Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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 reheat system” in claim 1, line 9 and claim 10, line 9. Although this system is discussed in ¶ 29 of the specification (as numbered in the original filing) it is described only in terms of its connection to the reheat branch 22 and its use “during dehumidification of pool environment air” and the structure of the system used to perform the function of “reheat” is not described. See the rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) as set forth below.
“a heat reclaim system” in claim 8, line 9 and claim 10, line 15, interpreted according to the teachings of ¶ 29 of the specification as including a heat exchanger in the environment control system and arranged to directly heat pool water using residual heat of the environment control system and equivalents thereof.
“a pool environment control system” in claim 15, line 2, interpreted according to the teachings of ¶ 29 as including at least a compressor, appropriate valves, an air-cooled condenser, and a heat reclaim system (which is interpreted as a water-heating heat exchanger as discussed above) and equivalents thereof.
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.
It is noted that “a pool environment control system” as taught in line 1 of claim 1 has not been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim includes recitations of an air-cooled condenser system which are found to be sufficient to perform the recited function of “pool environment control”. Further, MPEP 2181(I) Determining Whether A Claim Limitation Invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph indicates that “When applicant merely states an intended use of the claimed invention in the preamble (e.g., "A device for printing, comprising ..."), the examiner should not construe such language as reciting a means-plus-function limitation.” so that interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not appropriate. In claim 1, the preamble identifies the intended use of the claimed “system” in “pool environment control”.
In contrast, a pool environment control system” in claim 15 has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as described above because the invention recited in that claim is “A non-transitory computer readable media” rather than the “pool environment control system” itself so that the claim does not “merely [state] an intended use of the claimed invention in the preamble” by this recitation.
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 1-14 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.
As discussed above, the recitations in claim 1, line 9 and claim 10, line 9 regarding “a reheat system” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) by the recitation of the generic placeholder term “system” combined with the functional language “reheat” but the specification does not teach the structure of the system by which the function of “reheat” is achieved, with the specification teaching only the connection of the reheat system to the reheat check branch and the further functional language that “Generally, the reheat system 26 is used during dehumidification of pool environment air”. Because the specification does not teach the structure which is regarded as applicant’s invention, claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-9 and 11-14 are rejected as depending upon base claims which have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 1-14 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.
As discussed above, the recitations in claim 1, line 9 and claim 10, line 9 regarding “a reheat system” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) by the recitation of the generic placeholder term “system” combined with the functional language “reheat” but the specification does not teach the structure of the system by which the function of “reheat” is achieved. Because the claims do not clearly identify the structure or equipment which performs this function and thus the subject matter which is regarded as the claimed invention, the scopes of claims 1 and 10 cannot be positively ascertained and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claims 2-9 and 11-14 are rejected as depending upon base claims which have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15-20 is allowed. Particularly, claim 15 teaches a non-transitory computer readable media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereof to be to be executed by a circuit of a pool environment control system to cause the system to perform opening and closing controls of a reheat soft-start electronic solenoid valve and a reheat primary electric solenoid valve according to a predetermined reheat soft-start time and perform opening and closing controls of an air-cooled condenser soft-start electronic solenoid valve and an air-cooled condenser primary electric solenoid valve according to a predetermined air-cooled condenser soft-start time.
Claims 1-14 are considered to read over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed combination of features including claim 1’s pool environment control system, having a reheat branch including reheat soft-start and primary electronic/electric solenoid valves and a reheat check valve fluidly coupling a compressor to a reheat system and further including air-cooled condenser soft-start and primary electronic/electric solenoid valves and a air-cooled condenser check valve fluidly coupling the compressor to a reheat system as taught in claim 1 and a multi-mode valve manifold comprising a primary rail and a soft-start rail fluidly coupled to an upstream isolation valve, a reheat branch including a reheat soft-start electronic solenoid valve coupled to the soft-start rail, a reheat primary electric solenoid valve coupled to the primary rail, and a reheat isolation valve coupled to the reheat solenoid valves and selectively providing fluid flow to a reheat system; a heat reclaim branch including a heat reclaim soft-start electronic solenoid valve coupled to the soft-start rail, a heat reclaim primary electric solenoid valve coupled to the primary rail, and a heat reclaim isolation valve coupled to the heat reclaim solenoid valves and selectively providing fluid flow to a heat reclaim system; and an air-cooled condenser branch including an air-cooled condenser soft-start electronic solenoid valve coupled to the soft-start rail, an air-cooled condenser primary electric solenoid valve coupled to the primary rail, and an air-cooled condenser isolation valve coupled to the air-cooled condenser solenoid valves and selectively providing fluid flow to an air-cooled condenser system as taught in claim 10. Further, depending claims 16-20 all depend upon claim 15, indicated allowable above.
However, these claims cannot be considered "allowable" at this time due to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) set forth in this Office Action. Specifically, claims 1 and 10 (and the claims depending therefrom) are rejected under both 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) based on the recitation of “a reheat system” which has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) but for which the specification does not teach adequate structure to perform the recited function of “reheat”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 11 of the reply that the amendments to the specification and the claims, particularly regarding the use of “electronic solenoid”, “soft-start”, and “air-cooled condenser”, as well as the removal of “may” language from the Abstract, overcome the objections to the specification and claims set forth in the Non-Final Rejection of 17 November 2025.
