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 Objections
The following claims are objected to because of informalities, wherein appropriate correction is required:
In claim 1: The recitation of “Apparatus” in the preamble should be amended to –An apparatus—, for grammatical purposes.
In claim 2: The recitation of “Apparatus” in the preamble should be amended to –The apparatus—, for grammatical purposes.
In claim 3: The recitation of “Apparatus” in the preamble should be amended to –The apparatus—, for grammatical purposes.
In claim 4: The recitation of “Apparatus” in the preamble should be amended to –The apparatus—, for grammatical purposes.
In claim 5: The recitation of “Apparatus” in the preamble should be amended to –The apparatus—, for grammatical purposes.
In claim 6: The recitation of “Apparatus” in the preamble should be amended to –The apparatus—, for grammatical purposes.
In claim 7: The recitation of “Apparatus” in the preamble should be amended to –The apparatus—, for grammatical purposes.
In claim 8: The recitation of “Apparatus” in the preamble should be amended to –The apparatus—, for grammatical purposes.
In claim 9: The recitation of “Apparatus” in the preamble should be amended to –The apparatus—, for grammatical purposes.
In claim 10:
The recitation of “Apparatus” in the preamble should be amended to –The apparatus—, for grammatical purposes.
The recitation of “due to gravity or a pump force or a ventilator force or due to a heat exchanger” should be amended to –due to gravity, a pump force, a ventilator force or due to a heat exchanger— (i.e., by substituting “or” with commas) for grammatical purposes.
In claim 11: The recitation of “Apparatus” in the preamble should be amended to –The apparatus—, for grammatical purposes.
In claim 12: The recitation of “Apparatus” in the preamble should be amended to –The apparatus—, for grammatical purposes.
In claim 13: The recitation of “Apparatus” in the preamble should be amended to –The apparatus—, for grammatical purposes.
In claim 14: The recitation of “Apparatus” in the preamble should be amended to –The apparatus—, for grammatical purposes.
In claim 15: The recitation of “Apparatus” in the preamble should be amended to –The apparatus—, for grammatical purposes.
In claim 17: The recitation of “Space” in the preamble should instead be amended to –The space—, for grammatical purposes.
In claim 18: The recitation of “Space” in the preamble should instead be amended to –The space—, for grammatical purposes.
In claim 19:
The recitation of “Method” in the preamble should be amended to –A method—, for grammatical purposes.
The recitation of “comprising:” (in line 21) should be amended to –the method comprising:—, to avoid ambiguities.
In claim 20: The recitation of “Method” in the preamble should be amended to –A method—, for grammatical purposes.
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:
“an expansion element” (claim 1).
“temperature controlling element configured to be arranged […]” (id.)
The aforementioned limitation(s) meet the three prong test, as follows:
The limitations include generic placeholders (i.e., “element”) with no specific structural meaning.
The generic placeholders are modified by functionary language (e.g., for “expansion” and “configured to”, respectively).
The limitations do not recite sufficient structures or materials 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 expansion element appears to be disclosed as element 3, which is shown diagrammatically as a valve.1
The temperature controlling element appears to be disclosed as element 14, which is a heat exchanger.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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The claims include language that seems narrative and inconsistent with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and contain idiomatic issues. Applicant is respectfully requested to review the claims for any remaining issues that may not have been listed herein.
Claim 1 contains the following issues:
The recitation of “the liquefier” (in line 9) lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear whether the liquefier is equivalent to the condenser, or if it pertains to a separate and distinct structure. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –the condenser—.
The recitation of “suitable to be arranged” (in line 10) appears ambiguous. It is unclear whether anticipation or infringement occurs with the actual arrangement, or a mere capability of being arranged. The limitation may be interpreted as not actually requiring the arrangement, which renders the scope of the claim unclear. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –arranged—.
The recitation of “configured to be arranged” (in line 15) appears ambiguous. It is unclear whether anticipation or infringement occurs with the actual arrangement, or a mere capability of being arranged. The limitation may be interpreted as not actually requiring the arrangement, which renders the scope of the claim unclear. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –arranged—.
