642
262
media_image1.png
Greyscale
- determining, in a mode change determination step, whether the operating mode of the cooling system is changed (Figure 2; heating mode loop);
- maintaining, in a first reference level determination step when it is determined that the operating mode remains constant in the mode change determination step, the reference level at a currently set reference level (Figure 2; preset indication parameter intervals contain references levels; [0012-13]; [0015]; [0036]; [0042]); or
- maintaining, in a second reference level determination step when it is determined the operating mode is changed
in the mode change determination step, a level stabilization mode for a set period of time, and collecting cooling water level information of the cooling water storage tank for a set period of time when the level stabilization mode ends, and determining an average value of the cooling water levels collected for the set period of time as the reference level.
Considering claim 7, Shi discloses that the leak detection method uses a leak detection device, and the leak detection device comprises: a level measurement means coupled to the cooling water storage tank in which cooling water is stored, and configured to measure the cooling water level in the cooling water storage tank ([0051-52], refrigerant level in liquid reservoir is obtained, so there is a means for doing so); and a controller configured to receive cooling water level information from the level measurement means, and comprising the mode determination part, the reference level determination part, and the leak determination part (Figures 2 and 4; [0047]; [0064]; control flowcharts require some form of controller to traverse the process branches).
Claims 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clark (US 2011/0112814 A1).
Considering claim 1, Clark discloses a leak detection method, comprising the steps of:
- determining, by a mode determination part in a mode determination step, an operating mode of a cooling system on the basis of information received from the cooling system ([0056-57], whereby the sensor data from the cooling system is used to determine the appropriate model for establishing a reference refrigerant level);
- determining, by a reference level determination part in a reference level determination step, a reference level in a cooling water storage tank in the operating mode determined in the mode determination step ([0066]);
- determining, by a leak determination part in a leak determination step, whether a leak has occurred by comparing the reference level determined in the reference level determination step and a cooling water level in the cooling water storage tank measured in real time ([0066]; [0061]); and
- providing, by a leak notification part in a notification step, leak information to a set terminal when it is determined that the leak has occurred in the leak determination step ([0007]; [0055]; [0058]; [0066-68]; [0070]).
Considering claim 2, Clark discloses that in the mode determination step, the operating mode is determined using control information received from a control device of the cooling system or a flow rate change in cooling water circulating in the cooling system ([0066]).
Considering claim 7, Clark discloses that the leak detection method uses a leak detection device, and the leak detection device comprises:
- a level measurement means 142 coupled to the cooling water storage tank 100 in which cooling water is stored, and configured to measure the cooling water level in the cooling water storage tank ([0049]); and
- a controller 140 configured to receive cooling water level information from the level measurement means 142, and comprising the mode determination part, the reference level determination part, and the leak determination part ([0048]).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Clark (US 2011/0112814 A1) in view of Vowles (GB 2260816 A).
Considering claim 4, Clark discloses that the leak determination step comprises the steps of calculating, in a difference value calculation step, a difference value between the cooling water level in the cooling water storage tank measured in real time and the reference level determined in the reference level determination step ([0055]; [0060-62]) and determining that the leak has occurred when the difference value between the cooling water level and the reference level calculated in the difference value calculation step is equal to or greater than a set value ([00049-55]; [0015]).
The invention by Clark fails to additionally disclose calculating, in a change rate calculation step, a cooling water level change rate of the cooling water storage tank measured in real time.
However, Vowles teaches monitoring the total volume of fluid (Page 5, lines 23-25; Page 6, lines 20-27) and determining a rate of change of the total volume of fluid (Page 6, line 28 – Page 7, line 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a rate of change calculation, as taught by Vowles, in the invention by Clark. The motivation for doing so is to provide an indication of abnormality or loss of fluid, as suggested by Vowles.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Clark (US 2011/0112814 A1) in view of Vowles (GB 2260816 A), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Terava et al. (EP 2995869 A1).
Considering claim 5, the invention by Clark, as modified by Vowles, fails to disclose temperature compensating the cooling water level.
However, Terava teaches the steps of:
- measuring, in a cooling water level measurement step, the cooling water level in the cooling water storage tank 7 in real time ([0019]);
- measuring, in a cooling water temperature measurement step, a temperature of cooling water in the cooling system in real time ([0018]);
- correcting, in a corrected level calculation step, the level measured in the cooling water level measurement step on the basis of the temperature measured in the cooling water temperature measurement step to calculating a corrected cooling water level ([0023]); and
- calculating, in a corrected difference value calculation step, a difference value between the corrected cooling water level calculated in the corrected level calculation step and the reference level determined in the reference level determination step ([0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a temperature corrected level measuring algorithm, as taught by Terava, in the invention by Clark, as modified by Vowles. The motivation for doing so, according to Terava, is to remove the dependency upon temperature related expansions and contractions of the cooling fluid ([0026]).
Considering claim 6, the invention by Clark, as modified by Vowles, fails to disclose temperature compensating the cooling water level.
However, Terava teaches the corrected cooling water level is calculated using Equation 1, which is the following: h1=h0-C×(t1-t0)), whereby h0 is the reference level, h1 is the level to which correction based on a cooling water temperature change is applied, t0 is a reference temperature, t1 is a current temperature, and C is a correction coefficient ([0023]).
The equation provided by Terava can be simplified by removing the second volume, as suggested by Terava in [0024]: V(REF) = V(MEAS) + ((TT1-TT(REF)) x V1) x C1.
Furthermore, since V1 is a fixed value, it can be joined with C1 to form a constant C => V(REF) = V(MEAS) + (TT1-TT(REF)) x C1. Solving for V(MEAS)=> V(MEAS) = V(REF) – C*(TT1-TT(REF)) as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a temperature corrected level measuring algorithm containing the claimed equation, as taught by Terava, in the invention by Clark, as modified by Vowles. The motivation for doing so, according to Terava, is to remove the dependency upon temperature related expansions and contractions of the cooling fluid ([0026]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Clark (US 2011/0112814 A1) in view of Gammons et al. (US 2008/0060374 A1).
Considering claim 8, Clark fails to disclose that the leak detection device further comprises a cooling water flow limiting means positioned facing a cooling water inlet, inside the cooling water storage tank.
However, Gammons teaches the use of a flow limiting means 226 positioned facing a cooling water inlet 114 inside of a cooling water storage tank 100 (Figure 4; [0041]; [0059-61]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a flow limiting means in the storage tank of Clark, as taught by Gammons. The motivation for doing so is to provide a separation pumping fluids and coolant storage fluids and any particulates that maybe contained therein, including ice or other solids.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shi et al. (US 2024/0133603 A1) discloses monitoring for a mode of operation based on system parameters and sensor data, waiting for stable operation in the mode and determining the level of refrigerant in the system once stability has been reached.
Chen et al. (US 2020/0208861 A1) discloses a neural network used to determine a leak based on amount of refrigerant remaining in a system.
CN 109211494 B discloses comparing battery liquid levels to reference levels to determining a leak.
CN 110542520 A discloses monitoring the rate of change of liquid leaving a water tank to determine a leak.
CN 113740002 A discloses monitoring a liquid level in a battery and comparing it to a threshold value to determine a leak.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan M Dunlap whose telephone number is (571)270-1335. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10AM - 7PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JONATHAN M DUNLAP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 January 24, 2026