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.
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:
“operating units” in claim 1, line 5 and claim 55, line 12, interpreted according to ¶¶ 55, 64, 80, and 97-98 as various elements including a lubricant feed, a lubricant heater, a cooling fan, or a switchable output for a lubricant return operation or a display. Applicant argues regarding the interpretation of this claim in pp. 19-22 of the response and attention is directed to the Response to Arguments presented below regarding the change in the interpretation of this recitation relative to the Non-Final Rejection.
“status acquisition units” in claim 1, line 6 and claim 55 line 12, interpreted according to ¶¶ 48, 58, 60, 70, 83, 87, and 92 which teach a compressed gas temperature sensor, a high-pressure sensor, a suction gas temperature sensor, an injection unit, a lubricant sensor, an ambient temperature sensor, or a refrigeration location temperature sensor. Applicant argues regarding the interpretation of this claim in pp. 19-22 of the response and attention is directed to the Response to Arguments presented below regarding the change in the interpretation of this recitation relative to the Non-Final Rejection.
“a communication unit for wireless communication” in claim 19, line 2. Although this element is taught in ¶ 232, the structure required by this “unit” for the function of “wireless communication” is not identified or described except by the further functional language “a wireless communication unit 86 which transmits and receives information and/or data” and the teaching of examples (“Bluetooth or WiFi”) of protocols for such communication which do not limit the communication unit. Attention is directed to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) set forth below.
“expansion element” in claim 55, line 3. Although this element is recited in the specification (for example in ¶¶ 205 and 208) there is no teaching of the structure of the element which performs the functional language of “expansion”. Attention is directed to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) set forth below.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 12 of claim 1 as amended, there is taught “a status acquisition units” (emphasis added by examiner). This recitation should be corrected to read either “a status acquisition unit” (indicating a singular element) or “a plurality of status acquisition units” (or similar, indicating a plural number of elements) or “one or more status acquisition units” (allowing either possibility). Attention is also directed to the rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on this element which is set forth below.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 19 and 55 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.
Claim 19 teaches “a communication unit for wireless communication” in line 2 but neither the claim nor the specification includes any teaching or suggestion regarding the structure of the “unit” by which it performs the function of “communication” or more narrowly “wireless communication”. The specification teaches this unit at least in ¶ 232 but teaches only “a wireless communication unit 86 which transmits and receives information and/or data, for example by means of Bluetooth or WiFi” without identifying structure for the unit. The exemplary protocols of “Bluetooth or WiFi” do not identify the structure which would or would not be required for the claimed function. For this reason, claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Further, claim 55 teaches “an expansion element” in line 3 but neither the claim nor the specification includes any teaching or suggestion regarding the structure of the “element” by which it performs the function of “expansion”. For this reason, claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. For this reason, claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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 1-5, 18-20 and 55 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.
The term “basic” in the phrase “basic functions” in line 13 of claim 1 is not defined in a manner that allows one of ordinary skill in the art to determine what are “basic functions” (including whether these are functions of the refrigerant compressor as a whole or of the control unit or the base module specifically). Because the functions themselves cannot be identified, the “program code and data” required to allow the “operating units”) to carry out these functions further cannot be identified so that the scope of the claim is further rendered indefinite.
In lines 11-13 of claim 1, it is taught that the terminals of the base unit are “for at least one of: i) an operating unit; and ii) a status acquisition units [sic.], each configured for carrying out basic functions”. In addition to the indefiniteness of the recitation of “basic functions” as discussed above, the use of “an” and “a” in identifying “an operating unit” and “a status acquisition units” makes it unclear whether these units are or are not required to be among the plural “operating units and/or status acquisition units” taught in lines 5-6 of the claim (and how the recitation of the units with “at least one of” and “and” in lines 11-13 interacts in scope with the recited “and/or” in line 6 to affect the scope of the claims given that it is unclear whether the two recitations refer to the same units). Further, the description “each configured for carrying out basic functions” is positioned so that it is unclear whether it applied to “a status acquisition units” [sic.] or to “at least one of: i) an operating unit; and ii) a status acquisition units” [sic.] so that it is not clear whether, for example, a system in which the terminals connect to an operating unit which is not configured to for carrying out basic functions and not to any status acquisition unit(s) would fall within the scope of the claim. Further, the use of the plural in “basic functions” makes it unclear whether multiple functions are required by any or each one of the claimed units (whether an operating unit or a status acquisition unit) of if these plural “basic functions” may be spread over multiple such units and still fall within the scope of the claim.
Further, in lines 17-18 of claim 1, there is a recitation of “at least one of i) an operating unit; and ii) a status acquisition unit connected to the additional module”. Similar to the above, it is not clear what relation the singularly recited units here have to the “operating units and/or status acquisition units” of lines 5-6, and whether the “connected to the additional module” description as presented is intended to apply to “a status acquisition unit” or to both types of units.
For these reasons, the scope of claim 1 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 55 includes equivalent recitations regarding “terminals for: i) operating units; and ii) status acquisition units; each configured for carrying out basic functions” in lines 16-18” and is found to be indefinite for the same reasons set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Claim 19 teaches “a communication unit for wireless communication” in line 2 but neither the claim nor the specification includes any teaching or suggestion regarding the structure of the “unit” by which it performs the function of “communication” or more narrowly “wireless communication”. The specification teaches this unit at least in ¶ 232 but teaches only “a wireless communication unit 86 which transmits and receives information and/or data, for example by means of Bluetooth or WiFi” without identifying the scope of the recitation regarding the structure which would or would not constitute such a unit. The exemplary protocols of “Bluetooth or WiFi” do not identify the structure which would or would not be required for the claimed function nor does their use as examples enable one of ordinary skill in the art to identify whether any other potential communication protocol would fall inside or outside the scope of the claim. For this reason, the scope of claim 19 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) being indefinite. Further, attention is directed to MPEP 2173.05(d) Exemplary Claim Language ("for example," "such as") regarding the indefiniteness of exemplary language in claim construction.
Claim 55 teaches in line 3 “an expansion element” but neither the claim nor the specification includes any teaching or suggestion regarding the structure of the “element” by which it performs the function of “expansion”. For this reason, the elements which would or would not fall within the scope of claim 55 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
In lines 20-22 of claim 55, it is taught that an additional module is “connectable to the base module and to the operating units and/or the status acquisition units”. The use of “and” with “and/or” in this recitation makes it unclear in what combinations the base module, operating units, and status acquisition units may be connectable to the additional module. Particularly, it is unclear whether the claim’s scope includes:
a module connectable to [the base module] and also to one or both of [the operating units and the status acquisition units],
connectable to [the base module and also the operating units] and/or [the status acquisition units]; or
some combination of the two.
For this reason, the scope of claim 55 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claims 2-5, 18, and 20 are rejected as depending upon a base claim which has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
PNG
media_image1.png
488
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
424
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
410
372
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
327
292
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
468
694
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 18, 20, and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2009/0090113 A1 to Caillat. Caillat in ¶ 51 incorporates by reference the disclosure of commonly owned US Patent No. 6,302,654 to Millet et al., stating that the control module (30) may be the module taught by Millet and reference is therefore also made in this rejection to the teachings of Millet in demonstrating the invention disclosed by Caillat.
PNG
media_image6.png
286
426
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Caillat teaches limitations from claim 1 in fig. 1, shown above, as well as in Millet’s figs. 2-5 and 11, also shown above, a refrigerant compressor (12), comprising:
a compressor unit (the internal mechanism of the compressor 12) which draws in refrigerant with a suction port (connected to the suction line 22), compresses it and delivers it by way of a pressure port (connected to the discharge line 24, as taught in ¶ 46), wherein the refrigerant compressor (12) has an electrical drive unit driving the compressor unit (including an electronic inverter and variable frequency drive (VFD), taught in ¶ 50 but not shown in the figure) and wherein the refrigerant compressor (12) is provided with a control unit (30 of Caillat, taught to correspond to the control subsystem 86 of Millet, shown above in Millet’s figs. 3, 4, and 5) which cooperates with at least one of i) operating units and/or ii) status acquisition units associated with the refrigerant compressor and a refrigerant circuit (as taught in col. 5, lines 10-48 of Millet, the control subsystem 86 includes a plurality of terminals 102-136 which connect “to internally integrated sensors which are in turn connected to a control block 138”, these sensors identified at the left side of fig. 5, shown above, and including discharge and suction temperature sensors and thus representing “status acquisition units” as claimed and interpreted above and further controls the operation of the compressor itself (via compressor control system 168 shown below in fig. 5 of Millet) and various other components which include a heater via heater control system 236, teaching an “operating unit” per the interpretation of the claim discussed above),
wherein the control unit (86 of Millet) comprises a base module (the control block 138 of the control subsystem 86 Millet) which has at least one processor and at least one memory store (as taught in ¶ 52 of Caillat, “Control module 30 may generally include a control block, microprocessor, [and] memory…”) configured to store program code and data for operating the at least one processor, the base module including terminals for at least one of i) an operating unit; and ii) a status acquisition units, each configured for carrying out basic functions (that is, the operation of the compressor itself and the components such as the sensors and heaters associated with the compressor as taught by both Caillat and Millet); and
wherein the at least one processor and the program code stored in the memory store (in the control module 30/86) are configured so that, with an additional module connected to the base module additional operating functions can be executed with at least one of i) an operating unit; and ii) a status acquisition unit connected to the additional module (by the connection of the controller 86 to an external control system 254 for communication with this controller and external/remote monitoring of the compressor as shown below in figs. 5 and 11 and taught in col. 10, lines 56-62);
such that functionalities provided by the base module also provide execution of all basic functions and all additional functions by the at least one processor and the at least one memory store of the base module (as the additional functions as discussed by Millet all constitute monitoring of the compressor and communication of the local controller to an external central controller which include control of the local components, the functionalities are found to be executable by the local processor and memory (taught in ¶ 52 of Caillat) of the control block (138)).
Caillat teaches limitations from claim 2 in fig. 1 of Caillat and figs. 5 and 11 of Millet, shown above, the refrigerant compressor according to claim 1, wherein, for execution of the additional functions (the communication with the external control system 254), the base module (the control block 138 of the control subsystem 86 taught by Millet) is connectable to the additional module (the external control module 254, connecting to the control block 138 through the communication interface/gateway 150) which, for carrying out at least one of the additional functions, has terminals for: 1) the operating units and ii) the status acquisition units, and wherein the additional module (254) enables, by way of mediatory communication (communication with the interface/gateway 250) between the base module (138) and at least one of i) the operating units and ii) the status acquisition units connected to the additional module (254, connected through the control block 138 and interface/gateway 250), wherein the execution of the additional functions is performed via operation of at least one of i) the operating units and ii) the status acquisition units by the base module (controlling the compressor using the central control system 254 as taught in col. 10, lines 56-62 of Millet).
Examiner further notes that claim 2 has been given limited patentable weight as it recites only that the base unit “is connectable to an additional module” having certain features but does not positively recite the additional module as part of the inventive system. As such, these limitations of claim 2 represent only a teaching of intended use for the claimed system.
Caillat teaches limitations from claim 3 in figs. 5 and 11 of Millet, shown above, the refrigerant compressor according to claim 1, wherein a communication between the base module (138) and the additional module (254) connected thereto (by the communication interface/gateway) takes place directly by way of electrical connecting elements (terminals 134 and 136, connecting directly from the control block 138 to the interface/gateway 250 as shown in fig. 5) between the base module (138) and the additional module (136) (further, connection from the gateway 250 to the central controller 254 is taught to be performed preferably through LonWorks as in col. 10, lines 56-62 of Millet, with LonWorks being understood in the art at a communication standard for communication over twisted pair circuits or for power line communication, both of which transmit communication directly over electrical connections.)
Caillat teaches limitations from claim 5 in figs. 5 and 11 of Millet, shown above, the refrigerant compressor according to claim 1, wherein different additional modules are connectable to the base module, of which each enables an operation of different combinations of at least one of i) operating units and ii) status acquisition units by way of mediatory communication between the base module and these different combinations of at least one of i) operating units and ii) status acquisition units.
As with claim 2 above, it is noted that claim 5 does not positively recite the additional modules but only teaches that the base module is capable of the intended use of being connected to different modules which perform different operations of the operating and/or data acquisition units. Claim 5 does not describe or identify any structure for these plural “different additional modules” or positively recite any or all of theme as elements of the claimed system. As the structure required for such connection (i.e. the communication interface/gateway 250 is taught by Millet as discussed above) the system of Caillat (as elaborated by the incorporated teachings of Millet) is found to be capable of connection to different systems, and the system (254) to which it connects is taught (col. 10, lines 56-62 of Millet) to control the operation of the compressor, the system of Caillat (including the control system of Millet) is found to be inherently capable of the claimed intended use.
Caillat teaches limitations from claim 18 in figs. 5 and 11 of Millet, shown above, the refrigerant compressor according to claim 1, wherein the base module (138 of Millet) has at least one bus terminal unit (connecting vis “Motorola's Serial Peripheral Interface (SPI)”, described as a bus communicating over terminals 134 and 136 as taught in col. 7, line 55-col. 8, line 3 of Millet).
Caillat teaches limitations from claim 20 in figs. 5 and 11 of Millet, the refrigerant compressor according to claim 1, wherein the additional module (254) has a BUS terminal unit (as taught in col. 7, line 55-col. 8, line 3 and col. 10, lines 56-62 of Millet, SPI is used for communication between the gateway and the central controller 254, the connection of the SPI to the controller constituting a “terminal” as claimed).
