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 4/24/2024.
Claim 1-7 are pending.
Allowable Subject Matter
The claims will be allowable over the prior art, provided that applicant can resolve the 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 112 rejections without broadening the claims or introducing new matter.
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:
“Processing circuitry” to determine whether a subcooling degree of a refrigerant is at zero kelvin in a refrigeration cycle, which is interpreted to mean the structure of Fig. 9.
“Output-unit” to output a value obtained from the calculated refrigerant amount, is a display such as a computer display or table, see par. 30 of the published application.
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 1-7 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.
Claims 1, 6, 7 recite,
“a gas phase area ratio which is a gas phase volume rate of a total volume of the condenser”. It is not clear what a “gas phase volume rate” means, let alone how it compares to or is used in conjunction with the “total volume”. Likewise, the “gas phase area ratio”, which is derived from the foregoing parameters, is not clear. How is an “area” equated to a “volume”, and then combined (somehow) with a “rate”.
Claim 2
The claim recites, “the processing circuitry decides a correction coefficient that corrects the first temperature difference, based on a circulation amount of the refrigerant in the refrigerant circuit decided from a specification of the compressor and an operational state of the compressor, and based on a standard refrigerant circulation amount decided as a specification of the refrigerant circuit, and corrects the first temperature difference with the decided correction coefficient.”
The meanings of “decides”, “decided from” and “decided as” are not clear. For example, does this mean that the system merely looks up a value in the specifications of the compressor and refrigerant circuit? If not, it is not clear how the decided/decisions are made.
Claim 4
The claim recites, “calculates a liquid phase area ratio which is a liquid phase volume rate of a total volume of the condenser”, and it is not clear how an “area ratio” is equated to a “volume rate”. This issues in this claim regarding the liquid phase are the same as or similar to those regarding the vapor in claim 1.
Claim 5
The claim recites, “the refrigerant circuit includes a heat interchanger disposed between the condenser and the expansion valve, and a branch path that branches from a path between the heat interchanger and the expansion valve, passes through a second expansion valve which is different from a first expansion valve which is the expansion valve”.
The phrase “a first expansion valve which is the expansion valve” is not understood. In general it is not clear how many expansion valves are involved and how they are arranged.
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 § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can
be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed
invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims, as drafted, are a product that, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of
generic computer and HVAC components. That is, other than reciting "processing circuitry”, or items such as a condenser and expansion valve, nothing in the claims elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the "processing circuitry" language, "determine" in the context of the claims, encompasses a user performing calculations to determine a gas phase area ratio.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount
to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements include the processing circuitry and components of a refrigerant based HVAC system, such as a compressor, condenser, evaporator, and expansion valve. Merely reciting the generic components of generic computer and HVAC systems is not sufficient to avoid the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computer and HVAC components and instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computer components. It is noted that generic computer components are used to perform routine computing functions such as acquiring data and performing calculations, and as such they do not provide any improvement to the functioning of the computer or to the technology used. The claims are therefore held to be patent ineligible.
With respect to the dependent claims, they are drawn to calculations based on
specific operational parameters. As noted above, none of these integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are held to be patent ineligible.
Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
The closest prior art of record is US 2014/0345310 to Tamaki which teaches, FIG. 7, a condenser, refrigerant in the condenser is divided into a gas phase, a two-phase refrigerant, and a liquid phase, and the volume ratios of the gas phase to the two-phase refrigerant to the liquid phase is 0.15:0.7:0.15 in general, and a controller is used to control subcooling. Also, US 2022/0106513 to Itano teaches a system and method that determines discharge temperatures (par. 927, 62), subcooling degrees (par. 971), and condensation temperatures.
However, none of the cited art of record taches a system and method performing all of the functions, or having all of the functional capability, of the claims in the instant application.
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
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763