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 responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on 07/08/2024. Claims 15-28 are pending in the application. Claims 1-14 have been cancelled. Claims 15-28 are new claims.
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:
the limitation “a drive unit” in claim 21 includes a generic/nonce term “unit” coupled with function “drive” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “a drive unit” can be implemented in various way, such as “an electric motor” [0012] of PG Pub. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof.
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.
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 15-28 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein the valve element can be flow-connected to the first refrigerant outlet or to the second refrigerant outlet” in lines 8-10 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. The phase “can be” is a conditional recitation. It is unclear whether the valve element is actually flow-connected to the first outlet or to the second outlet. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “wherein the valve element is flow-connected to the first refrigerant outlet or to the second refrigerant outlet”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the refrigerant can be expanded” in the last line which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. The phase “can be” is a conditional recitation. It is unclear whether the refrigerant is actually expanded. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the refrigerant can be expanded”.
Claims 16-28 are rejected by their virtual dependencies of claim 17.
Claims 25-28 are use claims. These claims are not directed to any one of the four categories (a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). These claims being interpreted as or treated like method with no actual steps involved in the process. It is unclear what method steps being claimed and how the steps involved in the process for the bypass arrangement used in a heat pump system of an electric vehicle. Therefore, claims 25-28 is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claim(s) 25-28 does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories (a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) of patent eligible subject matter because they are directed to a new use pre se with no actual steps involved in the process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 15-17, 19, 21, 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshioka (WO201308846A1).
Regarding claim 15, Yoshioka discloses a bypass arrangement for a heat exchanger (6) of a refrigerant circuit in a motor vehicle (see figures 1-7), the bypass arrangement comprising:
a first flow duct (10) with a refrigerant flow path running through the heat exchanger (6; see figure 1);
a second flow duct (13), which leads as a bypass refrigerant flow path into the first flow duct (10) downstream of the heat exchanger (6) in a direction of a refrigerant flow (see figure 1); and
a valve (5) with an inlet for a refrigerant (5d; see figures 1-2), a first refrigerant outlet (5e) connected to the first flow duct (10; see figures 1-2), and a second refrigerant outlet (5f) connected to the second flow duct (13; see figures 1-2), wherein the valve (5) has a valve element (the valve body 5b) with a passage (5h and 5g) and an expansion recess (the orifice 5i), wherein the valve element (5b) can be flow-connected to the first refrigerant outlet or to the second refrigerant outlet (see figure 1) such that the refrigerant passes through the first flow duct (10) and the heat exchanger (6) or that the refrigerant passes through the bypass refrigerant flow path of the second flow duct (13), circumventing the heat exchanger (6), and the refrigerant can be expanded (the orifice 5i expands refrigerant) into the first flow duct (10; see figures 1 and 3b) or into the second flow duct.
Regarding claim 16, Yoshioka discloses the heat exchanger (6) is arranged in a second half along a section of the refrigerant flow path of the first flow duct (10) between the first refrigerant outlet (the outlet of the valve 5 which connected to the first flow duct 10 to the heat exchanger 6) and a mouth (the outlet of the second flow duct 13) of the second flow duct (13; see figure 1).
Regarding claim 17, Yoshioka discloses the bypass refrigerant flow path (13) is a same length or longer than (longer than) the refrigerant flow path (the refrigerant flow path which corresponding to the heat exchanger 6) of the first flow duct (10) running through the heat exchanger (6; see figure 1).
Regarding claim 19, Yoshioka discloses the passage is a circular arc (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 21, Yoshioka discloses the valve (5) has a compact, two-part housing body with a valve body (5a) and a valve body element (the center portions including the valve element 5b and square block of the valve 5), in which the valve element (5b) is accommodated (see figure 2), wherein the valve element (5b) is connected to a drive unit (an actuator 5c) via a circular-cylindrical shaft (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 24, Yoshioka discloses the valve (5) has a closure position (the portion which blocking the passages 5h and 5g) which prevents a flow of the refrigerant into the first flow duct (10) and into the second flow duct (13; see figures 1 and 4b).
Regarding claim 25, Yoshioka discloses a use of the bypass arrangement (5) according to claim 15 in a heat pump system (see figure 1) having the heat exchanger (6) for controlling a temperature of an interior of an electric vehicle (line 10 of page 2; see figure 1).
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, 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.
Claim(s) 15, 18-21 and 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka applied as an alternative in view of Kim et al. (WO2021172752A1).
Regarding claim 15, Yoshioka applied as an alternative discloses a bypass arrangement for a heat exchanger (6) of a refrigerant circuit in a motor vehicle (see figures 1-7), the bypass arrangement comprising:
a first flow duct (10) with a refrigerant flow path running through the heat exchanger (6; see figure 1);
a second flow duct (13), which leads as a bypass refrigerant flow path into the first flow duct (10) downstream of the heat exchanger (6) in a direction of a refrigerant flow (see figure 1); and
a valve (5) with an inlet for a refrigerant (5d; see figures 1-2), a first refrigerant outlet (5e) connected to the first flow duct (10; see figures 1-2), and a second refrigerant outlet (5f) connected to the second flow duct (13; see figures 1-2), wherein the valve (5) has a valve element (the valve body 5b) with a passage (5h and 5g) and an orifice (5i), wherein the valve element (5b) can be flow-connected to the first refrigerant outlet or to the second refrigerant outlet (see figures 1-2) such that the refrigerant passes through the first flow duct (10) and the heat exchanger (6) or that the refrigerant passes through the bypass refrigerant flow path of the second flow duct (13), circumventing the heat exchanger (6), and the refrigerant can be expanded (the orifice 5i expands the refrigerant) into the first flow duct (10; see figures 1 and 3b) or into the second flow duct.
However, Yoshioka fails to disclose the valve (5) has an expansion recess.
Kim teaches a bypass arrangement for a heat exchanger (140) of a refrigerant circuit in a motor vehicle (see figures 1-16), the bypass arrangement comprising a valve (131) for wherein the valve (131) has a valve element (the valve body 1313a) with a passage (1313b or 1313c) and an expansion recess (the expansion groove 1313d; see figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the bypass arrangement of Yoshioka to substitute the orifice (5i) with the claimed expansion recess as taught by Kim in order to obtain similar or predictable result which to expand refrigerant (see MPEP 2143 section B).
Regarding claim 18, Yoshioka applied as an alternative as modified discloses the valve element (5b) is a ball (see figure 2), wherein the passage (5h and 5g) has an L-shape (see figure 2), and wherein the expansion recess (1313d, Kim; see figures 4-5 of Kim) is a notch in a surface of the ball (see figure 2 of Yoshioka and figures 4-5 of Kim).
Regarding claim 19, Yoshioka applied as an alternative as modified discloses the passage is a circular arc (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 20, Yoshioka applied as an alternative as modified fails to disclose the passage of the valve element, the first refrigerant outlet, the second refrigerant outlet, the first flow duct and the second flow duct have identical flow cross-sections. However, Yoshioka discloses the claimed the passage (5h and 5g) of the valve element, the first refrigerant outlet, the second refrigerant outlet, the first flow duct (10) and the second flow duct (13) each having a flow cross-section. Though Yoshioka fails to disclose the cross-sections are identical, Yoshioka’s disclosure meets the general condition of the claimed elements and cross-sections. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention that the claimed identical cross-sections is just a matter of design choice to modify the size of the cross-sections of the claimed element to be identical in order to provide easy connection assembly (see MPEP 2144.04 section IV-A).
Regarding claim 21, Yoshioka applied as an alternative as modified discloses the valve (5) has a compact, two-part housing body with a valve body (5a) and a valve body element (the center portions including the valve element 5b and square block of the valve 5), in which the valve element (5b) is accommodated (see figure 2), wherein the valve element (5b) is connected to a drive unit (an actuator 5c) via a circular-cylindrical shaft (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 24, Yoshioka applied as an alternative as modified discloses the valve (5) has a closure position (the portion which blocking the passages 5h and 5g) which prevents a flow of the refrigerant into the first flow duct (10) and into the second flow duct (13; see figures 1 and 4b).
Regarding claim 25, Yoshioka applied as an alternative as modified discloses a use of the bypass arrangement (5) according to claim 15 in a heat pump system (see figure 1) having the heat exchanger (6) for controlling a temperature of an interior of an electric vehicle (the electric vehicle; line 10 of page 2; see figure 1).
Regarding claim 26, Yoshioka applied as an alternative as modified discloses a use of the bypass arrangement (5) according to claim 15 in a heat pump system (see figure 2) having the heat exchanger (6) for controlling a temperature of an interior of an electric vehicle (see figure 1).
However, Yoshioka fails to disclose the heat exchanger for controlling a temperature of a battery of the electric vehicle.
Kim teaches a use of the bypass arrangement (131) in a heat pump system (see figure 16) having the heat exchanger (140) for controlling a temperature of a battery (235) of an electric vehicle (see figure 19).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the heat pump system of Yoshioka to incorporate claimed feature that the heat pump system having the heat exchanger for controlling a battery of an electric vehicle as taught by Kim in order to having the heat exchanger to control the temperature a battery in an electric vehicle.
Regarding claim 27, Yoshioka applied as an alternative as modified discloses a use of the bypass arrangement (5) according to claim 15 in a heat pump system having the heat exchanger (6) for controlling a temperature of a battery or an interior (the temperature of the interior) of an electric vehicle (see figure 1) wherein multiple ones of the bypass arrangement (5 and 16) are arranged in series in the direction of the refrigerant flow of the refrigerant circuit (see figure 1).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka in view of Busse et al. (2006/0060340).
Regarding claim 28, Yoshioka discloses a use of the bypass arrangement according to claim 15 in a heat pump system having the heat exchanger (6) for controlling a temperature of a battery or an interior (the interior) of an electric vehicle (see figure 1),
However, Yoshioka fails to disclose multiple ones of the bypass arrangement are arranged in parallel in the direction of the refrigerant flow of the refrigerant circuit.
Busse teaches a vehicle comprising multiple ones of the bypass arrangement (three-way valves (9, 10 and 31) are arranged in parallel in the direction of the refrigerant flow of the refrigerant circuit (paragraph [0018]; see figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate a parallel arrangement of multiple ones of the bypass arrangement used in a vehicle as taught by Busse for the heat pump system of vehicle of Yoshioka in order to provide parallel temperature control for a vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUN KAI MA whose telephone number is (571)-270-3530. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached on 5712707740. 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.
/KUN KAI MA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763