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 .
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 1/26/2026 are as follows:
Claim 2 is cancelled;
Claims 1 and 3 are pending and are being examined.
Specification
The amended title of the invention was received on 1/26/2026 and is accepted.
The amended abstract was received on 1/26/2026 and is accepted.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Currently, no claim limitations invoke 112(f).
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edelstein (US4750543, as previously cited) in view of Wu (US2011/0277491A1, as previously cited)
Re Claim 1. Edelstein teaches a waste cold/warm heat exchange device (10) (Figure 1),
wherein a gas refrigerant pipe (17) which connects an outlet of an evaporator (20) and an inlet of a condenser (12) and a liquid refrigerant pipe (14) which connects an outlet of the condenser and an inlet of the evaporator are installed to circulate a refrigerant in a closed loop between the evaporator and the condenser (Figure 1; Column 4 lines 35-64),
a sensor for detecting internal refrigerant temperature and inputting the detected values to a controller (Figure 1; Column 4 lines 35-65 teach “valves 25 are temperature controlled valves” and “Temperature controlled valves, for example, include those actuated by a sealed system in which a sensing bulb contains a control fluid which operates against a diaphragm to actuate the valve”. Thus, Edelstein teaches a sensor for detecting temperature),
a liquid transfer pump (15) and a solenoid valve (25 of Edelstein) is installed on the liquid refrigerant pipe, the liquid transfer pump being configured to push the liquid refrigerant toward the evaporator (Figure 1; Column 4 lines 35-68 and Column 6 lines 6-48), and
the controller which receives the detected values from the sensor, the controller operates the liquid transfer pump and controls the solenoid valve to be open to forcibly circulate the refrigerant (Figure 1; Column 4 lines 35-42 and Column 6 lines 6-48; Column 6 lines 67-68 specifically teach “other flow control means can be considered, as may be appropriate. Examples include variable speed and on/off pumps”. The variable speed pump will vary the flow rate based on detected values).
Edelstein teaches a temperature sensor but fails to specifically teach a digital sensor for detecting both internal refrigerant pressure and temperature and inputting the detected values to a controller is installed in a lower portion of a liquid exclusive header at an outlet side of the condenser, a liquid refrigerant being stagnated in the lower portion; wherein the controller determines whether the detected pressure of the liquid refrigerant is within a predetermined pressure range, wherein when the detected pressure of the liquid refrigerant in the condenser exceeds the predetermined pressure range.
However, Wu teaches it is known to have a digital sensor (23, 24) for detecting both internal refrigerant pressure (24) and temperature (23) and inputting the detected values to a controller (6) is installed in a lower portion of a liquid exclusive header at an outlet side of the condenser, a liquid refrigerant being stagnated in the lower portion (Figure 1 illustrates the sensors near a lower right side of the condenser, wherein the right side is the outlet of the condenser. The condenser condenses the working fluid into a liquid; thus, the outlet would be a liquid exclusive header), and the controller which receives the detected values from the sensor determines whether the detected pressure of the liquid refrigerant is within a predetermined pressure range, wherein when the detected pressure of the liquid refrigerant in the condenser exceeds the predetermined pressure range, the controller operates the liquid transfer pump (51) and controls the solenoid valve (52) to be open to forcibly circulate the refrigerant (Figure 1; Paragraphs 23 and 36. Paragraph 36 specifically teaches “The sensed temperature and pressure are used as parameters for controlling the speed of the pump 51, the size of the opening of the control valve 52, and the switching frequency of the control valve 52”. Thus, the pump and valve are controlled based on a predetermined pressure range). In the event that it is determined that the valves of Wu or Edelstein are not solenoid operated, the examiner takes official notice of the ubiquitous and well-known use of solenoid valves in the mechanical arts and thus would have been obvious to use a solenoid valve in either system. The examiner’s assertion of Official Notice of common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because the applicant has failed to traverse the examiner’s previous assertion of official notice (See MPEP 2144.03(c)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to locate the sensors in a lower portion of a liquid exclusive header at an outlet side of the condenser, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI, C).
Therefore, in view of Wu's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a digital sensor for detecting both internal refrigerant pressure and temperature and inputting the detected values to a controller is installed in a lower portion of a liquid exclusive header at an outlet side of the condenser, a liquid refrigerant being stagnated in the lower portion, and to have the controller receive the detected values from the sensor to control an operation of the liquid transfer pump and valve according to the detected values to adjust a flow rate of the liquid refrigerant which flows through the refrigerant pipe of Edelstein in order to ensure proper operation of the system and to enhance the efficiency of the system. It is well-known in the art to monitor the condenser pressure and temperature to determine the operational status of the heat exchange system. It is also well-known to control valves and pumps based on detected internal pressures and temperatures of heat exchangers to provide efficient operation. In addition, to limitations directed towards controlling the pump, it is noted that the claims are directed towards an apparatus and not a method of operating. Thus, the presence of process limitations on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See MPEP 2113.
Re Claim 3. Edelstein as modified by Wu teach after controlling the liquid transfer pump to stop the operation, the controller determines whether the detected refrigerant pressure and temperature values in the condenser detected by the digital sensor satisfy a defined change value after a predetermined time and if the detected values do not satisfy the defined change value, controls the passage opening rate of the solenoid valve (Edelstein Figure 1, Column 4 lines 35-42 where Edelstein teaches “Valves 25 control the flow of liquid to each exchanger 20, independently controlling the flow of working fluid into and out of each heat exchanger 20 in response to the heat load thereon”; Wu Figure 1, Paragraphs 23 and 36, wherein paragraph 36 specifically teaches “The sensed temperature and pressure are used as parameters for controlling the speed of the pump 51, the size of the opening of the control valve 52, and the switching frequency of the control valve 52”. Thus, Wu teaches controlling the pump and valve based on the sensed values and thus is capable of performing the recited functions. In addition, to the limitations directed towards controlling the pump and valve, it is noted that the claims are directed towards an apparatus and not a method of operating. Thus, the presence of process limitations on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See MPEP 2113).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TRAVIS C RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
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 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.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763