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 and 8-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each of claims 2 and 8 recite the word “three” twice in a row in line 2 of the claim. The second instance of the word “three” in each claim should be removed. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 3-5 and 9-11 are also objected to since they depend from claims 2 and 8, respectively.
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: “expansion device” in claims 6 and 12.
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.
For the record, the limitation “expansion device” has been interpreted according to the corresponding structure described at para. 0037 of the specification, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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 5 and 11 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.
Each of claims 5 and 11 recites the limitation “gas phase refrigerant inside the vessel returns to the condenser….” However, as shown in Applicant’s corresponding Fig. 6, the condenser 10 is located in a distinct refrigeration circuit from vessel 10, thus showing no support for this limitation. Rather, it appears that Applicant intended this limitation to read “gas phase refrigerant inside the vessel returns to the isolating heat exchanger…” as shown in the Figure. For purposes of compact prosecution, claims 5 and 11 have been examined based on this interpretation. Appropriate clarification and correction are required.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a second supply line" in line 12 of the claim. However, no “first supply line” is recited, rendering the intended metes and bounds unclear. Claims 2-6 are also rejected since they depend from claim 1.
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 2006/0070385 A1) in view of Jayarathne (US 2020/0271354 A1).
As per claim 1, Narayanamurthy et al. disclose a thermal storage and cooling system, comprising:
a first refrigerant loop 101 that circulates a first refrigerant, comprising:
a condenser unit 111 configured to receive warm first refrigerant and supply cool first refrigerant;
an isolating heat exchanger 162 that transfers heat and cold between the first refrigerant circulating in the first refrigerant loop 101 and a second refrigerant circulating in a second refrigerant loop 103;
the second refrigerant loop 162, which circulates the second refrigerant, wherein the second refrigerant is sucked from the top of a vessel 146 into the isolating heat exchanger where it is cooled and is then returned to the vessel in liquid phase form;
a supply line that carries the cool refrigerant from the bottom of the vessel to either a primary heat exchanger 160 or to an evaporator 122 coil inside an air handler 150;
the primary heat exchanger, comprising:
a tank 140 that holds ice and water; 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 (Fig. 1; etc.);
a first return line that carries gas phase refrigerant and connects the coils at the top of the tank to the top of the vessel (Figs. 1, 4; etc.);
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 (Figs. 1, 4; etc.); and
the air handler 150 (Figs. 6-9; etc.) to blow warm air across the evaporator coil, thus generating a stream of cooler air and warming the cold refrigerant, wherein after passing through the evaporator coil the warm refrigerant is returned through a second return line to the vessel (Figs. 1, 4, 5; etc.).
Narayanamurthy et al. do not teach wherein the evaporator coil is integrated inside the air handler. Jayarathne teaches an HVAC system wherein evaporator 80 is disposed within air handler 108 (Fig. 5; para. 0039; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly dispose the evaporator of Narayanamurthy et al. within an air handler unit for the simple purpose of facilitating the flow of air across the evaporator and into the space to be conditioned.
As per claim 2, Narayanamurthy et al. disclose wherein the system is configured to operate in one of three modes: ice make mode (para. 0025; Fig. 3; etc.), ice melt mode (para. 0026; Fig. 4; etc.) and direct cooling mode (para. 0034; Fig. 5; etc.), wherein ice make mode generates ice inside the tank, ice melt mode uses the ice in the tank to generate cooling, and direct cooling mode uses the condenser unit to provide cooling (Figs. 3-5; etc.).
As per claim 3, Narayanamurthy et al. disclose wherein when operating in ice make mode the second supply line is configured to direct the cold second refrigerant from the bottom of the vessel 146 only to the bottom of the coils in the tank 140, wherein the water in the tank warms the second refrigerant causing it to boil and generate gas phase second refrigerant that rises through the coils, and wherein the gas phase second refrigerant returns through the first return line to the vessel (Fig. 3; paras. 0025, 0032; etc.).