The recitation of “configured to be connected” (in line 16) appears ambiguous. It is unclear whether anticipation or infringement occurs with the actual connection, or a mere capability of being connected. The limitation may be interpreted as not actually requiring the connection, which renders the scope of the claim unclear. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –connected—.
The recitation of “suitable to penetrate” (in line 18) appears ambiguous. It is unclear whether anticipation or infringement occurs with the actual penetration, or a mere capability of such. The limitation may be interpreted as not actually requiring the penetration, which renders the scope of the claim unclear. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –penetrating—.
The claim recites “a response to a control signal” (in line 26) despite already reciting the same in line 21. It is unclear whether anticipation or infringement require the same control signal data, or if they are separate and distinct. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –the response to the control signal—.
Claim 2 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “the primary heat pump circuit’s element that is coupled to the heat exchanger”, without proper antecedent basis. The only elements recited in claim 1 are the “expansion element” and the “temperature-controlling element”. It is unclear what structure is required for anticipation or infringement of claim 2. For examination purposes, the recitation will simply be construed as –the heat exchanger—.
Claim 4 contains the following issues:
The recitation of “configured to be integrated” (in line 10) appears ambiguous. It is unclear whether anticipation or infringement occurs with the actual integration, or a mere capability of being integrated. The limitation may be interpreted as not actually requiring the integration, which renders the scope of the claim unclear. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –integrated—.
Claim 5 contains the following issues:
The recitation of “arranged so as to be spaced apart” appears ambiguous. It is unclear whether anticipation or infringement occurs with the actual spatial separation, or a mere capability of being spaced apart. The limitation may be interpreted as not actually requiring the spatial separation, which renders the scope of the claim unclear. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as optional.
Claim 13 contains the following issues:
The two recitations of “a pressure side of the compressor” (respectively in lines 6 and 13 of page 4) renders the scope of the claim ambiguous. It is noted that any sides of the compressor would have “pressure”. As currently recited, “a pressure side of the compressor” can be construed as an inlet, an outlet, an inside, or even an outside thereof. For examination purposes, the first recitation in line 6 will be construed as –an outlet side of the compressor— and the second recitation in line 13 will be construed as –the outlet side of the compressor—.
Claim 15 contains the following issues:
The claim appears to use the terms “or”, “and”, etc., ambiguously. As currently recited, it is unclear which specific limitations are in the alternative. For instance, the claim may be ambiguously interpreted as only requiring “wherein the heat exchanger comprises the evaporator of the primary heat pump circuit or [the rest of the limitations]”. It is unclear whether the alternative is merely between the “evaporator” and the “condenser”. For examination purposes, the limitation of “the condenser of the primary heat pump circuit and the heat exchanger” will be construed as –the condenser of the primary heat pump circuit, and the heat exchanger— (i.e., by adding a comma to separate the clauses).
Moreover, it is unclear what structure is required for anticipation or infringement for the limitation of “and the heat exchanger for thermally coupling the primary […] and the secondary heat pump circuit which are separated from each other […] or which are arranged in one and the same space”. It is also unclear which structures “are arranged in one and the same space”, and how any two physical structures may occupy “one and the same space”. For examination purposes, the entire recitation of “and the heat exchanger for thermally coupling […] are arranged in one and the same space” will simply be construed as –and the heat exchanger thermally couples the primary heat pump circuit and the secondary heat pump circuit—.
Claim 16 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “separating a space from a surrounding area of the space; and an apparatus according to claim 1.” It is unclear whether “a space” is different from “a space” in the preamble of claim 1 or the preamble of claim 16. The number of spaces required for anticipation or infringement are ambiguous, and the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be properly determined. For examination purposes, the entire claim will simply be construed as: --The space to be temperature-controlled according to claim 1, comprising: a space limitation separating the space from a surrounding area.—
Claim 17 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “configured as a mobile transport container or as a space in a vehicle for being conveyed […]”, wherein it is unclear whether “for being conveyed” pertains only to the “vehicle” or also to the “mobile transport container”. For examination purposes, the body of the claim will simply be construed as –configured as a mobile transport container or a vehicle—.
Claim 18 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “configured as a space in a stationary building or as a free-standing stationary space”, wherein it is unclear whether an additional, separate and distinct space is required for anticipation or infringement. Moreover, it is unclear what the structural differences between “a stationary building” and “a free-standing stationary space” would be for the purposes of anticipation or infringement. It is noted that a stationary building is necessarily free-standing. For examination purposes, the body of the claim will simply be construed as –configured as a free-standing stationary structure—.
Claim 19 contains the following issues:
The recitation of “the liquefier” (in line 11) lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear whether the liquefier is equivalent to the condenser, or if it pertains to a separate and distinct structure. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –the condenser—.
The claim recites “the primary working fluid” (in line 17) without proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the recitation will instead be construed as –a primary working fluid—.
The claim recites “a natural primary working fluid” (in line 23) despite the recitation in line 17. It is unclear whether a separate and distinct primary working fluid is required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –the primary working fluid—.
The claim recites “a secondary fluid that differs from the primary working fluid” (in lines 25-26), despite reciting the same in line 17. It is unclear whether a separate and distinct secondary fluid is required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the recitation will simply be construed as –the secondary fluid—.
The claim recites “a response to the control signal” (in line 31) despite the recitation in line 20. It is unclear whether a separate and distinct response to the control signal is required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –the response to the control signal—.
Claim 20 contains the following issues:
The recitation of “the liquefier” (in line 7) lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear whether the liquefier is equivalent to the condenser, or if it pertains to a separate and distinct structure. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –the condenser—.
The claim recites “a natural primary working fluid” (in line 20) despite reciting the same in line 6. It is unclear whether a separate and distinct natural primary working fluid is required for infringement. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –the natural primary working fluid—.
The claim recites “a line arrangement” (in line 22) despite already reciting the same in lines 11-12. It is unclear whether a separate and distinct line arrangement is required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –the line arrangement—.
The claim recites “a secondary fluid that differs from the primary working fluid” (in lines 24-25) despite already reciting the same in lines 12-13. It is unclear whether a separate and distinct secondary fluid is required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –the secondary fluid—.
The claim recites “a response to the control signal” (in line 27) despite the recitation in lines 15-16. It is unclear whether a separate and distinct response to the control signal is required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –the response to the control signal—.
The claim recites “a conveying direction in the secondary circuit” (in line 32) despite the recitation in line 15. It is unclear whether a separate and distinct conveying direction is required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –the conveying direction in the secondary circuit—.
Any remaining claims are rejected at least by virtue of their dependency.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9, 11-12, 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Kirol et al. (US 6631624 B1), herein Kirol.
As per claim 1, Kirol discloses an apparatus (11, 35, etc.) for temperature-controlling a space to be temperature-controlled (e.g., via 26 and related components) with a space limitation (e.g., walls of the indoor space; column 5, line 21) separating the space to be temperature-controlled from a surrounding area (e.g., an outside; see at least figs. 1-6), comprising:
a primary heat pump circuit (11) with an evaporator (27 or 46), a condenser (28), a compressor (21, 30), and an expansion element (15, 55), wherein the primary heat pump circuit (11) comprises a natural primary working fluid (e.g., aqua-ammonia; see at least column 5, line 35), wherein the evaporator (27 or 46), the condenser (28), the compressor (21, 30), and the expansion element (15, 55) are arranged outside of the space to be temperature-controlled (see at least figs. 4-6);
