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 generation unit that generates” in claim 1, defined in paragraph [0016] as the apparatus in Fig. 2.
“a supply unit that supplies” in claim 1, defined in paragraph [0037] as “the signal line 120 that transmits an excitation signal to the refrigerant pipe 5...”
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 § 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)(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, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Morizono et al., JP 6906213 B1.
Claim 1. Morizono discloses a heat medium reforming device comprising: (Morizono, [0001] and [0009] describes an electrostatic rectifier that can be applied to a heating medium.)
a generation unit that generates, on the basis of a commercial power supply, an excitation signal that excites a heat medium, (Morizono, Fig. 5 the circuit diagram of the electrostatic rectifier corresponds with the claimed generation unit; [0035] “… the electrostatic rectifier 4 of the temperature control device 1 receives power from a power source, more specifically, an external power source, and more specifically, a household power source, and generates the pulsed damped wave signal”; and [0034] “… by using a damped wave signal, the impact of the pulse can be effectively transmitted to the medium.”)
the excitation signal having a pulse width of 5 nsec to 100 nsec and (Morizono, Fig. 4 and [0034] “This frequency means a period in one damped wave signal, and is 0.1 μs or more and 0.5 μs or less, preferably 0.2 μs or less in terms of the time interval” where 0.1 μs, or 100 nanoseconds, is included in the claimed 5 nsec to 100 nsec range.)
a frequency of 5 kHz to 50 kHz; and (Morizono, [0033] “… the electrostatic rectifier 4 preferably supplies a pulsed damped wave signal repeated at a frequency of 20 kHz or more and 40 kHz or less.”)
a supply unit that supplies the excitation signal generated by the generation unit to the heat medium. (Morizono, [0037] “…the electrostatic rectifier 4 is electrically connected around the medium tube 2 to supply electric charges to the medium. More specifically, the electric charge can be supplied by bringing the output end of the electrostatic rectifier into contact with the medium tube”; and [0036] describes the output end as “an output terminal 44 that transmits the output of the operational amplifier 43.”)
Claim 3. Morizono discloses the heat medium reforming device according to claim 1,
further comprising a conversion unit that is connected between the commercial power supply and (Morizono, Fig. 5 shows an A/D converter 41, connected between the commercial power supply and uses amplifier 43 of the electrostatic rectifier to send signals through an output terminal 44.)
the generation unit and converts an alternating-current voltage of the commercial power supply into a direct-current voltage. (Morizono, [0036] “… the electrostatic rectifier 4 is connected to an external AC power supply, an AD converter 41 that converts this AC power supply into direct current…”)
Claim 5. Morizono discloses a heat medium reforming method comprising: (Morizono, [0001] and [0009] describes an electrostatic rectifier that can be applied to a heating medium.)
generating, on the basis of a commercial power supply, an excitation signal that excites a heat medium, (Morizono, Fig. 5 the circuit diagram of the electrostatic rectifier corresponds with the claimed generation unit; [0035] “… the electrostatic rectifier 4 of the temperature control device 1 receives power from a power source, more specifically, an external power source, and more specifically, a household power source, and generates the pulsed damped wave signal”; and [0034] “… by using a damped wave signal, the impact of the pulse can be effectively transmitted to the medium.”)
the excitation signal having a pulse width of 5 nsec to 100 nsec and (Morizono, Fig. 4 and [0034] “This frequency means a period in one damped wave signal, and is 0.1 μs or more and 0.5 μs or less, preferably 0.2 μs or less in terms of the time interval” where 0.1 μs, or 100 nanoseconds, is included in the claimed 5 nsec to 100 nsec range.)
a frequency of 5 kHz to 50 kHz; and (Morizono, [0033] “… the electrostatic rectifier 4 preferably supplies a pulsed damped wave signal repeated at a frequency of 20 kHz or more and 40 kHz or less.”)
supplying the generated excitation signal to the heat medium. (Morizono, [0037] “…the electrostatic rectifier 4 is electrically connected around the medium tube 2 to supply electric charges to the medium. More specifically, the electric charge can be supplied by bringing the output end of the electrostatic rectifier into contact with the medium tube”; and [0036] describes the output end as “an output terminal 44 that transmits the output of the operational amplifier 43.”)
