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 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: “laboratory device” in claim 1, “cooling device” in claim 1, “transport device” in claim 7, “second transport device” in claim 9.
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, the “cooling device” has been interpreted according to corresponding structure as described in the specification, and equivalents thereof, i.e., “ a heat pump and in particular a thermoelectric converter” (para. 0009), a “secondary refrigeration circuit can be provided as an additional cooling device” (para. 0011), a “cooling device can comprise a Peltier element” (para. 0035), or equivalents.
To clarify, the “laboratory device” is considered a centrifuge (para. 0110) or equivalents and the “transport device” and “second transport device” are considered “a pump and/or a ventilator” (para. 0048) or equivalents.
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites “refrigerant within the line system flows between the compressor and the gas cooler free of further cooling”. There does not appear to be support in the originally filed disclosure for said recitation. There does appear to be support for refrigerant within the line system flowing between the compressor and the gas cooler. Per MPEP 2173.05(i), "Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims.”
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) 1-6, 8, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heckt et al. (US 2009/0019861) in view of Mueller et al. (US 2015/0080202).
Per claim 1 and 10, Heckt teaches a cooling system,
wherein the cooling system comprises:
a refrigeration circuit which comprises an evaporator (4), a compressor (1), a pressure reduction device (3), a gas cooler (2,9 together form a “gas cooler”), and a line system (inherent) which connects the evaporator (4), the compressor (1), and the gas cooler (2,9) to one another, a refrigerant (inherent) in the refrigeration circuit, and
an additional cooling device (14) that is additional to the refrigeration circuit, for cooling the gas cooler (“an additional heat exchanger 9', 9'' and coupled to a secondary cooling circuit 11 [14] In this simple embodiment of the invention, the additional heat exchanger 9', 9'' on its primary side 9' absorbs heat from the refrigerant and delivers the heat on its secondary side 9'' to the secondary circuit 11”, para. 0040),
the additional cooling device (14) being associated with the gas cooler (2,9) (the elements are part of the same assembly and therefore are “associated” with one another)
the line system being configured such that refrigerant within the line system flows between the compressor (1) and gas cooler (2,9) (see figure 7 showing the refrigerant flowing from 1 to 2/9 via the line system)
but fails to explicitly teach a laboratory device having the cooling system (claim 1), wherein the laboratory device is a centrifuge (claim 10).
However, it is old and well known to provide laboratory device with a cooling system For example, Mueller teaches a laboratory device (20) having a cooling system (30) (claim 1), wherein the laboratory device is a centrifuge (“a laboratory centrifuge 20”, para. 0047) (claim 10) for preventing damage to centrifuged samples (para. 0004). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a laboratory device having a cooling system (claim 1), wherein the laboratory device is a centrifuge (claim 10), as taught by Mueller in the invention of Heckt, in order to advantageously prevent damage to centrifuged samples (para. 0004).
Per claim 2, Heckt, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Heckt, as modified, teaches wherein the refrigerant is carbon dioxide (“The invention can also be used in air conditioning units where the refrigerant in the compression refrigeration circuit comprises compressed carbon dioxide”, para. 0014).
Per claim 3, Heckt, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Heckt, as modified, teaches wherein the refrigerant circuit is configured to perform a trascritical vapor compression cycle (“The invention can also be used in air conditioning units where the refrigerant in the compression refrigeration circuit comprises compressed carbon dioxide”, para. 0014, with carbon dioxide refrigerant the system is configured to perform a trascritical vapor compression cycle).
Per claim 4, Heckt, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Heckt, as modified, teaches wherein the gas cooler (2,9) is configured to cool the refrigerant to a temperature below 31° C (to clarify, the structure of the gas cooler is fully configured and capable to cool refrigerant to a temperature below 31° C because the heat exchanger necessarily will function below 31° C).
Per claim 5, Heckt, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Heckt, as modified, teaches wherein the cooling device comprises a Peltier element (“a thermoelectric element 14”, para. 0042).
Per claim 6, Heckt, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Heckt, as modified, teaches wherein the cooling device comprises a heat pump (“heat pump”, para. 0037).
Per claim 8, Heckt, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 7. Further, Heckt, as modified, teaches wherein the cooling system comprises a control device (i.e. controller”, para. 0038), wherein the control device is configured to operate the additional cooling device in such a way that the refrigerant in the gas cooler is in a subcritical state (“The demand for an additional reduction of the temperature of the refrigerant can be found out, for example, by measuring the temperature of the refrigerant after its exit from the heat-delivering heat exchanger 2 and possibly, by judgment of the temperature difference between the temperature of the refrigerant and the ambient temperature. Then, the controller can decide on putting the additional heat exchanger 9 into action”, para. 0038, thus the system is configured to have the gas cooler set to a subcritical state and add the added cooling).
