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
Claims 2-5, 8-11 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2 and 8 each recite “three three” in line 2. This is presumed to be a typographical error and the second occurrence of three is interpreted to be deleted.
Claims 4-5 and 9-11 are objected to based on dependency from an objected to clam.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a condenser unit” in claims 1 and 7 and “an expansion device” in claims 6 and 12.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“a condenser unit” corresponds to a compressor, air conditioner, or heat pump as described in paragraph 0006 of the published application;
“an expansion device” corresponds to a conventional thermal expansion valve, a mixed-phase regulator and surge vessel (reservoir) or the like as described in paragraph 0036 of the published application.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanamurthy et al (US 20080034760) in view of Jayarathne (US 2020/0271354).
Regarding claim 1, Narayanamurthy teaches a thermal storage and cooling system (fig. 2), comprising: a condenser unit (111, 102) configured to receive warm refrigerant and supply cool refrigerant (refrigerant comes out of the condenser as a warm, high-pressure liquid refrigerant delivered through a high-pressure liquid supply line 112 to an expansion device 130, Low-pressure vapor phase and liquid refrigerant is then returned to compressor 110 via low pressure return line 118 completing the refrigeration loop, paragraph 0015); a first supply line (annotated fig. below) capable of supplying the cool refrigerant from the condenser unit to a vessel (146); a second supply line (annotated fig. below) that carries the cool refrigerant from the bottom of the vessel to either a primary heat exchanger (106) or to an evaporator coil (122) inside an air handler (150); the primary heat exchanger, comprising: a tank (140) that holds ice and water (fluid/ice, paragraph 0016); and a plurality of coils (142) that run vertically from the bottom of the tank to the top of the tank through the ice and water (paragraph 0016, Fig. 1); a first return line (annotated fig. below) that carries gas phase refrigerant and connects the coils at the top of the tank to the condenser unit (paragraph 0015) and also connects the coils at the top of the tank to the top of the vessel (paragraph 0021); a refrigerant pump (120) configured to suck the cool refrigerant from the bottom of the vessel and from the bottom of the tank through the second supply line and direct it to the evaporator coil (paragraph 0019); and the air handler, enabling the air handler to blow warm air across the evaporator coil, thus generating a stream of cooler air (paragraph 0019) and warming the cold refrigerant (paragraph 0019), wherein after passing through the evaporator coil the warm refrigerant is returned through a second return line (annotate fig. below) to the vessel but fails to explicitly teach wherein the evaporator coil is integrated inside the air handler.
PNG
media_image1.png
662
914
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Jayarathne teaches an HVAC system wherein evaporator 80 is disposed within air handler 108 (Fig. 5; para. 0039; etc.) to facilitate he flow of air across the evaporator and into the space to be conditioned.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to modify the evaporator of Narayanamurthy et al. to be integrated inside the air handler in view of Jayarathne for the simple purpose of facilitating the flow of air across the evaporator and into the space to be conditioned.
Further, it is understood, claim 1 includes an intended use recitation, for example “configured to”, “capable of”, and “is returned”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claims 2 and 8, the combined teachings teach the system is configured to operate in one of three modes: ice make mode (ice make, paragraph 0022 of Narayanamurthy), ice melt mode (ice melt, paragraph 0022 of Narayanamurthy) and direct cooling mode (direct cooling, paragraph 0030, 0033 of Narayanamurthy), wherein ice make mode generates ice inside the tank (form ice, paragraph 0006, 0018, 0022 of Narayanamurthy), ice melt mode uses the ice in the tank to generate cooling (cooling, paragraph 0019, 0022 of Narayanamurthy) and direct cooling mode uses the condenser unit to provide cooling (paragraph 0033 of Narayanamurthy).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, the combined teachings teach when operating in ice make mode the second supply line is configured to direct the cold refrigerant from the bottom of the vessel only to the bottom of the coils in the tank, wherein the water in the tank warms the refrigerant causing it to boil and generate gas phase refrigerant that rises through the coils (paragraph 0022, 0025 of Narayanamurthy).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, the combined teachings teach operating in ice melt mode: the condenser unit is turned off and doesn't supply refrigerant (paragraph 0019 with valves, paragraph 0025 of Narayanamurthy); vapor phase refrigerant inside the vessel is sucked out the vessel through vapor lines emanating from the top of vessel and enter the coils at the top of the tank; the vapor phase refrigerant condenses as it descends through the coils to the bottom of the tank to form cool liquid phase refrigerant; and the second supply line is configured to direct the cold liquid phase refrigerant from the bottom of the vessel and from the coils at the bottom of the tank to the evaporator coil inside the air handler (paragraph 0019 of Narayanamurthy, Fig. 5; para. 0039 of Jayarathne).
Regarding claims 5 and 11, the combined teaching teach when operating in direct cooling mode: the condenser unit generates cool refrigerant which flows through the first supply line into the vessel; the cool refrigerant at the bottom of vessel is sucked out by the pump through the second supply line and is directed to the evaporator coil; no refrigerant is drawn from the tank; the action of the air handler warms the refrigerant inside the evaporator coil, resulting in warmer liquid and gas phase refrigerant; the warmer liquid and gas phase refrigerant returns to the vessel through the second return line; and gas phase refrigerant inside the vessel returns to the condenser unit through a return line where it is transformed to cool liquid phase refrigerant (fig. 5, paragraph 0033 of Narayanamurthy).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, the combined teaching teach an expansion device (130 of Narayanamurthy), wherein the expansion device is inline with the first supply line that carries the cool refrigerant from the condenser unit to the vessel, further cooling the refrigerant (fig. 2 of Narayanamurthy).
Regarding claim 7, Narayanamurthy teaches a thermal storage and cooling device (fig. 2) that integrates with a condenser unit (111, 102) and an air handler (150), comprising: a first supply line (annotated fig. below) capable of supplying the cool refrigerant from the condenser unit to a vessel (146); a second supply line (annotated fig. below) that carries the cool refrigerant from the bottom of the vessel to either a primary heat exchanger (106) or to an evaporator coil (122); the primary heat exchanger, comprising: a tank(140) that holds ice and water (fluid/ice, paragraph 0016); and a plurality of coils (142) that run vertically from the bottom of the tank to the top of the tank through the ice and water (paragraph 0016, Fig. 1); a first return line (annotated fig. below) that either directs gas phase refrigerant from the coils at the top of the tank to the condenser unit (paragraph 0015) or directs gas phase refrigerant from the top of the vessel to the coils at the top of the tank (paragraph 0022); a refrigerant pump (120) configured to suck the cool refrigerant from the bottom of the vessel and from the bottom of the tank through the second supply line and direct it to the evaporator coil (paragraph 0019), enabling the air handler to blow warm air across the evaporator coil (paragraph 0019), thus generating a stream of cooler air and warming the cold refrigerant (paragraph 0019), wherein after passing through the evaporator coil the warm refrigerant is returned through a second return line to the vessel (annotated fig. below) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the evaporator coil is integrated inside the air handler.
PNG
media_image1.png
662
914
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Jayarathne teaches an HVAC system wherein evaporator 80 is disposed within air handler 108 (Fig. 5; para. 0039; etc.) to facilitate he flow of air across the evaporator and into the space to be conditioned.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to modify the evaporator of Narayanamurthy et al. to be integrated inside the air handler in view of Jayarathne for the simple purpose of facilitating the flow of air across the evaporator and into the space to be conditioned.
Further, it is understood, claim 1 includes an intended use recitation, for example “configured to”, “capable of”, and “is returned”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3840. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-3:00 CT pm M-F.
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.
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763