As per claim 4, Narayanamurthy et al. disclose wherein, when operating in ice melt mode: the condenser unit is turned off and doesn’t supply refrigerant (completely disconnected as shown in Fig. 4); vapor phase refrigerant inside the vessel 146 is sucked out the top of the vessel through the second return line and enter the coils at the top of the tank 140; 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 122 (Fig. 4; paras.0026, 0034; etc.). Again, Narayanamurthy et al. do not teach wherein the evaporator coil is integrated inside the air handler. Jayarathne teaches an HVAC system wherein evaporator 80 is disposed within air handler 108 (Fig. 5; para. 0039; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly dispose the evaporator of Narayanamurthy et al. within an air handler unit for the simple purpose of facilitating the flow of air across the evaporator and into the space to be conditioned.
As per claim 5, Narayanamurthy et al. disclose wherein, when operating in direct cooling mode: the condenser unit 111 operates, generating cool first refrigerant which flows through the first supply line into the isolating heat exchanger 162 where it transfers cold to the second refrigerant that is also circulating in the isolating heat exchanger; the cool second refrigerant is supplied to the vessel 146 where it mixes with second refrigerant present inside the vessel; cool second refrigerant at the bottom of the vessel is sucked out by the pump 120 through the second supply line and is directed to the evaporator coil; no refrigerant is drawn from the tank; the air handler warms 150 the refrigerant inside the evaporator coil, resulting in warmer liquid and gas phase refrigerant (air handler implicit from Figs. 7-9); the warmer liquid and gas phase refrigerant returns to the vessel 146 through the second return line; and gas phase refrigerant inside the vessel returns to the isolating heat exchanger 162 (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above regarding this limitation) through a return line where it is transformed to cool liquid phase refrigerant (Fig. 5; paras. 0034, 0043; etc.).
As per claim 6, Narayanamurthy et al. the system further comprising an expansion device 130, wherein the expansion device is inline with the first supply line that carries the cool first refrigerant from the condenser unit 111 to the isolating heat exchanger 162, further cooling the first refrigerant (Fig. 1; etc.).
As per claim 7, Narayanamurthy et al. disclose a thermal storage and cooling device that integrates with a condenser unit and an air handler, comprising:
an isolating heat exchanger 162 that transfers heat and cold between the first refrigerant circulating in the first refrigerant loop 101 and a second refrigerant circulating in a second refrigerant loop 103;
a supply line that carries the cool refrigerant from the bottom of the vessel to either a primary heat exchanger 160 or to an evaporator 122 coil inside an air handler 150;
the primary heat exchanger, comprising:
a tank 140 that holds ice and water; 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 (Fig. 1; etc.);
a first return line that carries gas phase refrigerant and connects the coils at the top of the tank to the top of the vessel (Figs. 1, 4; etc.);
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 (Figs. 1, 4; etc.); and
the air handler 150 (Figs. 6-9; etc.) to blow warm air across the evaporator coil, thus generating a stream of cooler air and warming the cold refrigerant, wherein after passing through the evaporator coil the warm refrigerant is returned through a second return line to the vessel (Figs. 1, 4, 5; etc.).
Narayanamurthy et al. do not teach wherein the evaporator coil is integrated inside the air handler. Jayarathne teaches an HVAC system wherein evaporator 80 is disposed within air handler 108 (Fig. 5; para. 0039; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly dispose the evaporator of Narayanamurthy et al. within an air handler unit for the simple purpose of facilitating the flow of air across the evaporator and into the space to be conditioned.
As per claims 8-12, see similar claims 2-6 above, respectively.
Cited Prior Art
The following references not applied in the rejections above are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosed invention.
Raasch et al. (US 2024/0361052 A1 and 2024/0337394 A1) disclose related systems by the instant inventors.
Narayanamurthy et al. (US 2009/0293507 A1, 2009/0205345 A1), and 2008/0034760 A1) disclose further systems similar to that of the Narayanamurthy et al. applied in the art rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763