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 .
This action is in response to the filing made 5/3/2024.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, applicant has claimed priority to Denmark Application 202101058, with a priority date of 11/05/2021.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 7, 9-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected bas claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of their parent claim plus any intervening claims, and provided that any applicable 112 rejections are resolved without broadening the scope of the claims.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
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 is:
Claim 1 - heat exchange interface that is configured to transfer heat between a first fluid in the first flow path and a second fluid in the second flow path. This is interpreted to mean the plural internal plates 250b to 250d (i.e. excluding the first and fifth plates 250a, 250e, which are endplates), as recited at par. 81 of the published applications.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is 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 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 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it 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.
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 4, 6, 7 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 4
The claim recites, “wherein the first flow path comprises a plurality of fluid flow channels, and wherein the first and second openings both open into each of the plurality of fluid flow channels.”. The claimed arrangement is not clear, because the “plurality of fluid flow channels” being in the first flow path is not shown in the Figures.
Claim 6
The claim recites, and in the second mode, the first fluid is caused to flow from the first-fluid inlet to the second opening. The claimed arrangement is not clear, because it does not appear to be shown in the Figures.
Claims dependent upon those specifically discussed above are likewise rejected for incorporating the deficiencies of the parent claims.
In the interests of compact prosecution, the claims are examined herein against the art as best as possible, notwithstanding the lack of clarity in the claims. If amendments are made to resolve the clarity issues, new searches for prior art will be necessary.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8, 14, 15, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0139870 to Meadows.
Regarding claim 1, Meadows teaches a heat exchanger arrangement for a refrigeration system, the heat exchanger arrangement comprising:
a heat exchanger comprising a first flow path, a second flow path (one path through item 7 sight glass, and one path through 23 regulator valve, Fig. 1), and a heat exchange interface that is configured to transfer heat between a first fluid in the first flow path and a second fluid in the second flow path in use (the collective heat exchange structures of items 11 and 13), and
an inlet arrangement comprising a first-fluid inlet for receiving the first fluid from a source (fluid flowing through sight glass 7), a first opening into the first flow path (through valve 8), and a second opening into the first flow path (through valve 9) wherein the inlet arrangement is operable to control flow of the first fluid from the first-fluid inlet to the first opening and to the second opening. (apparent from Figures)
Regarding claim 2, Meadows teaches the heat exchanger arrangement of claim 1, wherein the inlet arrangement comprises a first valve operable to selectively fluidically couple the first-fluid inlet to the first opening, and a second valve operable to selectively fluidically couple the first-fluid inlet to the second opening. (valves 8, 9)
Regarding claim 3, Meadows teaches the heat exchanger arrangement of claim 1, wherein the inlet arrangement comprises an expansion valve. (valves 8, 9)
Regarding claim 5, Meadows teaches the heat exchanger arrangement of claim 1, comprising a controller (29, Fig. 1) configured to cause operation of the inlet arrangement to control flow of the first fluid from the first-fluid inlet to the first opening and to the second opening. (Fluid flowing through item 7 goes to both openings, the openings into the heat exchangers are apparent in the figures)
Claim 8 is merely claim 1 written in method form, and is anticipated by claim 1.
Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. MPEP 2112.02.
8. A method of controlling a heat exchanger arrangement for a refrigeration system, the heat exchanger arrangement comprising:
a heat exchanger comprising a first flow path, a second flow path, and a heat exchange interface that is configured to transfer heat between a first fluid in the first flow path and a second fluid in the second flow path, and
an inlet arrangement comprising a first-fluid inlet for receiving the first fluid from a source, a first opening into the first flow path, and a second opening into the first flow path;
wherein the method comprises controlling flow of the first fluid from the first-fluid inlet to the first opening and to the second opening.
Regarding claim 14, Meadows teaches a controller configured to perform the method of claim 8. (par. 104)
Regarding claim 15, Meadows teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method of claim 8. (pars. 73, 81, 83, 86-91).
Claims 16-18 are merely reciting fields of use, or end use applications, of the claimed heat exchanger, which are not considered limitations that lend themselves to distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art.
16. A refrigeration system comprising the heat exchanger arrangement of claim 1, the controller of claim 14, or the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15.
17. A transport unit comprising the heat exchanger arrangement of claim 1, the controller of claim 14, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, or the refrigeration system of claim 16.
18. A marine vessel comprising the heat exchanger arrangement of claim 1, the controller of claim 14, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, the refrigeration system of claim 16, or the transport unit of claim 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY T CRENSHAW whose telephone number is (571)270-1550. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 5:00 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, JD Fletcher can be reached on 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.
/HENRY T CRENSHAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763