a secondary circuit (35, 35’, 75) thermally coupled to and fluidically decoupled from the evaporator (27 or 46) or the condenser (28) via a heat exchanger (via 24 or 39) and comprising a temperature-controlling element (26) arranged in the space to be temperature-controlled (column 3, lines 14-16) and configured to be connected to the heat exchanger (24 or 39) via a line arrangement comprising a secondary fluid (e.g., PCF in fig. 4) that differs from the primary working fluid (aqua-ammonia; NH3 in fig. 4), wherein the line arrangement is suitable to penetrate the space limitation (evident from at least the coil going into 26), wherein the secondary circuit (35, 75, etc.) is configured as a thermosiphon cycle (see at least column 2, lines 9-11), and wherein a controllable pump (19, 32, etc.) configured to reverse a conveying direction in the secondary circuit (35, 75, etc.) as a response to a control signal (e.g., cycle selection; column 4, lines 31-35) is arranged in the secondary circuit (see at least figs. 4-6);
wherein the apparatus is configured to cool the space by means of the temperature-controlling element (26) in a refrigeration mode (column 5, lines 24-28); and
a controller configured to cause (by selectively supplying heating and cooling; see at least column 4, lines 26-28), as a response to the control signal (i.e., the cycle selection; column 4, line 35), a heat pump cycle reversal (e.g., via 25) in the primary heat pump circuit (11) so that, in the refrigeration mode (see fig. 4 and column 4, lines 64-67), energy is dissipated from the heat exchanger (24 or 39) through the primary heat pump circuit (by turning liquid NH3 into vapor; see fig. 4 and column 5, lines 13-28), and so that, in a defrosting mode (e.g., the heating mode; see at least column 5, lines 28-30), energy is supplied to the heat exchanger (24 or 39) through the primary heat pump circuit (11) in order to defrost3 (via heating) the temperature-controlling element (26), and the conveying direction in the secondary circuit (35, 75, etc.) is reversed by the controllable pump (see at least column 5, lines 30-32 and column 6, lines 9-11).
As per claim 2, Kirol discloses wherein the controller is configured to cause, via the control signal (i.e., the cycle selection), the heat pump cycle reversal (via 25) of the primary heat pump circuit (11) such that the heat exchanger (24 or 39) changes its function from evaporation to condensation or vice versa (e.g., evident from the direction of flow shown in at least fig. 4).
As per claim 4, Kirol discloses wherein the evaporator (27 or 46) or the condenser (28) of the primary heat pump circuit (11) are configured to be integrated into the heat exchanger (24 in fig. 1; wherein 27 is omitted).
As per claim 7, Kirol discloses wherein the temperature-controlling element (26) comprises a finned heat exchanger (evident from the fin lines of 26 in fig. 1).
As per claim 9, Kirol discloses wherein the temperature-controlling element (26) is arranged with respect to the heat exchanger (24 or 39) such that it is flooded by the secondary fluid (the PCF), wherein, in the refrigeration mode (e.g., see at least fig. 1), temperature-controlling is cooling (see arrow next to 26) and the heat exchanger (24 or 39) is coupled to the evaporator (27 or 46) of the primary heat pump circuit (11; e.g., see fig. 5).
As per claim 11, Kirol discloses wherein the heat exchanger (24 or 39) comprises: a first connection portion (lower left portion from 31) for the primary working fluid (liquid NH3; see at least fig. 4); a second connection portion (upper left portion towards 25) for the primary working fluid (vapor NH3); a third connection portion (upper portion from 26) for the secondary fluid (vapor PCF); a fourth connection portion (bottom portion towards 18) for the secondary fluid (liquid PCF); a channel portion (chamber inside 24) extending between the first connection portion (lower left portion from 31) for the primary working fluid and the second connection portion (upper left portion towards 25) for the primary working fluid (see at least fig. 4); and an interaction region (e.g., central region of 24) extending between the third connection portion (upper portion from 26) for the secondary fluid and the fourth connection portion (bottom portion towards 18) for the secondary fluid and having arranged therein the channel portion (i.e., the zig-zag coil), wherein the channel portion is thermally coupled to the interaction region and fluidically decoupled from the interaction region (evident from at least fig. 4).
As per claim 12, Kirol discloses wherein the compressor (21, 30) is configured in the primary heat pump circuit (11) to be controllable so as to be reversed in its conveying direction by the control signal to cause the heat pump cycle reversal (column 4, lines 31-35).
As per claim 13, Kirol discloses a blower (fan next to 26) arranged in the space to be temperature-controlled within the space limitation (see at least fig. 4) so as to move air past the temperature-controlling element (26), or a blower (fan next to 28) arranged outside of the space limitation so as to move air past the condenser (28) of the primary heat pump circuit (11).
As per claim 15, Kirol discloses wherein the heat exchanger (24 or 39) comprises the evaporator (see fig. 4; wherein liquid NH3 turns to vapor in 24) of the primary heat pump circuit (11), and the heat exchanger (24 or 39) thermally couples the primary heat pump circuit (11) and the secondary heat pump circuit (35, 75, etc.).
As per claim 16, Kirol discloses a space limitation (e.g., walls of the indoor space where 26 is located) separating the space from a surrounding area (evident from at least column 5, lines 20-22).
As per claim 18, Kirol discloses configured as a free-standing stationary space (i.e., the indoor space; column 5, line 21).
As per claim 19, Kirol discloses a method for temperature-controlling a space to be temperature-controlled (via 26) with a space limitation (e.g., walls of the room or indoor space) separating the space to be temperature-controlled from a surrounding area (i.e., an outside), with a primary heat pump circuit (11) with an evaporator (27 or 46), a condenser (28), a compressor (21, 30), and an expansion element (15, 55), wherein the evaporator (27 or 46), the condenser (28), the compressor (21, 30), and the expansion element (15, 55) are arranged outside of the space to be temperature-controlled (evident from their separate location from 26); and a secondary circuit (35, 75, etc.) thermally coupled to and fluidically decoupled from the evaporator (27 or 46) or the condenser (28) via a heat exchanger (24 or 39) and comprising a temperature-controlling element (26) arranged in the space to be temperature-controlled (column 5, lines 20-22) and connected to the heat exchanger (24 or 39) via a line arrangement comprising a secondary fluid (PCF) that differs from a primary working fluid (NH3), wherein the line arrangement penetrates the space limitation (via 26), wherein the secondary circuit (35, 75) is configured as a thermosiphon cycle (see at least column 2, lines 9-11), and wherein a controllable pump (19, 32, etc.) configured to reverse a conveying direction in the secondary circuit (35, 75) as a response to a control signal (e.g., cycle selection; column 4, lines 31-35) is arranged in the secondary circuit (see at least figs. 4-6), the method comprising:
using, in the primary heat pump circuit (11), the primary working fluid (NH3);
using, in the line arrangement of the secondary circuit (35, 75), the secondary fluid (PCF) that differs from the primary working fluid (NH3),
wherein temperature-controlling in a refrigeration mode (column 5, lines 24-28) comprises cooling the space by means of the temperature-controlling element (26); and
as the response to the control signal (the cycle selection), causing a heat pump cycle reversal (e.g., via 25) in the primary heat pump circuit (11) so that, in the refrigeration mode, energy is dissipated from the heat exchanger (24 or 39) through the primary heat pump circuit (11; see fig. 4 and column 5, lines 13-28), and so that, in a defrosting mode (e.g., the heating mode), energy is supplied to the heat exchanger (24 or 39) through the primary heat pump circuit (11), in order to defrost (via heating) the temperature-controlling element (26), and the conveying direction in the secondary circuit (35, 75) is reversed by the controllable pump (column 5 lines 30-32 and column 6, lines 9-11).
As per claim 20, Kirol discloses a method for manufacturing an apparatus for temperature-controlling a space to be temperature-controlled (via 26) with a space limitation (e.g., walls) separating the space to be temperature-controlled from a surrounding area (i.e., outside), comprising: a primary heat pump circuit (11) with an evaporator (27 or 46), a condenser (28), a compressor (21, 30), and an expansion element (15, 55), wherein the primary heat pump circuit (11) comprises a natural primary working fluid (NH3), wherein the evaporator (27 or 46), the condenser (28), the compressor (21, 30), and the expansion element (15, 55) are arranged outside of the space to be temperature-controlled (see at least figs. 4-5); a secondary circuit (35, 75, etc.) thermally coupled to and fluidically decoupled from the evaporator (27 or 46) or the condenser (28) via a heat exchanger (24) and comprising a temperature-controlling element (26) arranged in the space to be temperature-controlled (see at least fig. 4) and connected to the heat exchanger (24) via a line arrangement comprising a secondary fluid (PCF) that differs from the primary working fluid (NH3), wherein the line arrangement penetrates the space limitation (via 26), wherein the secondary circuit (35, 75) is configured as a thermosiphon cycle (see at least column 2, lines 9-11), and wherein a controllable pump (19, 32) configured to reverse a conveying direction in the secondary circuit (35, 75) as a response to a control signal (e.g., cycle selection; column 4, lines 31-35) is arranged in the secondary circuit (35, 75), wherein, in a refrigeration mode (column 5, lines 24-28), the apparatus is configured to cool the space by means of the temperature-controlling element (26), the method comprising:
introducing (evident by the existence of NH3 in 11) the natural primary working fluid (NH3) into the primary heat pump circuit (11);
manufacturing a line arrangement (lines of 35) that penetrates the space limitation (26);
introducing (evident from the PCF in 35), into the line arrangement, a secondary fluid (PCF) that differs from the primary working fluid (NH3); and
manufacturing a controller configured to cause (by selectively supplying heating and cooling), as a response to the control signal (see at least column 4, lines 26-28), a heat pump cycle reversal (via 25) in the primary heat pump circuit (11) so that, in the refrigeration mode, energy is dissipated (by turning liquid NH3 to vapor) from the heat exchanger (24) through the primary heat pump circuit (11), and so that, in a defrosting mode (the heating mode), energy is supplied to the heat exchanger (24) through the primary heat pump circuit (11) so as to defrost (via heating) the temperature-controlling element (26), and a conveying direction in the secondary circuit (35, 75) is reversed by means of the controllable pump (column 5 lines 30-32 and column 6, lines 9-11).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirol (US 6631624 B1) in view of Murakami et al. (US 20080190130 A1), herein Murakami.
As per claim 3, Kirol may not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the control signal originates from a sensor at the temperature-controlling element, from a sensor in the space to be temperature-controlled, or from a clock generator so that the apparatus is brought into the defrosting mode at regular or irregular points in time.
On the other hand, Murakami, directed to a heat pump system, discloses wherein the control signal (¶ 37) originates from a sensor (84) at the temperature-controlling element (50).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.4
As per (1), Murakami teaches that the controller receives input signals that are indicative of the various operational parameters through the use of sensors (¶ 37). The information from the sensors is then used to properly execute control operations for the system (¶ 38). As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Murakami has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the sensors, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Kirol. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both Kirol and Murakami are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. heat pumps). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Kirol may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Murakami, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Kirol by virtue of suggesting the proper controlling of the system based on sensor data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Kirol and to have modified them with the teachings of Murakami, by having the control signal originate from a sensor at the temperature-controlling element, in order to improve the controller algorithms by using sensed data, as similarly suggested by Murakami, without yielding unpredictable results.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirol (US 6631624 B1) in view of Aldridge (US 2125041 A).
As per claim 5, Kirol discloses wherein the heat exchanger (24) and the temperature-controlling element (26) are arranged so as to be spaced apart by up to 50 meters (i.e., there is a spatial separation between 24 and 26 as evidenced by at least fig. 1), wherein the controllable pump (19, 32, etc.) is arranged in the line arrangement (of 35).
However, Kirol may not appear to explicitly disclose the controllable pump comprising an internal stator or an external stator is arranged in the line arrangement.
On the other hand, Aldridge, directed to a pump, discloses a controllable pump (see fig. 1) comprising an internal stator (14).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.5
As per (1), Aldridge teaches that the stator is used along with other components to cause the liquid to flow (page 2, lines 60-63). As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Aldridge has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the stator, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Kirol. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both Kirol and Aldridge are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. systems with pumps). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Kirol may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Aldridge, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Kirol by virtue of suggesting a structure to cause the flow of fluid inside the pump.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Kirol and to have modified them with the teachings of Aldridge, by having an internal stator, in order to cause the fluid to flow, as similarly suggested by Aldridge, without yielding unpredictable results.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirol (US 6631624 B1) in view of Yamada et al (US 20220316765 A1), herein Yamada.
