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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse in the reply filed on 01/11/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions relate a single general inventive concept. This is found persuasive. The restriction requirement has been withdrawn.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/13/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
the “temperature sensing unit” as claimed in claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 Objections
Claim(s) 2-5, 8-9, 12-18, and 24-27 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In each of claims 2-5, 8-9, 12-18, and 24-27, the reference claim should be written with lower case “c”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 14, 16, and 18 is/are objected to for their dependency on an objected base claim.
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 use the word “means,” 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:
a. means of sensing a tank status in at least claim 1.
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:
a. temperature sensing unit in at least claim 12.
b. actuators in at least claim 15.
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.
“Means of sensing a tank status” is interpreted to cover a sensor as per para [0119] of applicant specification; and equivalents thereof.
Actuators is interpreted to cover (i) two diverter valves or (ii) a diverter valve and a circulation pump as per para [0167] of applicant specification; 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.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 12, 15-16, 18 and 24 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 calls for the limitation “preferably for defrosting the heat pump” (see last line); which limitation renders the claims indefinite as it is unclear as to how the word “preferably” factors in the scope of the claim. In other words, is the limitation following the word “preferably” actually required by the claims? It is uncertain. Illustration of preferences in a claim lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
A similar issue is found in claim 15 with the recitation “optionally”. Appropriate correction is required.
A similar issue is found in claim 18 with the recitation “preferably”. Appropriate correction is required.
A similar issue is found in claim 24 with the recitation “preferably”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “temperature sensing units”, which is indefinite as it is unclear which particular structures the applicant is referring to as “temperature sensing units”. The specification is devoid of adequate structure for the claimed temperature sensing units. In other words, there is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, that is used as temperature sensing units. Because the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structure perform the claimed function, the claim is indefinite.
Claim(s) 16 is/are indefinite for their dependency on an indefinite base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 depends on claim 14; which renders claim 5 not in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(d).
35 U.S.C. 112(d) requires that a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth (see MPEP 608.01(n)). In the instant case, claim 5 depends on a claim not previously set forth.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
For examination purposes, claim 5 will be interpreted as depending on claim 1.
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-9, 12-18, 23-27, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takayama (EP 3657091 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Takayama discloses a heating system (see at least Fig. 1) including:
a heat pump #20 to provide heat ([0011]);
a circuit #C1 of heat transfer fluid to transfer heat to or from the heat pump ([0014]);
a space heating system #40 configured to transfer heat from the heat transfer fluid to an environment ([0010]);
a water heating system comprising a water tank #9 for storing hot water to be provided to a user ([0012]), a cold water inlet #p11, a hot water outlet #p10 for drawing off hot water for supply to a user ([0015]), and a heat exchanger #7 configured to exchange heat between the heat transfer fluid and water from the cold water inlet ([0013]);
a means of sensing a tank status (#SE7 & #SE8), the tank status being indicative of a quantity of thermal energy stored in the tank ([0016]); and
a controller adapted to control the transfer of heat to and from the tank in dependence on the tank status (see Fig. 5-6; [0024-0025]).
Regarding claim 3:
Takayama further discloses wherein the controller is configured to control a transfer of heat from the water heating system to the heat pump, preferably for defrosting the heat pump ([0024-0025]).
Regarding claim 4:
Takayama further discloses wherein the controller is configured to control a transfer of heat from the water heating system to the space heating system (see at least [0013-0016]).
Regarding claim 5:
Takayama further discloses wherein the tank status indicates one or more of (i) a quantity of water stored in the tank above a temperature threshold, and the controller is configured to stop transfer of heat from the water heating system to the space heating system in order to retain a minimum hot water quantity in the tank; (ii) whether the tank can safely receive heat; (iii) a quantity of thermal energy stored in the tank above a temperature threshold ([0024-0025]).
Regarding claim 8:
Takayama further discloses wherein the tank status indicates a quantity of thermal energy stored in the tank above a temperature threshold and wherein the temperature threshold is associated with a minimum temperature for defrosting the heat pump or a minimum temperature for space heating or a minimum temperature for a hot water supply ([0024-0025]).
Regarding claim 9:
Takayama further discloses wherein the tank status is one or more of (i) a state of charge of the tank; (ii) a temperature profile of the tank; and (iii) in dependence on a position of a thermocline ([0024-0025]).
Regarding claim 12:
Takayama further discloses wherein the means of sensing a tank status comprises a plurality of temperature sensing units (#SE7 and #SE8) arranged vertically along the tank (Fig. 1, ([0016])).
Regarding claim 13:
Takayama further discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine an amount of available thermal energy to transfer from the tank in dependence on the tank status and/or in dependence on an anticipated heating demand ([0024-0025]).
Regarding claim 14:
Takayama further discloses wherein determining the amount of available thermal energy comprises determining a quantity of available heat for defrosting the heat pump and/or a quantity of available heat for satisfying a space heating demand and/or a quantity of available heat for satisfying a hot water demand ([0024-0025]).
Regarding claim 15:
Takayama further discloses one or more actuators (made of #6 and #5) controlled by the controller to configure the heating system to one of several configurations, wherein: (i) in a first configuration the heat pump provides heat to the space heating system and, optionally, to the tank; (ii) in a second configuration the heat pump provides heat to the tank and does not provide heat to the space heating system; (iii) in a third configuration the heat pump does not provide heat and the tank provides heat to the space heating system; and (iv) in a fourth configuration the heat pump does not provide heat and the tank provides heat to the heat pump (see description in [0012-0014], [0016], [0018], and [0022]).
Regarding claim 16:
Takayama further discloses wherein the actuators comprise two two-state actuators (#6 and #5).
Regarding claim 17:
Takayama further discloses wherein a first actuator #5 is configured to control a transfer of heat to and from the tank and a second actuator #6 is configured to control a transfer of heat to the space heating system (see description in [0012-0014], [0016], [0018], and [0022]).
Regarding claim 18:
Takayama further discloses wherein the first actuator is a circulation pump configured to pump fluid through the heat exchanger (see description in [0012-0014], [0016], [0018], and [0022]).
Regarding claim 29:
Takayama further discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine an amount of available thermal energy to transfer from the tank in dependence on the tank status and an anticipated heating demand, wherein the anticipated heating demand is an anticipated defrosting demand, and/or an anticipated space heating demand, and/or an anticipated hot water demand ([0024-0025]).
Regarding claims 23-27:
The subject matter claimed here is substantially similar to that of claims 1-5, 8-9, 12-18, and 29 as acknowledged by the applicant in the reply of 01/11/2026. Thus, for sake of simplicity, conciseness, and brevity, please refer to the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 12-18, and 29 above for the rejection of claims 23-27.
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 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 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 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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama (EP 3657091 A1).
Regarding claim 2:
Takayama further discloses wherein the heat exchanger external to the tank (see Fig. 4).
Takayama does not explicitly discloses wherein the heat exchanger is a plate heat exchanger.
By official notice, the examiner submits that the usage of plate heat exchangers is well known in the art.
As per MPEP 2144.06 – II; it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Takayama with the heat exchanger being a plate heat exchanger.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have offered high thermal efficiency and faster heat transfer compared to traditional units as known in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tamaki (US 20140291411 A1), Goransson (US 20180172287 A1), Otake (US 8991204 B2), Hawkins (US 20140260392 A1), Tamaki (US 20130312443 A1), Kim (US 20130074827 A1), Maitani (US 20130025301 A1), and Cawley (US 5269153 A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIONEL W NOUKETCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-8438. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri: 08:00 AM - 04:00 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, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. 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.
/LIONEL NOUKETCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763