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 .
Abstract
MPEP § 608.01(b) states that the “abstract must be as concise as the disclosure permits, preferably not exceeding 150 words in length”. See 37 C.F.R. 1.72 (b). The abstract filed on March 18, 2024 appears to contain more than 150 words. The applicant is invited to consider amending the abstract as follows to comply with this requirement:
“An apparatus and method for evaporating and condensing liquids in the absence of external heating and cooling
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 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 first pressure measuring device” (claim 5).
“a second pressure measuring device” (claim 5).
The aforementioned limitation(s) meet the three prong test, as follows:
The limitations recite a generic placeholder (i.e., device) with no specific structural meaning.
The placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g., for “pressure measuring”).
The limitations do not include sufficient structures for performing the claimed functions.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appear to be the corresponding structures for the aforementioned 112(f) limitation(s):
The first pressure measuring device appears to pertain to a pressure gauge (54).1
The second pressure measuring device appears to pertain to a pressure gauge (56).2
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
The following claims are objected to because of informalities, wherein appropriate correction is required:
In claim 1: the recitation of “an outer wall a top and a bottom” (in lines 8-9) should be amended to –an outer wall, a top and a bottom— (by adding a comma) for grammatical purposes.
In claim 7: the recitation of “and isobutane” should be amended to –isobutane—, for grammatical purposes.
In claim 10: the recitation of “through the top” should be amended to –through the top of the core chamber—, to avoid ambiguities.
In claim 11: the recitation of “the chosen quantity” should be amended to –a chosen quantity—, to provide proper antecedent basis therefor.
In claim 12: the recitation of “through the top” should be amended to –through the top of the core chamber—, to avoid ambiguities.
In claim 13: the recitation of “through the bottom” should be amended to –through the bottom of the core chamber—, to avoid ambiguities.
In claim 15:
The recitation of “the pressure over the liquid refrigerant” (in line 1 of page 3) should be amended to –a pressure of the liquid refrigerant—, for proper antecedence and grammatical purposes.
The recitation of “the inlet of a gas compressor” (in line 3 of page 3) should be amended to –an inlet of a gas compressor—, for proper antecedent basis and to avoid ambiguities.
The recitation of “to the boiling liquid refrigerant” (in line 10 of page 3) should be amended to –with the boiling liquid refrigerant—, for grammatical purposes.
In claim 17: the recitation of “and isobutane” should be amended to –isobutane—, for grammatical purposes.
In claim 18: the recitation of “from vapor separator” should be amended to –from vapor in a separator—, to provide proper antecedent basis and to avoid ambiguities.
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.
Claims 1-19 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.
Claim 1 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “near” (in line 14) which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” 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. It is unclear what maximum (or minimum) amount of spatial separation is required for anticipation or infringement of the claim. For examination purposes, the recitation of “near” will be construed as –at— or as –adjacent—.
The claim recites “a gas compressor having an inlet for creating reduced pressure on the liquid and vapor refrigerant”, which renders the scope of the claim unclear. As currently recited, the limitation may be ambiguously interpreted as: A) the compressor creating the reduced pressure, or B) the inlet creating the reduced pressure. It should be noted that compressors are designed to increase the pressure of a gas (rather than reducing it). It is unclear how exactly the compressor would be able to reduce the pressure, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. A review of the specification appears to disclose “an inlet for creating reduced pressure on the liquid and vapor refrigerant through the refrigerant vapor outlet valve” (emphasis added). For examination purposes, the last limitation (in its entirety) will be construed as: --a gas compressor having an inlet for creating reduced pressure on the liquid and vapor refrigerant through the refrigerant outlet valve, for receiving refrigerant vapor from the core chamber, the gas compressor generating pressurized, heated refrigerant vapor therefrom, and having an outlet for directing the pressurized, heated refrigerant vapor into the outer chamber—.
Claim 2 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “the reduced pressure created by said gas compressor […]”, which is similarly unclear as in claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art may not readily ascertain how exactly a compressor is capable of reducing a pressure. For examination purposes, the quoted recitation will be construed as –the reduced pressure created through the refrigerant vapor outlet valve—.
Claim 5 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “near” (in line 4) which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” 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. It is unclear what maximum (or minimum) amount of spatial separation is required for anticipation or infringement of the claim. For examination purposes, the recitation of “near” will be construed as –at— or as –adjacent—.
Claim 11 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “about” (in line 2) which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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. It is unclear what maximum percentage deviation would be allowed for anticipation or infringement of the claim. For examination purposes, the recitation of “about” will be omitted.
Claim 14 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “near” (in line 4) which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” 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. It is unclear what maximum (or minimum) amount of spatial separation is required for anticipation or infringement of the claim. For examination purposes, the recitation of “near” will be construed as –at— or as –adjacent—.
Any remaining claims are rejected at least by virtue of their dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). The closest references of record appear to be McCuen (US 1592892 A) and Lantz (US 20220128272 A1), but neither reference teaches all of the claimed features as currently recited.
At best, McCuen appears to suggest a refrigerant evaporator-condenser system without heating and cooling external thereto (see at least fig. 1), comprising: a source of liquid refrigerant (e.g., 23, 50, etc.); an evaporator-condenser (“g”), comprising: a core chamber (53) having an outer wall, a top and a bottom, forming a fluid-tight core chamber (see at least fig. 1) for receiving liquid refrigerant from said source of liquid refrigerant (via 50); and an outer chamber (cylinder of “g”, per se) surrounding the core chamber (53). However, McCuen does not disclose the remaining features of claim 1.
Lantz appears to suggest a similar evaporator-condenser with a core and a shell (20), but does not appear to qualify as prior art given that it is from the same inventive entity as the instant application.
It should also be noted that the intended purpose and operating principles of the abovementioned references require the specific arrangement of components as disclosed and described therein. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any modifications to the references to arrive at the claimed invention would be based on improper hindsight, and would render them inoperable for their intended purpose. Assuming arguendo, rearranging and/or replacing the fluid lines, valves, and heat exchangers would change the principles of operation thereof, most likely resulting in unexpected and/or unintended results, which is evidence against a prima facie case of obviousness. Thus, a preponderance of evidence supports the allowability of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIGUEL A DIAZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Jianying C. Atkisson can be reached at (571) 270-7740. 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.
/MIGUEL A DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 See ¶ 24 of the printed publication: US 20240310091 A1.
2 Id.