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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 6/26/2024 was/were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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: valve unit in claim 1 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.
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.
To clarify, a valve unit is considered “the valve unit 5 preferably comprises a controllable actuating element, for example an electrically controllable servo valve” (para. 0019 of the specification) or equivalent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, and 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proctor (US 4,624,112) in view of Brok (DE102019211821).
Per claim 1, Proctor teaches a filling device for carrying out a filling process an air conditioning system of a vehicle with a refrigerant (col. 3, lines 25-30), wherein in the filling device there are provided a receiving region (region containing 48) for receiving a pressure container (48) filled with a refrigerant, a valve unit (68) being connected to an outlet of the pressure container for controlling a quantity of the refrigerant being supplied to the vehicle, and a heating device (52) for heating the pressure container,
wherein the heating device has a heater (“heater 52”, col. 4, line 7) to heat the pressure container without any contact (see the figure) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the heating device is at least one infrared heating unit.
However, infrared heaters are old and well known. For example, Brok teaches that using infrared heaters are more efficient than air heaters (“an infrared heater is more efficient than an air heater” pg. 4, sixth paragraph of translation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a heating device as an infrared heating unit, as taught by Brok in order to advantageously provide an efficient source of heating (pg. 4, sixth paragraph of translation).
Per claim 2, Proctor, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Proctor, as modified, teaches wherein a control unit (42) for controlling the filling process is provided in the filling device.
Per claim 3, Proctor, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Proctor, as modified, teaches wherein a scale (50) for measuring a weight of the pressure container is provided in the receiving region.
Per claim 5, Proctor, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Proctor, as modified, teaches the heating unit (52) provided in the filling device, which is arranged distributed around a circumference of the receiving region and the use of the infrared heating unit (pg. 4, sixth paragraph of translation of Brok) but fails to explicitly teach a plurality of infrared heating units.
However, per MPEP 2144, section VI, paragraph B, a “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a plurality of infrared heating using in order to advantageously provide a greater amount of heating to the filling device.
Per claim 6, Proctor, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Proctor, as modified, teaches wherein a shielding unit (see figure of Proctor) is provided in the filling device on a side of the heating unit facing away from the receiving region (the shield faces in all directions including away from the receiving region), the shielding unit surrounding the heating unit at least halfway in the circumferential direction (see figure of Proctor) and the infrared heating unit ((pg. 4, sixth paragraph of translation of Brok).
When the Brok infrared heating unit is combined with the shielding unit of Proctor, as modified, the result is wherein a shielding unit is provided in the filling device on a side of at least one infrared heating unit facing away from the receiving region, the shielding unit surrounding the infrared heating unit at least halfway in the circumferential direction, as claimed.
Per claim 7, Proctor, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Proctor, as modified, teaches wherein the heating unit (52) is of elongated shape, defining a longitudinal axis, and is arranged in the filling device (see figure of Proctor) in such a way that the longitudinal axis of the heating unit (see annotated figure below of figure of Proctor) runs in parallel to a vertical axis of a pressure container arranged upright in the receiving region (see figure of Proctor) and the infrared heating unit (pg. 4, sixth paragraph of translation of Brok).
When the Brok infrared heating unit is combined with system of Proctor, as modified, the result is wherein at least one infrared heating unit is of elongated shape and is arranged in the filling device in such a way that its longitudinal axis runs in parallel to a vertical axis of a pressure container arranged upright in the receiving region, as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
360
379
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per claim 10, Proctor, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Proctor, as modified, teaches the infrared heating unit but fails to explicitly teach wherein at least one infrared heating unit is moveable relative to the receiving region, in a manner selected from the group consisting of translationally moveable relative to the receiving region and rotationally movable relative to the receiving region.
However, per MPEP 2144.04, section V, section C, “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access…it would be obvious to make…removable for that purpose.” Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the infrared heating unit be separable from the receiving region of the container in order to advantageously allow for maintenance and repair of the filling device. Thus having the heating unit be separable reads on the claimed limitation of having the at least one infrared heating unit being moveable relative to the receiving region, in a manner of translationally moveable relative to the receiving region, as claimed because to separate the heating unit from the filling device the heating unit is transitionally moved away from the receiving region.