Caillat teaches limitations from claim 55 in fig. 1, shown above, as well as in Millet’s figs. 2-5 and 11, also shown above, a refrigerant circuit (shown in fig. 1 of Caillat) comprising at least one refrigerant compressor (12), a high pressure line (extending from the discharge line 24 to the expansion valve 18) extending away from the at least one refrigerant compressor (12), a high pressure-side heat exchanger (condenser 14) arranged in the high pressure line (by way of the reversing valve 20), at least one expansion element (expansion valve 18) following the high pressure-side heat exchanger (14) in the high pressure line (as shown), a low pressure-side heat exchanger (evaporator 16) which is arranged in a low pressure line (extending from the expansion valve 18 to the suction line 22) following the expansion element (18) and from which the low pressure line extends to the at least one refrigerant compressor (as the suction line 22), wherein the at least one refrigerant compressor (12) is configured having a compressor unit (the internal mechanism of the compressor 12) which draws in refrigerant with a suction port (at the suction line 22), compresses it and delivers it by way of a pressure port (at the discharge line 24), wherein the refrigerant compressor (12) has an electrical drive unit driving the compressor unit (including an electronic inverter and variable frequency drive (VFD), taught in ¶ 50 but not shown in the figure) and wherein the refrigerant compressor is provided with a control unit (30 of Caillat, taught to correspond to the control subsystem 86 of Millet, shown above in Millet’s figs. 3, 4, and 5) which cooperates with at least one of i) operating units and ii) status acquisition units associated with the refrigerant compressor or the refrigerant circuit (as taught in col. 5, lines 10-48 of Millet, the control subsystem 86 includes a plurality of terminals 102-136 which connect “to internally integrated sensors which are in turn connected to a control block 138”, these sensors identified at the right side of fig. 5, shown above, and representing “status acquisition units” as claimed and further controls the operation of the compressor itself (via compressor control system 168 shown below in fig. 5 of Millet) and various other components (such as solenoids via solenoid control systems 210, 218, and 226, a heater via heater control system 236, and a display as shown in fig. 5) as “operating units” as claimed),
wherein the control unit (86 of Millet) comprises a base module (the control block 138 of the control subsystem 86 Millet) which has at least one processor and at least one memory store (as taught in ¶ 52 of Caillat, “Control module 30 may generally include a control block, microprocessor, [and] memory…”) configured to store program code and data for operating the at least one processor, the base module including terminals for at least one of i) an operating unit; and ii) a status acquisition units, each configured for carrying out basic functions (that is, the operation of the compressor itself and the components such as the sensors and heaters associated with the compressor as taught by both Caillat and Millet); and
wherein the at least one processor and the program code stored in the memory store (in the control module 30/86) are configured for carrying out additional functions by means of an additional module connectable to the base module and to the operating units and/or the status acquisition units (by the connection of the controller 86 to an external control system 254 for communication with this controller and external/remote monitoring of the compressor as shown below in figs. 5 and 11 and taught in col. 10, lines 56-62).
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.
Claims 4, 5, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caillat as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2022/0070293 A1 to Harvey et al.
The rejection of claim 5 set forth below does not indicate any deficiency in the rejection of the claim presented above but is provided to demonstrate that, even given a narrower interpretation of the claim and in which the connectable additional modules of claim 5 are taken as positively recited rather than as a matter of intended use, the limitations of the claim would still not be found to be patentable.
PNG
media_image7.png
620
514
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Caillat teaches a refrigerant compressor including a control unit, indicating this control unit to be the unit taught by Millet. Millet elaborates a control unit for a compressor in which a control block is connected to a plurality of sensors and actuators of the compressor and the refrigeration system in which it is used and is further communicated through a communication interface/gateway with an external central controller which may control operations of the compressor through the control block. Neither Caillat nor Millet teaches the communication between the external central controller and the sensors and actuators (status acquisition units and operating units as claimed) of the system being performed so as to comprises signal conversion or processing. Harvey teaches in ¶¶ 27-28, 43 and 52 and in fig. 4, shown above, a control system in which multiple controllers (405, 410) may be connected with the work of the controllers distributed among them for controlling a plurality of modules (415) and devices (420) such as HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) equipment and sensors connected thereto. Harvey particularly teaches in ¶ 43 and fig. 5 shown above (showing one implementation of such a module, numbered as module 505, communicating between a controller 535 and a device 540) that signals transmitted between the controller (535) to the devices (540) by way of the module maybe altered or changed, thus being processed or converted by hardware of the module (520). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Caillat with the signal processing and alteration of communicated signals taught by Harvey in order to ensure compatibility between devices of different types connected to the same central controlling system without requiring that the control system itself format signals based on the device to which they are being sent, thus allowing compatibility to be handled device-by-device and allowing for the addition and removal of devices from the system without requiring modification of the controller programming itself.