In response, examiner agrees and these objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues on pp. 11-14 of the reply that the interpretations of the instant claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (and the rejections based on these interpretations in the case of claims 1 and 10) are improper and should therefore be withdrawn. The arguments with regard to the specific recitations interpreted under this section are individually summarized and addressed below.
Regarding “a reheat system” in claims 1 and 10, applicant argues on pp. 12 that “Electronic solenoid valves, check valves, isolation valves, and manifolds are well-known physical devices for routing fluid flow and are not nonce terms.”
In response, examiner agrees but notes that these elements have not been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and are not presented in the claims or specification as structure for the “reheat system”. Specifically, claims 1 and 10 teach (with emphasis by examiner):
Claim 1: “a reheat check valve fluidly coupled to the reheat soft-start electronic solenoid valve and the reheat primary electric solenoid valve, the reheat check valve configured to provide fluid communication with a reheat system”
Claim 10: “a reheat isolation valve coupled to the reheat soft-start electronic solenoid valve and the reheat primary electric solenoid valve and configured to selectively provide fluid flow to a reheat system”
As can be seen, the check valve and solenoid valves of claim 1 and the isolation valve and solenoid valves are taught to connect or communicate with “a reheat system”, not to make up or constitute such a system so that applicant’s assertion that these elements being “well-known physical devices” is not relevant to the interpretation of the reheat system.
Applicant further argues on pg. 12 that “Paragraph [0029] further explains that "a pool environment control system 10 includes a compressor 14 ... an upstream isolation valve 18 (e.g., a ball valve) ... [and] a multi-mode valve manifold 21 [having] a reheat branch 22 that selectively fluidly couples the upstream isolation valve 18 to a reheat system 26," and that "the reheat system 26 is used during dehumidification of pool environment air." This establishes that the "reheat system" is the downstream hardware subsystem fed by the reheat branch when the solenoid valves and check/isolation valves are opened, and that it functions to reheat dehumidified air using hot refrigerant from the compressor.”
While examiner agrees with this characterization of the teachings of the instant specification, the “reheat system” is taught as a different element from “a reheat branch” in ¶ 29 so that the structure of the branch does not define the structure which is required of the reheat system. Further, the teaching that “the reheat system 26 is used during dehumidification of pool environment air” simply describes the function of the system rather than identifying the structure required by the system to perform this function or the primarily recited function of “reheat”. Even if the teachings of ¶ 29 are taken as requiring that the reheat system be “the downstream hardware subsystem fed by the reheat branch when the solenoid valves and check/isolation valves are opened” this recitation describes only structure for controlling the flow of refrigerant (valves which are opened and closed) and not any structure actually performing the recited function of “reheat” so that this passage is not found to properly identify the structure of “a reheat system” in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or for demonstrating that the structure is sufficiently well known that such interpretation is not proper.
Applicant further argues on pg. 12 that “‘a reheat system’ denotes a definite class of hardware” as a person of ordinary skill would understand it to refer to “a structural assembly including at least a hot-gas reheat coil or heat exchanger in the air stream and associated piping and controls”.
In response, examiner disagrees. Although such a “coil or heat exchanger” may provide one structure for a “reheat system”, it is not clear whether one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed would have understood this to be the only possible interpretation. For example, the use of the word “system” may be taken as indicating or requiring structure beyond a single heat exchanger with no bounds for understanding how little structure (e.g. a heat exchanger taken alone) or how much structure (an arrangement of multiple heat exchangers or a heat exchanger provided with an associated controller, sensors, and flow control valves) are to be understood as the bounds of this recitation.
For example, the term “reheat system” is used in the prior art to refer to a range of structures beyond a simple single heat exchanger. In US Publication No. 2006/0107685 A1 to Lifson in ¶ 4, it is taught that “Known reheat systems require additional heat exchangers, flow control devices, piping, etc.” and in US Publication No. 2004/0089015 A1 to Knight there is taught in ¶ 4 “a reheat system that includes a reheat coil and a condenser coil configured in a parallel arrangement”. In US Publication No. 2020/0378630 A1 to Kalambe et al., a prior art air conditioning system (10) is discussed in ¶ 3 which includes a “hot gas reheat system 12” which includes a reheat coil coupled to a three-way control valve, while in an inventive system of Kalambe there is taught a more complex “hot gas reheat system 102” including a reheat coil (104) and a reheat control valve (180) and bypass valve (170) in ¶ 26. As all of these structures, each requiring or permitting structure beyond a single refrigerant-to-air heat exchanger to various extents, are all understood in the art as “reheat systems”, examiner does not find that the structure required by this phrase is sufficiently specific that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the specific structure required by the recitation as applicant asserts. For these reasons, applicant’s argument is not found to be persuasive and the interpretation of “a reheat system” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as well as the rejections of claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) resulting therefrom are maintained.
Applicant argues on pp. 12-13 of the reply “a heat reclaim system” in claims 8 and 10 should not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for reasons similar to those discussed above with regard to the “reheat system”, identifying the structure of valves and branches connecting to such a system.
As with the reheat system, the heat reclaim system is not taught to comprise or to be defined by these valves and branches so their structure or status as known structural elements is not relevant in defining the structure of the heat reclaim system for the same reasons discussed above.
Applicant further argues on pg. 13 that “‘a heat reclaim system’ in this context denotes a concrete hardware subsystem that includes, at minimum, a refrigerant-to-water heat exchanger and associated piping and controls for heating pool water with recovered heat, and is not a generic functional "means" subject to § 112(f).”
As with the reheat system, examiner disagrees. The term “system” may be taken as encompassing a broad scope of structure for the claimed function of “heat reclaim” which may include but is certainly not limited to a refrigerant-to-water heat exchanger so that the bounds required by the term “heat reclaim system” are not understood as being sufficiently specific to identify only the precise structure intended as applicant’s invention.
As above, use of the term in the prior art demonstrates a range of understandings of the term “heat reclaim system”. In US Publication No. 2023/0151894 A1 to Bryant et al. in ¶¶ 18 and 33, an exemplary heat reclaim system is discussed which comprises a valve assembly (12) for directing hot gas from an outlet of a compressor (14) to a heat reclaim coil (18) in thermal communication with and installed in parallel to an evaporator coil (24) in a refrigerant circuit. Similarly, in US Publication No. 2026/0009563 A1 to Shanmugam et al., a system is discussed in one embodiment (taught in ¶ 41) having first and second heat reclaim systems which include various structure, including a water heater and a controller in the case of the second heat reclaim system and in another embodiment (taught in ¶ 63) there is taught a heat reclaim system 200 which “includes an air heat reclaim unit (e.g., an air heat reclaim coil), a water heat reclaim unit 240 (e.g., a water heat reclaim coil), a gas cooler 204, and a receiver tank 206. As these structures, each requiring or permitting structure beyond a single water-to-refrigerant heat exchanger to various extents, are all understood in the art as “heat reclaim systems”, examiner does not find that the structure required by this phrase is sufficiently specific that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the specific structure required by the recitation as applicant asserts. For these reasons, applicant’s argument is not found to be persuasive and the interpretation of “heat reclaim system” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as well as the rejections of claims 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) resulting therefrom are maintained.
Applicant argues on pp. 13-14 of the reply that “a pool environment control system” in claim 15 “simply designates the control circuit of this structurally defined system, and the non-transitory computer-readable media recited in claims 15-20 encode instructions that cause the system to perform specific control functions” but that “The ‘pool environment control system’ could be other systems not described or shown in the application so long as the explicitly recited elements of claim 15 are present.” and that for this reason claim 15 should not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
In response, examiner disagrees. Claim 15 recites “a non-transitory computer readable medium having computer-executable instructions embodied therein that, when executed by a circuit of a pool environmental control system, causes the pool environment control system” to perform certain functions. The computer readable medium is not taught as an element of the “a pool environmental control system” but is only claimed as being having instructions that are executed by this system. Likewise, the only structure recited for the a pool environmental control system is “a circuit” with other elements (such as the solenoid valves taught to be opened and closed in lines 4-15 of claim 15) not being taught as elements of the “a pool environmental control system” or of the “circuit of a pool environmental control system”. Further, taken with only the teachings in the claim, “a circuit” is not sufficient structure to perform the claimed function of “pool environmental control” as a circuit refers only to a circulating flow of fluid (or an electrical circuit or digital circuit, given the recited role in executing computer readable instructions) without requiring heat exchangers or any other structure capable conditioning an environment.
As applicant notes, the pool environmental control system could encompass a broad range of other structures and it is for this reason that interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is found to be proper; one of ordinary skill would not know the precise structure required by the claims without the accompanying teachings of the specification.
For these reasons, applicant’s arguments have not been found to be persuasive and the interpretation of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been maintained.
Applicant argues on pg. 14 that the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) should be withdrawn because “reheat systems are well known in the art” so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the specific structure required by the teachings of the claims which have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as discussed above and so that this phrase taken alone and without further teaching of structure is sufficient written description and identifies sufficiently definite structure to obviate such rejections.
In response, examiner disagrees. As demonstrated above through reference to several prior art references, the structure required by the phrase “a reheat system” is understood in the art to vary significantly as the term describes the function of such a system rather than the structural elements which perform such a function. For this reason, the mere fact that one of ordinary skill could identify some structure for performing the claimed function is not sufficient to demonstrate that they would have definitively known the specific structure applicant regards as their invention or what other structures would or would not fall within the scope of the invention. For this reason, the teachings of claims 1-14 are found to lack compliance with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and to lack definiteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the rejections set forth in the Non-Final Rejection are maintained.
Applicant argues on pg. 14 that the amendment to claim 16 regarding the deletion of the word “source” from the phrase “source functions” and removal of the phrase “one or more” in referring to recited tasks of the claims overcome the rejections of claims 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the Non-Final Rejection.
In response, examiner agrees and these rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C COMINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
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.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763