Assuming arguendo that the Heckt, as modified, does not teach the control device configured to operate the cooling device to have the gas cooler in a subcritical state, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is old and well known to operate refrigeration systems in subcritical states for greater efficiency. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to operate the gas cooler in a subcritical state in order to advantageously operate the cooling device with greater efficiency.
Per claim 11, Heckt, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Heckt, as modified, teaches wherein the line system being configured such that refrigerant within the line system flows between the compressor (1) and the gas cooler (2,9) free of further cooling (there is no heat exchanger between 1 and 2 and thus the refrigerant is free from further cooling between the compressor and the gas cooler).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heckt et al. (US 2009/0019861) in view of Mueller et al. (US 2015/0080202) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Zha et al. (US 2017/0122624).
Per claim 7, Heckt, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 6. Further, Heckt, as modified, teaches wherein the cooling device comprises a heat transfer medium (“ambient atmosphere”, para. 0037; i.e. air) but fails to explicitly teach cooling device comprises a transport device (205) which is configured to thermally couple the refrigeration circuit and the heat pump by means of the heat transfer medium.
However, transport devices are old and well known in cooling devices. For example, Zha teaches a cooling device comprising a transport device (“fan”, para. 0054) which is configured to thermally couple a refrigeration circuit (100) and a heat pump (510) by means of a heat medium (“air”, para. 0054) for operating the cooling device “more efficiently” (para. 0105). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a transport device configured to thermally couple a refrigeration circuit and a heat pump by means of a heat medium, as taught by Zha in the invention of Heckt, as modified, in order to advantageously operate a cooling device “more efficiently” (para. 0105).
Claim(s) 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heckt et al. (US 2009/0019861) in view of Mueller et al. (US 2015/0080202) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Gopalnarayanan et al. (US 2003/0177782) and Sul et al. (US 2020/0003462).
Per claim 9, Heckt, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 8. Further, Heckt, as modified, teaches
wherein the control device is configured to detect at least one of the following system parameters:
a temperature of the refrigerant before, after and/or in the gas cooler (“measuring the temperature of the refrigerant after its exit from the heat-delivering heat exchanger 2”, para. 0038) but fails to explicitly teach
but fails to explicitly teach wherein the refrigeration has a multi-stage design
wherein the refrigeration circuit has a multi-stage design,
wherein the cooling device comprises a secondary heat transfer medium,
wherein the cooling device comprises a secondary transport device (26) which is configured to generate a flow in the secondary heat transfer medium in order to cool the heat pump.
Regarding the multi-stage design, Gopalnarayanan teaches a refrigeration circuit having a multi-stage design (see figure 3) for increasing system efficiency (para. 0021). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a refrigeration circuit having a multi-stage design, as taught by Gopalnarayanan in the invention of Heckt, as modified, in order to advantageously increase system efficiency (para. 0021).
Regarding the cooling device, Sul teaches a cooling device having a secondary heat transfer medium (“outside air”, para. 0083), wherein the cooling device comprises a secondary transport device (156) which is configured to generate a flow of the secondary heat transfer medium in order to cool a heat pump (151) for “smooth heat dissipation” on a heat generation side of a heat pump. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a cooling device having a secondary heat transfer medium, wherein the cooling device comprises a secondary transport device which is configured to generate a flow of the secondary heat transfer medium in order to cool a heat pump, as taught by Sul in the combined teachings, as modified, in order to advantageously provide “smooth heat dissipation” on a heat generation side of a heat pump.
Per claim 12, Heckt, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 9. Further, Heckt, as modified, teaches wherein the heat transfer medium and the secondary heat transfer medium are separate flows of ambient atmosphere (the flows pass through different locations and are thus are considered separate flows).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
In regards to the Applicant’s argument on page 7, last paragraph, that Heckt teaches a first and second heat exchanger and not gas cooler; the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The heat exchangers 2 and 9 are considered, in combination, a “gas cooler”. Therefore the applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection remains.
In regards to the Applicant’s argument on page 7, last paragraph, that the additional cooling device is not associated with the gas cooler but a second heat exchanger; the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The heat exchangers 2 and 9 are considered, in combination, a “gas cooler” and additional cooling device 14 is “associated” with the gas cooler (2, 9) because the elements are a part of the same assembly. Therefore the applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection remains.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. In this case, Mueller teaches a laboratory device (20) having a cooling system (30) for preventing damage to centrifuged samples (para. 0004). Therefore the applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection remains.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.
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