Per claim 11, Proctor, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Proctor, as modified, teaches wherein the receiving region is designed to receive pressure containers having a cylindrical bottle body (see figure of Proctor) but fails to explicitly teach the bottle diameter of 15cm to 40cm.
However, it has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the cylindrical bottle body diameter of 15cm to 40cm. Further, there is no change in the respective function of the cylindrical bottle body. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a cylindrical boy diameter of 15cm to 40cm in order to advantageously optimize for the amount of refrigerant available for charging an air conditioning system.
Per claim 12, Proctor, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and claim 12 contains similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1.
Further, 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 perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Per claim 13, Proctor, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 12. Further, Proctor, as modified, teaches the refrigerant but fails to explicitly teach wherein carbon dioxide is used as the refrigerant.
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that carbon dioxide is an old and well known environmentally friendly refrigerant. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide carbon dioxide as the refrigerant in order to advantageously provide an environmentally friendly refrigerant.
Per claim 14, Proctor, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 13. Further, Proctor, as modified, teaches wherein the filling process is controlled by a control unit (42).
Per claim 15, Proctor, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 12. Further, Proctor, as modified, teaches wherein a weight of the pressure container is measured during the filling process and in that the supplied quantity of the refrigerant is controlled on the basis of the measured weight (“The oil reservoir 46 and refrigerant reservoir 48 are both supported on a scale 50 which weighs the combined weight of the two reservoirs and their contents, and provides a signal to the electronic sequencing unit or micro processor 42 representative of that weight. As the weight on scale 50 decreases, that is, is "lost" from one of the reservoirs, during oil or refrigerant discharge, a signal representative of the substantially instantaneous weight is provided to the micro processor 42 so that the micro processor 42 is enabled to determine the amont of oil or refrigerant discharged, and to compare it to a predetermined, pre-set amount, and to send an appropriate signal when the predetermined amount of the particular fluid has been discharged”, col. 3, lines 55-69).
Per claim 16, Proctor, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 12. Further, Proctor, as modified, wherein a measurement is detected, wherein the measurement is of a pressure of the refrigerant (via 90), and controlling the valve unit based on the detected pressure (“If the pressure in the high pressure side is greatly excessive, and reaches 320-370 psig, the pressure switch 90 will be activated, thereby sending a signal to the micro processor 42, which will immediately stop the changing of refrigerant into the air conditioner 10 by closing the refrigerant reservoir branch conduit valve 68”, col. 6, lines 8-14).
Per claim 17, Proctor, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 12. Further, claim 17 recites similar limitations as claim 5 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Further, 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 perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Per claim 18, Proctor, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 12. Further, claim 18 recites similar limitations as claim 6 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Further, 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 perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Per claim 19, Proctor, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 14. Further, claim 19 recites similar limitations as claim 8 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Further, 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 perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Per claim 20, Proctor, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 12. Further, claim 20 recites similar limitations as claim 10 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Further, 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 perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proctor (US 4,624,112) in view of Brok (DE102019211821) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Brown et al. (US 2008/0276634).
Per claim 4, Proctor, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Proctor, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein at least one pressure sensor for detecting a pressure of the refrigerant is provided in the filling device.
However, Brown teaches a charging system including a pressure sensor (50) for detecting a pressure of a refrigerant is provided in a filling device for increased servicing efficiency (para. 0010). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a pressure sensor for detecting a pressure of a refrigerant provided in a filling device, as taught by Brown in the invention of Proctor, as modified, in order to advantageously increase servicing efficiency (para. 0010).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proctor (US 4,624,112) in view of Brok (DE102019211821) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Proctor et al. (US 4,513,578; hereinafter ‘578).
Per claim 8, Proctor, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 2. Further, Brock, as modified, teaches wherein a user interface (44) connected to the control unit (42) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the user interface connected to the control unit (41) is provided on the filling device (see figure 1), via which user interface control parameters of the filling process can be set, wherein the control parameters are selected from the group consisting of a quantity of the refrigerant being supplied to the air conditioning system and a filling duration.
However, Proctor ‘578 teaches an air conditioner refrigerant filling device including a user interface (42) connected to the control unit is provided on the filling device, via which user interface control parameters of the filling process can be set (inherent), wherein the control parameter is a quantity of the refrigerant being supplied to the air conditioning system (“the operator proceeds directly to making the refrigerant and oil quantity settings”, col. 5, lines 52-62) for improved accuracy and reliability during charging (col. 2, lines 5-7). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a user interface connected to a control unit being provided on a filling device, via which user interface control parameter of the filling process can be set, wherein the control parameter is a quantity of the refrigerant being supplied to the air conditioning system, as taught by Proctor ‘578 in the invention of Proctor, as modified, in order to advantageously improve accuracy and reliability during charging (col. 2, lines 5-7).
Per claim 9, Proctor, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Proctor, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein characterized in that the filling device is designed as a mobile filling device, wherein wheels are arranged on an underside of the filling device and/or wherein an energy storage is provided in the filling device to supply energy to the filling device for carrying out at least one filling process.
However, Proctor ‘578 teaches an air conditioner refrigerant filling device wherein characterized in that the filling device is designed as a mobile filling device, wherein wheels (12) are arranged on an underside of the filling device (see figure 1) for improved accuracy and reliability during charging (col. 2, lines 5-7). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the filling device be designed as a mobile filling device, wherein wheels (12) are arranged on an underside of the filling device, as taught by Proctor ‘578 in the invention of Proctor, as modified, in order to advantageously improve accuracy and reliability during charging (col. 2, lines 5-7).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proctor (US 4,624,112) in view of Brok (DE102019211821) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Suharno (DE102005001670).
Per claim 21, Proctor, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Proctor, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein at least one temperature sensor for detecting a temperature of a component selected from the group consisting of the pressure container, the heating device, and the refrigerant is provided in the filling device.
However, Suharno teaches a vehicle air conditioning charging system including a temperature sensor (26) for detecting a temperature of a pressure container (pg. 3, second paragraph, of translation) for precisely charging a vehicular air conditioning system with refrigerant (pg. 2, fifth paragraph, of translation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a temperature sensor for detecting a temperature of a pressure container, as taught by Suharno in the invention of Proctor, as modified, in order to advantageously precisely charge a vehicular air conditioning system with refrigerant (pg. 2, fifth paragraph of translation).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proctor (US 4,624,112) in view of Brok (DE102019211821) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Rite et al. (US 2021/0270506).
Per claim 22, Proctor, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Proctor, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein an energy storage is provided in the filling device and configured to supply energy to the filling device for carrying out at least one filling process.
However, Rite teaches a filling device (150) including wherein an energy storage (166; “battery”, para. 0032) is provided in the filling device to supply energy to the filling device for carrying out a filling process for improving accuracy and efficiency of a refrigerant charging operation (para. 0062). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a filling device including wherein an energy storage is provided in the filling device to supply energy to the filling device for carrying out a filling process, as taught by Rite in the invention of Proctor, as modified, in order to advantageously improve the accuracy and efficiency of a refrigerant charging operation (para. 0062).
Response to Arguments
In regards to the Applicant’s argument on page 8 that “infrared heating unit” and “control unit” are not to be presumed under 112(f) interpretation because the terms connate structure; the argument is persuasive and the presumption is removed.
In response to applicant's argument on page 12, second paragraph that Brok is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. In this case, Brock is pertinent to the particular problem which is providing a heating source. Further, Brok teaches infrared heaters are more efficient than air heaters. Therefore the applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection remains.
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 DAVID J TEITELBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5142. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571) 272-66816681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID J TEITELBAUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763