Claim 6. Morizono discloses a heat medium using device attached with the heat medium reforming device according to claim 1. (Morizono, Fig. 1 shows a temperature control device 1 with a tube 2 filled with a heating medium, attached is an electrostatic rectifier 4.)
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morizono et al., JP 6906213 B1 in view of Vaisman et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 11561030 B1.
Claim 2. Morizono discloses the heat medium reforming device according to claim 1.
Morizono does not explicitly disclose wherein the generation unit is implemented by an application specific digital integrated circuit.
Vaisman discloses wherein the generation unit is implemented by an application specific digital integrated circuit. (Vaisman, col. 18 line 47-67 “Suitable processors for the systems disclosed herein include both general and special purpose microprocessors, and the sole processor or one of multiple processors of any kind of computer or computing device… Processors and memory units of the systems disclosed herein is supplemented by, or incorporated in, ASICs (application-specific integrated circuits).”)
Morizono and Vaisman are analogous art because they are related to thermal management of refrigeration systems. Although Morizono does not explicitly disclose the use of an ASIC, the circuit in Fig. 4 implements a power supply converter and generates a basic signal similarly to the functions of the ASIC described in [0035]-[0039] of the instant specification. Vaisman teaches the use of ASICs as a processor and memory storage for the computer program responsible for the operations used in the thermal management of refrigeration systems. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to simply substitute the controller and analog circuits disclosed by Morizono with the special purpose microprocessor such as the ASIC taught by Vaisman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a substitution as the functions of the controller disclosed by Morizono “can generally be implemented as one of a variety of different electrical or electronic computing or processing devices” and the substitution of an ASIC would yield a similar and predictable outcome of performing the above processes.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morizono et al., JP 6906213 B1 in view of Kondo et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 6730428 B1.
Claim 4. Morizono discloses the heat medium reforming device according to claim 1.
Modified Morizono does not explicitly disclose wherein the excitation signal has a peak value of 550 mA to 1000 mA.
wherein the excitation signal has a peak value of 550 mA to 1000 mA. (Kondo, col. 6 line 23 “The DC-pulse generating device 38 is adapted to output the pulsating direct current voltage which is required to cause the pulsating direct current of about 1-8 A (ampere)…” where 1 A is within the claimed range 550 mA to 1000mA.)
Morizono and Kondo are analogous art because they are related to the use of DC-pulse generating devices. Although Morizono does not explicitly disclose the ampere of the pulse applied by the electrostatic rectifier to the medium tube, Kondo teaches a DC-pulse generating device capable of outputting at least about 1 mA of current which is similar to Morizono’s electrostatic rectifier, which also uses a pulsing direct current. Kondo uses the direct current pulse of at least 1 mA in order to break up the residue deposited on the surface of a battery, which similarly has the same effect in clearing “the scale adhering to the pipeline wall generated by calcium, magnesium and the like… by the pulsed signal” as taught by Morizono (see Morizono, [0042]). Kondo states that “the pulsating direct current voltage has a value which is sufficiently higher than that of the rated terminal voltage or that of the charging voltage...” (Kondo, col. 6 line 27) over a relatively high frequency for the purpose of preventing the occurrence of sulfication (Kondo, col. 2 line 37). Ohm’s law dictates that voltage is equal to the current multiplied by the resistance, in this case the resistance of the medium pipe (V = I x R). As such, the peak current is a result effective variable because the amount of current applied directly controls the strength of the electrical charge, which when applied over a certain frequency, is responsible for preventing the unwanted deposits on the pipeline wall during operation. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the current used by Morizono with the current range taught by Kondo since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Horiguchi, JP 6298895 B2 directed to a similar pulse generating device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTENE NHELLE B MACEDA whose telephone number is (571)272-2380. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30a-5:00p.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/K.B.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights