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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of the first species or the embodiment of Figures 1A through 1C and 2A through 2D, readable on claims 1 through 5 and 7 through 10, in the reply filed on December 8, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 6 and 11 through 33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to the various nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 8, 2025.
Response to Amendment
Receipt and entry of the preliminary amendment filed on January 10, 2024, including an amended abstract filed therewith, are acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because at least some of the figures contain impermissible black shading (i.e., Figures 1A through 1C, 2A, 2B, 3, 4A through 4E, 4H, 4I, 5A, 5B, 6, 7A, 7B) and because the line quality is uneven in at least some of the figures (i.e., especially Figure 9B, where some of the lines are almost invisible). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are additionally objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features, for example, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s): a refrigeration discharge unit as recited throughout the claims. Note that the refrigeration discharge unit, while claimed, may or may not be shown in the drawings which illustrate the inventive heat cycle system, but it at the very least lacks a corresponding reference character in the drawings. While a temperature determination unit and an air No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The amended abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not avoid phrases which can be implied (i.e., “The purpose of the present invention”), because it does not avoid referring to the purported merits and speculative uses of the invention (i.e., “The purpose of the present invention is to provide a low-cost heat cycle system that can reduce power consumption”), because it does not avoid phraseology normally reserved for claims (i.e., “comprises”, at least two occurrences), and because it contains minor grammatical informalities (i.e., “to” should be inserted immediately preceding “the outdoor heat exchanger” at the end of the next-to-the-last sentence of the abstract). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: throughout the specification, applicant refers to numbers preceded by “#” without clearly clarifying for the record for each occurrence that these are intended to refer to particular examples appearing in particular figures. These informalities can be corrected by clearly correlating the examples to the corresponding figures for each occurrence.
Appropriate correction is required.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: the numbers preceded by “#” as explained in greater detail above; and, the term “calorific value of Pd” of the electric drive unit 200 which is not clearly defined by the originally filed specification and which appears to be used contrary to the art-accepted meaning of the term “calorific value”. The examiner hereby notes that the “calorific value” of a substance or material refers to the amount of energy released when a specific quantity of the same undergoes complete combustion or metabolism, thus corresponding to the total energy produced per unit mass or volume of the substance or material and its energy content. Based on the Merriam-Webster dictionary’s definition, the calorific value is “the heat produced by the combustion of a unit weight of a fuel”. In the instant invention, no substance or material is burned, combusted, and/or metabolized, thus rendering the aforementioned term unclear.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 through 5 and 7 through 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: “to” should be inserted immediately preceding “the outdoor heat exchanger” [claim 1, lines 15-16] for improved readability and grammatical correctness; and, “a” [claim 4, line 2] immediately preceding “mechanical operation” [claim 4, line 3] should be deleted for improved readability and grammatical correctness. 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, for example: “refrigeration discharge unit”, “cooling unit”, “temperature determination unit”, “air conditioning operation mode determination unit”.
[Note, however, that the limitation “electric drive unit” is coupled with sufficient structure (i.e., “an electric drive unit which includes an electric motor and an electrical component that supplies appropriate power to the electric motor” to avoid interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.]
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 through 5 and 7 through 10 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.
First of all, each of claim limitations “refrigeration discharge unit”, “cooling unit”, “temperature determination unit”, and “air conditioning operation mode determination unit” invokes 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 of each of the aforementioned claim limitations. While the corresponding drawings show that each of cooling units 211 and 221 is a heat exchanger through which refrigerant flows to cool the motor 210 and the inverter/electrical component 220, respectively, the drawings are schematic drawings and thus do not set forth the equivalents that are to be encompassed by the term “cooling unit” as required, and the specification similarly fails to describe any equivalents or any required structural features necessarily encompassed thereby. The disclosure also appears to be devoid of any particular disclosed associated structure or structures that performs the function of the “refrigeration discharge unit” with the same not being illustrated in the drawings either. Furthermore, the disclosure also appears to be devoid of any description or other disclosure of any particular disclosed structure or structures that perform the functions either of the “temperature determination unit” or of the “air conditioning operation mode determination unit” as recited in the claims, with the each of these units merely being shown as formless schematic boxes in at least one flow chart in the drawings.
Second of all, the term “calorific value” appears in claims 2 through 4 and in claims 7 through 10 depending therefrom, both on its own and as represented by the variable Pb and as part of claimed formulas. Applicant’s original disclosure (including the specification) fails to clearly describe and define the term “calorific value”. Based on a careful review of the originally filed disclosure, including the claims and the specification, the examiner can at best infer that this term is used to refer to some undefined heat transfer-related value corresponding to the operation of the electric drive unit. Meanwhile, the accepted meaning is ““the heat produced by the combustion of a unit weight of a fuel” (i.e., see attached dictionary definition of the term). Applying the accepted meaning would, however, make no sense in the instant application because the instant invention does not at all relate to combustion. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Furthermore, the complete lack of clarity as to what is intended to be encompassed by this term and by its variable Pd renders the formulas and numeric relationships recited using Pd in claims 2 through 4 and 7 through 10 generally incomprehensible and unexaminable without undue speculation by the examiner.
The claims therefore fail to meet the written description requirement with regard to each of the abovementioned features which appear throughout the claims.
Claims 2 through 4 and 7 through 10 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The term “calorific value” appears in claims 2 through 4 and in claims 7 through 10 depending therefrom, both on its own and as represented by the variable Pb and as part of claimed formulas. As previously noted above, applicant’s original disclosure (including the specification) fails to clearly describe and define the term “calorific value”. Based on a careful review of the originally filed disclosure, including the claims and the specification, the examiner can at best infer that this term is used to refer to some undefined heat transfer-related value corresponding to the operation of the electric drive unit. Meanwhile, the accepted meaning is ““the heat produced by the combustion of a unit weight of a fuel” (i.e., see attached dictionary definition of the term). Applying the accepted meaning would, however, make no sense in the instant application because the instant invention does not at all relate to combustion. The complete lack of clarity as to what is intended to be encompassed by this term and by its variable Pd renders the formulas and numeric relationships recited using Pd in claims 2 through 4 and 7 through 10 generally incomprehensible and unexaminable without undue speculation by the examiner and by one of ordinary skill in the art.
The lack of a proper description and of a clear definition for the term “calorific value” and the general lack of clear direction provided by the inventors with regard to this term broadens the potential scope of the claims to such a degree that one of ordinary skill in the art (i.e., a systems design engineer with at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or similar) would not be able to come up with all the possible interpretations of the term in a reasonable amount of time, and much less be able to implement and incorporate such that the inventive heat cycle system is made and used as intended by applicant corresponding to claims 2 through 4 and 7 through 10 without an unreasonable amount of experimentation and an inordinate expenditure of time and effort in general.. It is especially difficult to make and use the inventive heat cycle system as claimed if the scope of the claimed invention is indeterminate to the extent that one cannot even make an educated guess as to what this term might be required to encompass since actual the meaning of this term is not applicable to the claimed invention as a whole.
Therefore, claims 2 through 4 and 7 through 10 are not enabled.
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 through 5 and 7 through 10 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 claims are generally narrative and indefinite, as well as written in at least a somewhat run-on fashion, and thus failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and contain grammatical and idiomatic errors. For example, while not entirely clear that this is the intent of the limitation, the limitation “in the flow of the refrigerant” [claim 1, lines 18-19; claim 5, line 3-4] should probably be replaced with the limitation “relative to the flow of the refrigerant” or “with regard to the flow of the refrigerant” or similar, if applicant is trying to clarify the term “upstream” [claim 1, line 18; claim 5, line 3].
The term “appropriate” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “appropriate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, as used to qualify the amount of power supplied to the electric motor by the electrical component, this term renders the same indeterminate and the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim indefinite.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “calorific value” in claims 2 through 4 and in claims 7 through 10 depending therefrom is used by the claims to refer (as best can be inferred by the examiner) to some undefined heat transfer-related value, while the accepted meaning is ““the heat produced by the combustion of a unit weight of a fuel” (i.e., see attached dictionary definition of the term); however, applying the accepted meaning would make no sense in the instant application because the instant invention does not at all relate to combustion in any way. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Furthermore, the complete lack of clarity as to what is intended to be encompassed by this term and by its variable Pd renders the formulas and numeric relationships recited using Pd in claims 2 through 4 and 7 through 10 generally incomprehensible and unexaminable without undue speculation by the examiner.