As per claim 6, Kirol may not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the heat exchanger comprises a micro-channel heat exchanger, a plate heat exchanger, or a finned heat exchanger.
On the other hand, Yamada, directed to an air conditioner, discloses wherein the heat exchanger (35) comprises a plate heat exchanger (¶ 29).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.6
As per (1), Yamada explicitly teaches that using a plate heat exchanger allows for heat to be efficiently exchanged between both fluids (¶ 54). As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Yamada has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the plate heat exchanger, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Kirol. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both references are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. heat pumps). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Kirol may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Yamada, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Kirol by virtue of suggesting efficient heat exchange between both fluids.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Kirol and to have modified them with the teachings of Yamada, by having the heat exchanger comprise a plate heat exchanger, in order to efficiently exchange heat between both fluids, as similarly suggested by Yamada, without yielding unpredictable results.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirol (US 6631624 B1) in view of Seki et al. (JP 2008096084 A), herein Seki.
As per claim 10, Kirol discloses wherein the temperature-controlling element (26) is elongated (see at least fig. 1).
However, Kirol may not explicitly disclose wherein it comprises an oblique orientation with respect to a horizontal line, wherein the secondary fluid flows from top to bottom in its liquid state due to gravity or a pump force or a ventilator force or due to a heat exchanger arranged accordingly in the temperature-controlling element.
On the other hand, Suki, directed to a thermosiphon, discloses a temperature controlling element (52) that comprises an oblique orientation with respect to a horizontal line (see at least fig. 5), wherein the secondary fluid (52a) flows from top to bottom (see arrows) in its liquid state (hatched fluid) due to gravity in the temperature-controlling element (see ¶ 12).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.7
As per (1), Suki explicitly teaches that using gravity allows the refrigerant to diffuse naturally thereby securing increased heat transfer and reducing the amount of refrigerant required (¶ 12). As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Suki has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the orientation of the element, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Kirol. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both references are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. heat pumps). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Kirol may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Suki, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Kirol by virtue of suggesting improved heat transfer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Kirol and to have modified them with the teachings of Suki, by having an oblique orientation with respect to a horizontal line, wherein the secondary fluid flows from top to bottom in its liquid state due to gravity or a pump force or a ventilator force or due to a heat exchanger arranged accordingly in the temperature-controlling element, in order to improve heat transfer, as similarly suggested by Suki, without yielding unpredictable results.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirol (US 6631624 B1) in view of Aflekt et al. (US 20050103487 A1), herein Aflekt.
As per claim 17, Kirol may not appear to explicitly disclose the system configured as a mobile transport container or as a space in a vehicle for being conveyed on water, on the road, on the rail, in the air, or in space.
On the other hand, Aflekt, directed to a vapor compression cycle, discloses the system configured as a vehicle (¶ 1).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.8
As per (1), Aflekt discloses a heat pump system that is used to provide comfort heating or cooling to a vehicle cabin or passenger compartment (¶ 1). As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Aflekt has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the vehicle, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Kirol. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both references are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. heat pumps). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Kirol may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Aflekt, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Kirol by virtue of suggesting providing comfort to a vehicle or passenger compartment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Kirol and to have modified them with the teachings of Aflekt, by having the space as a vehicle, in order to provide comfort to passengers, as similarly suggested by Aflekt, without yielding unpredictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all9 of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art, when taken as a whole, does not appear to reasonably anticipate or render prima facie obvious the claimed invention as currently recited in said claims. There are no teachings of record that disclose or suggest the structural configurations claimed therein. Absent impermissible hindsight, one of ordinary skill would have not modified the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.
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).
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 at least ¶ 5 and fig. 1 of the printed publication: US 20240263851 A1.
2 See at least ¶ 51 and fig. 1, id.
3 The manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, since apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. MPEP § 2114 (II).
4 See MPEP § 2143.
5 See MPEP § 2143.
6 See MPEP § 2143.
7 See MPEP § 2143.
8 See MPEP § 2143.
9 Disclaimer: failure to include all the intervening limitations will result in a different claim scope, which may require a new grounds of rejection prior to a final determination of allowability.
Prosecution Insights