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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1 and 4-6 in the reply filed on 12/1/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 2-3 and 7-8 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 control portion configured to control the refrigerating circuit in claim 1
a flow rate control portion in claim 1.
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 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 and 4-6 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. Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “the target temperature when the pressure is high is higher than that when the pressure is low”. The terms “high” and low in this claim limitation are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms are 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. Specifically, it is not clear what pressure level would be considered to be “high” or “low”. For examination purposes, the claim is presumed to mean that the target temperature increases as suction pressure increases (for example as it appears to be shown in Fig. 4 of the instant application).
Regarding claims 4-6, the claims are rejected due to dependence from claim 1.
Further regarding claims 4-5, claim 4 recites that “the target temperature is to change in a certain range of change rate”. This limitation is indefinite as it is unclear how and why the target temperature is intended to change. For examination purposes, the claim is presumed to mean that the rate of change of the target temperature as it relates to a change in the pressure is within a predefined range.
Similarly, claim 5 recites the target temperature changing in a certain range of change rate and it is unclear how and why the target temperature is intended to change. For examination purposes, the claim is presumed to refer to the rate of change of the target temperature as it relates to a change in pressure, wherein the rate of change is higher in one range of pressures than in another (as shown in Fig. 4 of the instant application).
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 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruoss (EP 0 344 397, see attached English translation) in view of Moriwaki (EP 2 482 014) and Research Gate (“Saturation Pressure Curve for Different Refrigerants”).
As to claim 1, Ruoss teaches a refrigerating device comprising a refrigerating circuit and a control portion 13 configured to control the circuit, wherein
the circuit includes a main flow path in which a compressor 7, a condenser 8, an expansion portion 11, and an evaporator 5 are connected, and a bypass flow path that connects a discharge side of the condenser 8 and a suction side of the compressor 7 and that has a flow rate control portion 12 whose opening degree is adjustable.
The control portion 13 is configured to change the opening degree of the flow rate control portion 12 such that a temperature of the coolant introduced into the compressor 7 becomes a target temperature (page 4, 4th paragraph). Ruoss recites using a target value specified in the controller 13, but is silent regarding how the target value is determined and thus does not explicitly teach setting the target temperature according to suction pressure, wherein the target temperature increases in relation to an increase of pressure. However, Moriwaki teaches that it is known to set a target refrigerant temperature at a compressor suction end of a bypass in accordance with a saturation temperature calculated from the suction pressure and to control a bypass valve opening degree to achieve the target temperature (paragraph 29). Furthermore, Research Gate teaches that refrigerant saturation temperature increases as pressure increases (see Fig. 1 reproduced below). In light of these teachings it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to set the target temperature according to suction pressure, wherein the target temperature increases in relation to an increase of pressure in order to maintain proper compressor operation by preventing liquid refrigerant from entering the compressor.
As to claim 4, Moriwaki teaches controlling the target refrigerant temperature to be a saturation temperature (paragraph 29), and it is known that saturation temperature follows a set rate of change in relation to suction pressure (see Fig. 1 of Research Gate reproduced below), thus the target temperature of the modified apparatus necessarily changes in a certain range of change rate.
As to claim 5, in the modified operation of Ruoss the rate of change of the target temperature is within a certain range when suction pressure is in a first region (left half of the graph below) and the rate of change is higher than the certain range in a second region (the right half of the graph below).
As to claim 6, Ruoss teaches an environmental testing apparatus comprising the refrigerating device (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1 – Research Gate
PNG
media_image1.png
466
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-5199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
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.
/JONATHAN BRADFORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763