Furthermore with regard to claim 4 (as well as claims 7 through 10 depending therefrom), it is not at all clear what is intended to be encompassed by the limitations “an energization loss is generated in the electric drive unit and the refrigerant is made to absorb heat of a calorific value Pd corresponding to the energization loss”, not merely due to the indeterminate nature of the calorific value Pd but also due to the lack of clarity as to what exactly is meant by the unclear limitations “the refrigerant is made to absorb heat of a calorific value Pd corresponding to the energization loss” (emphasis added) at the end of claim 4.
Claim 5 recites “a cooling unit of the electrical component” and “a cooling unit of the electric motor”, whereas base claim 1 from which claim 5 depends previously recites “a cooling unit of the electric drive unit” (where the electric drive unit is claimed as including an electric motor and an electrical component). Therefore, it is not clear whether the two cooling units recited in claim 5 are in addition to the cooling unit previously recited in claim 1 or whether one or more of the cooling units recited in claim 5 is part of the cooling unit recited in claim 1. The claims must be amended in order to clarify the relationship between the two to three cooling units recited by the claims.
Each of claim limitations “refrigeration discharge unit”, “cooling unit”, “temperature determination unit”, and “air conditioning operation mode determination unit” invokes 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 of each of the aforementioned claim limitations. While the corresponding drawings show that each of cooling units 211 and 221 is a heat exchanger through which refrigerant flows to cool the motor 210 and the inverter/electrical component 220, respectively, the drawings are schematic drawings and do not set forth the equivalents that are to be encompassed by the term “cooling unit” as required. The disclosure appears to be devoid of any particular disclosed structure that performs the function of the “refrigeration discharge unit” with the same is not illustrated in the drawings either. The disclosure also appears to be devoid of any particular disclosed structure that performs the function of either the “temperature determination unit” or the “air conditioning operation mode determination unit” with the each of these merely shown as formless schematic boxes in a flow chart in the drawings. Therefore, the claims are 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.
Furthermore, the term “arbitrary” in each of claims 8, 9, and 10 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “arbitrary” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, as used to qualify a threshold value, this term renders the same indeterminate and renders indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claims.
Any claim not specifically mentioned is at least rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 109 334 392 A (Gree Electric Appliances, Inc.; made of record via IDS).
With regard to claim 1 of the instant application, Gree Electric Appliances (especially Figure 1) discloses a heat cycle system for controlling indoor air conditioning of a vehicle, the heat cycle system comprising: a compressor 10; an accumulator 11; an electric drive unit 6/7 which includes an electric motor 7 and an electrical component 6 that supplies appropriate power to the electric motor 7; a refrigerant compressed by the compressor 10; and an indoor heat exchanger 2 and an outdoor heat exchanger 15 that perform heat exchange of the refrigerant, wherein the heat cycle system includes a single circulation path through which the refrigerant is circulated and has a four-way valve 1 which enables a connection destination of a refrigerant discharge unit of the compressor 10 to be switched to the indoor heat 2 exchanger or the outdoor heat exchanger 15, and wherein a cooling unit 21/22 of the electric drive unit 6/7 is disposed upstream of the accumulator 11 in the flow of the refrigerant.
With regard to claim 5 of the instant application and especially given the uncertainty as to the scope of claim 1 and of claim 5 as detailed previously in the instant Office action, Gree Electric Appliances (especially Figure 1) discloses two cooling units 18 and 21/22 (which could be at least broadly interpreted as required for pending claims) which are cooling units of the electric drive unit 6/7 and of its components, electric motor 7 and electrical component 6. At least as very broadly interpreted, and in some flow configurations, one of these cooling units could be construed as being disposed upstream of the other.
The reference thus reads on the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
While it is possible that claims 2 through 4 and 7 through 10 could be allowable if rewritten (without patentably significant broadening and without any introduction of new matter) to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, and under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, as set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, the examiner cannot at this determine without undue speculation whether or not the aforementioned claims overcome the prior art of record. Therefore, this statement cannot be understood as an indication of allowable subject matter, but rather only as an indication of the extent to which the exact scope (and the corresponding patentability thereof relative to the prior art) of the claimed subject matter of claims 2 through 4 and 7 through 10 is indeterminable at this time.
Conclusion
The prior and/or related art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LJILJANA V CIRIC whose telephone number is (571)272-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Saturday, flexible.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/Ljiljana V. Ciric/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
LJILJANA (Lil) V. CIRIC
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763