Regarding claim 5, Caillat does not teach the controller of the compressor of his invention being connectable to different additional modules (i.e. different external controllers per the teachings of Millet) such that different combination of the actuators and sensors operated are enabled to be operated by each of these different additional modules. Harvey teaches in ¶¶ 27-28, 43 and 52 and in fig. 4, shown above, a control system in which multiple controllers (405, 410) may be connected with the work of the controllers distributed among them for controlling a plurality of modules (415) and devices (420) such as HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) equipment and sensors connected thereto. Harvey particularly teaches in ¶ 28 that in some implementations of this system, some controllers among the plurality which are connected (405, 410) may be designated as satellite controllers which do not perform work regarding any modules or devices not connected directly to themselves while others (controller 405) are able to access and control a broader range of modules and devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Caillat with the arrangement of main and satellite controllers taught by Harvey in order to allow different degrees of privilege and access to different controllers and thus their users, for example to prevent a user from adversely affecting the output of the HVAC system for other users in other spaces while still permitting some degree of control over operations in the space that user occupies.
Regarding claim 19, neither Caillat nor Millet teaches the communication between elements in the control system of their inventions to be conducted using “a communication unit for wireless communication” of the control unit, although the interface/gateway 250 of Millet is taught as a wired communication unit. Harvey teaches in ¶ 28 and in fig. 4, shown above, that communication among the controllers (405, 410) may be performed “through wired connections, wireless connections, or a combination of both”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Caillat with the wireless communication in order to increase the convenience of installation and arrangement of the controller (internal and external) of the system of Caillat (as elaborated by Millet) by removing the requirement for physical cables to be installed and because MPEP 2143 indicates that “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” (using wireless communication in place of the wired communication taught by Millet to provide the predictable result of communication among the control devices without the use of cables or wires) is an exemplary rationale to support a finding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pp. 19-24 that the specification’s identification of exemplary structures for the operating units and/or status acquisition units provide sufficient structure for these elements under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) so that the claims should not be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or (b) based on these recitations.
Upon review, examiner agrees and the rejections based on these interpretations have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues on pg. 22 that the teaching of the expansion element is sufficiently specific to prevent interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) by the teaching of the high-pressure-side refrigerant being passed to the expansion element and expanded to low pressure refrigerant and that claim 55 should therefore not be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) based on this recitation.
In response, examiner disagrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a range of structures which can accomplish this type of expansion, including static capillary tubes, variable thermal expansion valves, digitally controlled electronic expansion valves, and mechanical expanders extracting work from the expansion of refrigerant, with each of these defining significantly different physical structures even if each may constitute an “expansion element”. For this reason, the assertion that the teachings of the specification are sufficiently specific to definitely identify a particular structure is not found to be persuasive and both the interpretation and the rejection of the claims based on 35 U.S.C. 112(a), (b), and (f) have been maintained.
Applicant argues on pp. 22 and 24-25 that the recitations of communication protocols such as Bluetooth and Wifi is sufficient to constitute structure with regard to the teaching of “a wireless communication unit” so that claim 19 should not be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) based on the interpretation of this recitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
In response, examiner disagrees. Both Bluetooth and Wifi refer to protocols or standards for wireless communication rather than physical structures which achieve such communication, with these standards each having multiple implementations including versions and generations and may be used with internal equipment or external adaptors or devices defining a plurality of different physical structures. For this reason, examiner disagrees with the assertion that these protocols are sufficient to constitute teachings of structure and the claim remains interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b).
Applicant argues on pp. 25-27 that Caillat does not teach every limitation of claims 1 and 55, quoting the material added to these claims by the amendment the reply but not identifying which specific features Caillat is alleged to lack.
Upon review of the amendments as detailed above, examiner has not identified the claimed elements applicant alleges to be missing from the disclosure of Caillat (including the features incorporated by reference from Millet) and the rejections of the claims are therefore maintained. Should applicant consider specific features of the instant claims to be lacking from the prior art disclosures, it is requested that these features be specifically identified in future responses so that they may be identified for review.
Applicant argues on pg. 27 that Harvey as applied to claims 4, 5, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 do not “cure the above-described deficiencies of Caillat” so that these claims are allowable at least for their dependence upon claim 1.
In response, examiner disagrees. As discussed above, examiner has not found the deficiencies applicant has alleged in the teachings of Caillat and claim 1 stands rejected so that dependent claims 4, 5, and 19 cannot be found to be allowable for their dependence upon the independent claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C COMINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 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, 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.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights