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 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 14-15 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 14-15 recite “means are provided which are designed…” which renders claims 14-15 indefinite as it is unclear what specific configuration is recited. Claims 14-15 are therefore interpreted to comprise the heat pump arrangement on which the heat pump method of claim 1 is utilized.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuura (US20140053597) in view of KAWANO (JP 2014016078).
Regarding claim 1,
Matsuura teaches a heat pump 1A method, in which a working medium is vaporized at a lower temperature level using a heat source (e.g. at heat absorber 6) and subsequently compressed (e.g. at compressor 21 or 22) and liquefied at an upper temperature level using a heat sink (e.g. at condenser 23 via exchanger 4), wherein, after being vaporized and before being compressed, the working medium is superheated (e.g. in evaporator 25, wherein liquid in the evaporator turns to a gas and thereafter additional heat is absorbed in heat exchanger 6) after being compressed and before being liquefied, the working medium is saturated at the upper temperature level (e.g. in condenser 23) but does not teach wherein a temperature increase caused by the compression is restricted by means of injection into the compression.
Kawano, directed to a heat pump (method), teaches wherein a temperature increase caused by a compression is restricted by means of injection into the compression (e.g. via injection lines 22, 27) in order to advantageously adjust the discharge temperature of the compressors of Kawano (see par. 20).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Matsuura by Kawano with the motivation of adjusting the discharge temperature of the compressors of Matsuura.
Regarding claim 2,
Matsuura does not specifically teach wherein the lower temperature level (Tu) is 10 to 60 degrees C; the upper temperature level is at least 115 degrees C; an inlet temperature level into the compression is at most 10 K below the upper temperature level; and the temperature increase caused by the compression is restricted by means of injection to a temperature level of at most 180 degrees C.
However, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01 I).
Regarding claim 3,
Matsuura as modified above teaches wherein the injection is carried out using a part of the working medium which is branched off from a remainder fed to superheating and then to compression before vaporization and before superheating, expanded, and fed to compression at one or more intermediate stages of compression (see Kawano, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4,
Matsuura does not teach wherein a compressor configured as a single-shaft turbo compressor or screw compressor is used for compression but the examiner takes official notice that the use of, and advantages of, a single-shaft turbo compressor or screw compressor, would be well known to one of ordinary skill in the art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Matsuura with the motivation of obtaining any known advantages of a single-shaft turbo compressor or screw compressor.
Regarding claim 5,
Matsuura teaches wherein saturation is carried out using a container 23 from which a vapor phase is taken at the head side, at least partially liquefied in a heat exchanger thermally coupled to the heat sink, and fed back into the container (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6,
Matsuura teaches wherein the container 23 is empty (e.g. capable of being empty when drained or not in use) or equipped with trays and/or packings.
Regarding claim 7,
Matsuura teaches a start-up operating mode and a subsequent operating mode (e.g. through the use and disuse of intercooler 8) carried out after the start-up operating mode, wherein the working medium in the subsequent operating mode is saturated at the upper temperature level and wherein the working medium in the start-up operating mode is cooled at least in part after compression using a further heat sink 8 to an intermediate temperature level between the lower temperature level and the upper temperature level.
Regarding claim 10,
Matsuura teaches wherein the heat source is a condensing cooling medium of a refrigeration circuit, the heat of which at the lower temperature level is used at least in part to vaporize the working medium (e.g. at heat exchanger 4 or 6).
Regarding claims 11-12,
Matsuura does not teach wherein the working medium has a critical temperature which is at least 20 degrees C or 30 degrees C above the upper temperature level, wherein the working medium comprises one or more components selected from n-butane, i-pentane, n- pentane, cyclobutane and cyclopentane, but Kawano teaches wherein a working medium is n-pentane (e.g. pentane C5H12, see par. 73).
Since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Matsuura by Kawano and arrive at the claimed invention in order to provide a working medium with known advantages (e.g. low boiling points, low cost, and relative safety).
Regarding claim 13,
Matsuura does not teach wherein the heat source comprises a condensing refrigerant and/or a regenerated aqueous amine solution of an acid gas scrubber but the examiner takes official notice that the use of, and advantages of, utilizing a condensing refrigerant and/or a regenerated aqueous amine solution of an acid gas scrubber as a heat source would be well known to one of ordinary skill in the art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Matsuura with the motivation of obtaining any known advantages of utilizing said heat sources.
Regarding claims 14-15,
The subject matter of claims 14-15 is directed towards essentially the same subject matter as claim 1 and has been addressed in the rejection of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are 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.
Regarding claims 8-9,
Matsuura does not teach wherein the further heat sink is thermally coupled to a start-up cooler.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. McCormick, Ryu, Nagamatsu, Fujisawa, Hattori teach heat pump with injection means.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE S TANENBAUM whose telephone number is (313)446-6522. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 AM - 7 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 at (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 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.
/Steve S TANENBAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights